[1] Susan Landau and Alan Rozenshtein Debate End-to-End Encryption (Again!) https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily--susan-la...!)
As such you demonstrate that you will not be an ally in case of a surge of unethical behavior.
The point isn’t for nazis to defend themselves - it is to defeat them while you can.
> The point ... is to defeat them while you can.
That can be your point, and with that framing almost anything is permissible! My point is generally to let free, open democracy run its course without putting our fingers on the scale too much.
I'm not scared of people doing a salute in the style of a movement that's been dead for almost a century. I'm not scared of communists flags or chants, or people chanting from the river to the sea. I think it's all healthy as long as it's non violent. The argument that it leads to violence is not logically sound and very minority reportesque.
That a nazi salute, corroborated with converging political views…? You obviously don’t understand, don’t see how things happen.
Or you do, and you know downplaying “nazi wannabees” is part of the game.
It’s not about being scared but principled: an open democracy does not tolerate ideas going against its very foundations: it makes sure these are, expressed maybe, but kept in a very strict perimeter which they ought no get out from.
After WW2 there was a period of strong Jewish support for nazi rights. Were they not an open democracy? Is the risk in 2025 stronger than what they faced?
I don't know really, is it that every era needs a boogeyman or is it just that we are on a grand cycle away from liberality? Both maybe?
But as soon as they associate their "thing" to a violent/segregationist personality/behaviour, you can be certain that they are banned, and in no gentle manners.
Wow, I don't know either. Saying nazis could be sort of boogeyman or victims?... that tolerating nazis would be liberal? Wow. Sounds like a line from "OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies".
You seem not to understand how a society works or what liberal even means... A liberal cannot tolerate ideas that are explicitly against tolerance, as those lead to illiberal behaviours. The best illustration of it is the actual suppression of speech that is happening in the USA, by the very people that reclaimed freedom of speech.
Or again, you do know.
Either way, you're certainly not in the middle, you're actually supporting the violent ones to be violent, asking the ones reacting to that violence to accept it as it is. Not too good looking.
Thanks I'll check it out.
> Either way, you're certainly not in the middle, you're actually supporting the violent ones to be violent
I think I understand where you're coming from but I would instead state it as supporting first amendment style laws for my country, warts and all.
Would you argue that the first amendment should be annulled?
because you have an absolute free speech, you also expose yourself to the absolute consequences of what you say, or do.
Exposing oneself as a nazi exposes one to consequences.
Once, not that long ago, your country was proud of kicking nazis dead, for good reasons (albeit a bit hypocritical too when one reads history).
Black CIA sites weren't legal either, nor was torture.
What proof? You would think after all the leaks there have been, some proof would exist. Instead, you cling to a conspiracy theory based on a misunderstanding of an agreement.
They're all conspiracy theorists when the government is accused of wrongdoing and the "proof" demands and moving goalposts happen all the time. Helped by the lack of transparency and all encompassing powers of agencies and governments.
Your arguments boil down to repeating narratives and things like "X is illegal so it doesn't happen" which just shows how naivety is part of your bad argument repertoire. I'm sure black CIA sites and coup d'etats didn't happen if I can't prove them to your liking... And if I somehow satisfied you, there's some justification that make them lawful and correct.
Give me a break.
If the Five Eyes participants worked as you have stated instead of as the leaked agreement documents say they work, you would expect Snowden to leak that first because it is obviously illegal. He did not. Why not reduce the number of people required to keep quiet in the conspiracy by having the US spy directly on its citizens? Every question you might ask about your conspiracy theory makes it sound even more ridiculous if you bother to ask it.
Participants spy on each other's citizens on the other's behalf and share data, to avoid the legality of doing so to their own citizens.
As mentioned in the article, Salt Typhoon and the recency of this request by the UK. At this point they should know better.
My pet theory is anytime the US wants to do something illegal under US law, they simply ask the UK to do it and vice versa. That's why Salt Typhoon isn't and never will be a lesson learned.