Neo Nazis losing jobs after being publicly outed

[Machismo]

Please, all see what's going on here. We all know Islamophobia is just a buzzword, meant to silence any and all dissent. There isn't a single other religion on the planet, that has the type of immunity that the Left has granted Islam. Religion isn't a person, thus does not have the same rights as a person. For a free and open society, criticism of ALL religions MUST be allowed. Especially religions that are committing terrible violates against human rights. At this time and place in history, that current religion is Islam. And I'll let you in on a little fact. Attacking the ideology of Islam, isn't the same as attacking an individual Muslim. No amount of Identity Politics is going to change the fact that those 2 things are 2 separate entities.

First off, I'm not a leftist, not by a long shot.

Second, he was bashing a religion, then complaining that he got infracted for it. You already tried to jump to a conclusion about this type of thing before, when you jumped to the defense of the guy trying to say the Swastikas at the rally were for spiritual purposes.

I fully support the criticism of any religion. That doesn't mean something cannot be called for what it is. One of the issues is the intent and reasoning behind such criticism. If you want to complain about a religion, I think you should be free to do so. If you want to do it on this particular forum, you will likely get infracted for it. That's still freedom of speech. If you get called Islamophobic, that is also freedom of speech.

Stop trying to play the victim card, it's pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a slippery slope it will end up with firing people you dont agree with which is wrong. What will you say when blm members lose their jobs?

That's how freedom of speech works.

[Maybach]

Explain to me how it's equal sides when one side randomly killed a women of the other side with a car.

Simple, people from BOTH sides went there hell bent on confrontation and willing to use violence

The fact that one person was tragically killed on one side and not the other does not make either side better or worse

They are both equally odiously extreme political juxtapositions willing to use violence in order to deny the other side their rights under the constitution

Would you be flying the same argument if the person killed had been on the other side?

I suspect not, the comments would probably have been along the lines of "good, a dead nazi"

[Machismo]

I love the way that every single person on that march yesterday is now a neo nazi or a white supremacist or just an out and out racist

There were others in that march that simply objected to a statue being removed

I take it that the people labelling everyone in that march knew them all personally and can attest to their political views?

It is also interesting to note that the counter demonstration seemed hell bent on denying anyone who disagreed with them the right to free speech

We now see this witch hunt extended to peoples employment

Hypocritical considering there were plenty of examples of counter demonstrators also using unprovoked violence on others, including the use of pepper spray and holding up pre printed signs "punch your local nazi"

Wheres the condemnation of that in the media?

Both sides in this disgusting dispute are equally as bad as each other

They are just too stupid to see it

If you were marching for that statue, and neo-Nazis were chanting that Jews are the problem, what would you do? If you thought it was about a rally for a statue, and white supremacists started talking about preserving the "European" white history, while heiling Trump, would you stick around? At what point, would you have disavlowed and walked away from the racist speakers who were leading it?

[niil945]

You're allowed to get people fired, to harass them, stalk them, give them death threats and make their life miserable? No, I don't think so. You must understand that I don't defend Nazis, but I defend a viewpoint in which I think that this kind of behavior is extremely damaging and detrimental to a democracy. Because people simply don't stop there and they attack anything and anyone that disagree with them.
It's also a viewpoint of defending the innocent people that this affects, such as the families of these people or the completely unrelated people who just happen to have the same names as some of these guys, who've recieved death threats themselves.

THAT, is why this is unacceptable. You're a bully and a scoundrel if you act like this. That kind of behavior further creates an environment of violence and repression, doing no favors for democracy nor freedom. It might sound like idealistic garbage because you see infront of you what you percieve as pure evil, but you must see the bigger picture. These kinds of actions reverberate through the entire political climate, setting stakes and behavior which perpetuates more violence and further polarizes politics. It's exactly the kind of behavior that the extreme right do themselves, so being above it makes you the better person.

One should always use proper channels and proper democratic means by which to represent ones opinion and for opposing other opinions. In other words, keep it on the political platform.

No one got that guy fired but himself. Notifying his employer of his actions wasn't someone else getting him fired. Harassing people, stalking them, death threats, sure, by all means, prosecute those. They are potentially criminal. Where are the masses that are actually defending such behavior? Pointing at trolls and hyperbolic people in this thread isn't representative of what people generally find acceptable so if that's who you're all up in a bluster about I'm just gonna have a good laugh about it. Racism is not an opinion. It should not in any way, shape, or form be tolerated. It's entirely within legal and democratic means to expose such bigotry and have them reap the social consequences of holding such opinions.

[Ishayu]

I went to university in California. There was maybe a dozen SJWs on the whole campus out of 30,000 students. It may as well be mythical.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. The "Diversity" administrators alone are almost as many as the entire faculty, which is in the thousands, both in Berkeley and San Diego.

[Anevers]

Its a slippery slope it will end up with firing people you dont agree with which is wrong. What will you say when blm members lose their jobs?

That's been the case all along for everyone though...

Freedom of speech is not without consequences. I recall hearing about a professor getting canned due to his anti-Trump rant, it was well within the University's right to sack him.

[Wyrt]

Liar, liar, pants on fire. The "Diversity" administrators alone are almost as many as the entire faculty, which is in the thousands, both in Berkeley and San Diego.

Have you actually been to a university? The vast, vast majority of people there are just normal students going about their day trying to finish their studies and get their degree.

Maybe stop getting your idea of what universities are like from Fox and Breitbart.

[Machismo]

Opinion is just that, an opinion.
A subjective preference that is quite often more founded on emotions and good/bad experiences than it is on pure logic, reason and empirical data.

The whole problem both with the employers and the general public is that opinions are taken extremely seriously and often out of context ("selective listening").
Personally i really don't give much importance to other people's opinions.

Yea sure if someone says some really racist or sexist things then that person is probably not going to be my ideal friend.
But i certainly wont make a big deal out of it... certainly not national/global breaking news type of big deal.

I will just shrug it off as whatever other unrelatable stuff happens in this world and continue on with my life.
That person is free to his opinion and i'm free to have mine, and if we want we both can voice with decency what we think.

When dealing with customers then the employees personal opinions really have no place there.
You can be the most hardcore racist/sexist/whatever but if your job is to help/relate to customers then you have to do that job professionally.

Personally i reaaaally dislike when girls shave half their side-hair off like their head fell into a lawnmower, but i wont ever let that opinion affect how i do my job during working hours.
Once you are on a break or the working hours finish you can say whatever you want but all of that still falls within the "decent behavior of not acting like a baboon" law.

People think and feel many things and i think it is extremely important to allow people to voice their thoughts and opinions in a well behaved manner.
I personally disagree with this whole "white CIS whatever" stuff i see everywhere but i would never censor their right to say it, though their manners could use improvement.

A fitting quote i believe is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

And everyone here was able to state their opinions, nobody is being silenced. An employer was just informed that his employee was a white supremacist, and it was his opinion that he did not feel it prudent to have a white supremacist working for him.

[Maybach]

Yes. One has a history of murder and terror stretching back over a hundred years. Both are capable and have done bad things, but lets not compare a mountain to a mole hill and say they are equally as bad.

Which side decided to get in a car and mow down more than a dozen people leaving one dead?

In relation to that confrontation they are both equally as bad, both sides went there willing to use violence

And I will go back to point 1, just because a person died on one side and not the other it does not make the fact that people were willing to turn out and use violence from BOTH sides any less odious

The fact that anyone died or anyone was hurt is disgusting in a so called civilised society where people seem unable to express their views without resorting to violence

[niil945]

If you were marching for that statue, and neo-Nazis were chanting that Jews are the problem, what would you do? If you thought it was about a rally for a statue, and white supremacists started talking about preserving the "European" white history, while heiling Trump, would you stick around? At what point, would you have disavlowed and walked away from the racist speakers who were leading it?

Yep, all those people yelling 'blood and soil', chanting 'go home faggots', doing the Nazi salute, carrying Nazi flags, and on and on, yep they were just there to save the statues!

- - - Updated - - -

In relation to that confrontation they are both equally as bad, both sides went there willing to use violence

And I will go back to point 1, just because a person died on one side and not the other it does not make the fact that people were willing to turn out and use violence from BOTH sides any less odious

The fact that anyone died or anyone was hurt is disgusting in a so called civilised society where people seem unable to express their views without resorting to violence

You're pretending that the entire protest was done by Antifa. There were plenty of people on the left there that were not part of Antifa. In fact, Antifa was a small segment of the protest group. The Nazi wanna-be's were a massive part of the extreme right rally. Equivocating them as remotely comparable belies your bias.

[Isadora]

Simple, people from BOTH sides went there hell bent on confrontation and willing to use violence

The fact that one person was tragically killed on one side and not the other does not make either side better or worse

They are both equally odiously extreme political juxtapositions willing to use violence in order to deny the other side their rights under the constitution

Would you be flying the same argument if the person killed had been on the other side?

I suspect not, the comments would probably have been along the lines of "good, a dead nazi"

Your desire to bend the facts is mind-boggling.

Obviously NOT both sides were hell bent on confrontation and willing to use violence: one side used a car to kill someone, the other didn't. Stop saying commiting a murder and not commiting a murder is the same thing, wtf?

"The fact that one person was tragically killed on one side and not the other does not make either side better or worse" -> apart from the small detail that SOMEONE DIED.

"They are both equally odiously extreme political juxtapositions willing to use violence in order to deny the other side their rights under the constitution" -> again, no they weren't: one group did kill somebody, the other group didn't. That's a whole million degrees of difference in extremism. Has it really come so far that we need to prove that killing somebody and not killing somebody are different degrees of violent behaviour?

And damn right I would be flying the same arguement if it were the other way around! I actually believe it's not okay to kill anybody, no matter what their beliefs. I still think Nazis are dumb fucks and that they're dangerous and I'm glad people get fired for saying "Sieg Heil" and "Heil Trump" and other such bullshit, but I wouldn't want these guys to be killed. It kinda worries me that you would assume otherwise.

[Machismo]

Your desire to bend the facts is mind-boggling.

Obviously NOT both sides were hell bent on confrontation and willing to use violence: one side used a car to kill someone, the other didn't. Stop saying commiting a murder and not commiting a murder is the same thing, wtf?

"The fact that one person was tragically killed on one side and not the other does not make either side better or worse" -> apart from the small detail that SOMEONE DIED.

"They are both equally odiously extreme political juxtapositions willing to use violence in order to deny the other side their rights under the constitution" -> again, no they weren't: one group did kill somebody, the other group didn't. That's a whole million degrees of difference in extremism. Has it really come so far that we need to prove that killing somebody and not killing somebody are different degrees of violent behaviour?

And damn right I would be flying the same arguement if it were the other way around! I actually believe it's not okay to kill anybody, no matter what their beliefs. I still think Nazis are dumb fucks and that they're dangerous and I'm glad people get fired for saying "Sieg Heil" and "Heil Trump" and other such bullshit, but I wouldn't want these guys to be killed. It kinda worries me that you would assume otherwise.

Just one note, since they were not willing to use the same degree of violence, they are not exactly equal.

If I say it's fine to punch a Nazi (which I do not think is acceptable), is that the same as a person who is supports the murder of Jews? Of course not. Now, they both may support violence, but that level of violence is not exactly equal.

I'm not defending antifa fuckwits. However, the level of support for violence, and the degree of violence supported do come into play.

[Dontrike]

Just because you can express your freedom of speech doesn't mean there isn't consequences to you doing so, especially when it incorporates violence, shouting about blood and killing, doing Nazi salutes, and anything like that.

The people getting fired knew this could happen, because no business wants to be associate with anything that comes close to Nazis. You can't associate yourself with Nazi's holding up torches (although the tiki torches thing is fucking hilarious and fucking asinine) and flags and then hate when people call you a Nazi. Sorry random idiot, but that's not how it works.

Doesn't matter what side you are on or color you are, race, creed, whatever, if you are advocating violence, death, or any other dumbass bullshit equivalent of that you should be seeing consequences and it's only your own damn fault for being a fuckwit about it.

[Synros]

I have never seen a communist rally, let alone one that would amount to somebody getting killed by one of those communist sympathants. And yes, I would condemn it in the very same way, if some freaks would go around shouting "Hail Stalin" or some such nonsense.

But just because: the issue isn't communism here. And the issue isn't unfair treatment of one group versus another. Whether there's another group that is also bad is irrelevant. Nazis are bad, no matter what other group out there might also do bad things. There's no place for genocidal bigotry in the 21st century. I fail to see why my assessment of communism should matter for that.

If you're seen an ANTIFA rally, you've seen a Communist rally. Take the one that happened yesterday in Seattle. People were openly walking around with Communist flags, and not a single reporter brought it up. Now why would that be? If you condemn one vile group but not another equally vile group, you are part of the problem.

[Najnaj]

Genn said you shouldn't lose your job because of what ideas you embrace though. These people lost their jobs because of it.

No he didn't. He said that the right to your job has to be weighed against the right of the company and coworkers right not to want to be around you.

[Machismo]

If you're seen an ANTIFA rally, you've seen a Communist rally. Take the one that happened yesterday in Seattle. People were openly walking around with Communist flags, and not a single reporter brought it up. Now why would that be? If you condemn one vile group but not another equally vile group, you are part of the problem.

Then you should out those people, and tell their employers. If their employer wishes to fire them, then great.

[Isadora]

If you're seen an ANTIFA rally, you've seen a Communist rally. Take the one that happened yesterday in Seattle. People were openly walking around with Communist flags, and not a single reporter brought it up. Now why would that be? If you condemn one vile group but not another equally vile group, you are part of the problem.

Sorry, but that's classic misdirection. Apart from the fact that I even said that yeah, I would obviously react the same way if it were communists calling for this sort of violence, this isn't about communists. It's about Nazis, it's about people who support genocide, racial killings, all that great jazz. That' damnable no matter what I believe of other groups and whether or not there are other groups who are also bad. I can condemn a Nazi killing a woman at a rally no matter what I think of communists.

Communists weren't the problem this weekend, Nazis were. I'd condemn both ideologies, but it's about one and not another this time. Trying to point out that communists are also bad is misdirection, plain and simple.

[Illana]

Are these actually Neo-Nazis?

Do 90% of people actually understand what a Nazi is?

It seems that we are heading down a road where we are ostracising what otherwise were contributing members of society and eventually we end up with what that film "Idiocracy" portrayed human civilisation to be like.

[Wyrt]

Are these actually Neo-Nazis?

Do 90% of people actually understand what a Nazi is?

It seems that we are heading down a road where we are ostracising what otherwise were contributing members of society and eventually we end up with what that film "Idiocracy" portrayed human civilisation to be like.

I don't know, are the people with nazi flags, chanting "blood and soil," and decrying jews nazis?

[Aleksej89]

And everyone here was able to state their opinions, nobody is being silenced. An employer was just informed that his employee was a white supremacist, and it was his opinion that he did not feel it prudent to have a white supremacist working for him.

Opinion/thought/voice is different from action.

The employer should be free to think/voice whatever he wants about his racist employee.
Just like the employee is free to think/voice whatever he is all about.

But that employer should not have legal grounds to fire a man because he subjectively disagreed with the employees subjective opinions.
Just like that employee should never have legal grounds to actually turn his racist thoughts into violence and murder.