GoDaddy pulls the plug on Neo-Nazi site

[aviger]

Christ people...they are nazi's. We had a fucking world war to get rid of them. this is not a topic that warrants measured reasoning and thought.
There's a time and place for tolerance and nuance.. not when you talk about nazi's

[Manabomb]

discriminating against Nazi's.. somehow I'm ok with this.

Somehow people have a problem with it. I like to call them Nazi sympathizers. You know, like more than half of Germany in the 30s.

- - - Updated - - -

Violence against these type of people only serves to give them more attention, the same can be said of removing their sites - It only makes them able to play the 'victim card'. It also makes it more difficult for law enforcement to keep track of them. Mockery is what hurts these sort of groups most.

They can play the victim card all they want.

Everyone fucking knows that Nazis are not victims.

- - - Updated - - -

Christ people...they are nazi's. We had a fucking world war to get rid of them. this is not a topic that warrants measured reasoning and thought.
There's a time and place for tolerance and nuance.. not when you talk about nazi's

Look! someone who fucking gets it! Nazis are the scum of the Earth and I will not let my grandfathers memory go in vain because some stupid 20 year old cucks want to revive an ideology that has no place in America.

- - - Updated - - -

True freedom of speech means allowing all opinions, even stupid ones. Real Democracy thrives on discrediting bad notions with words rather than a show of power or censorship.

Once we start banning some things it will always leave a gap open to ban more. If we truly believe an opinion is wrong we should let that opinion be said and then discredit it. Censoring it just makes more people flock to those ideologies because they see those the top as fearful.

If freedom of speech applied to anything but the government, I'd agree with you.

Sadly we live in the real world, where the free speech of citizens can be shut up and drowned out by the free speech of other citizens. Have fun with that, cutiepie =) Calling the use of free speech to silence other free speech censorship is a failure to understand the definition of the first amendment and the word "censorship" when used in the context of freedom of speech. Censorship would be the government intervening, which they have in very specific, toxic cases involving the abuse of free speech.

[zenkai]

Then that's fascism and we will call it out for that.

Being fascist to Nazism is the only way to quell it. Stop pretending the Nazism is a protected belief or a religion. It's not, and will not, ever be in this country.

I'm usually not one for calling things I disagree with "Nazi", mind you. But when I see salutes, flags, swastikas, chants, paramilitary outfits and riot gear in a "protest"? Yeah, that's Nazi and that's not fucking acceptable.

You need to be fascist to stop fascist? I think we call that an oxymoron.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I think you misinterpret my position. I think that the speech of even hardcore communists or Islamists should also be protected, provided that they are not specifically organizing people to commit crimes.

Well I disagree. See that was easy enough, if you have a historic tradition of hatred and violence towards others and conflict with the U.S all of the above stated, I am not so liberal as to being free to advocate hate speech or especially murder.

Your position appears to be:
1. Businesses should be free to conduct business how they want
2. Special classes should exist that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against

1. No business shouldn't be free to conduct business how they want. There have to be acceptable conditions. However according to Court Corps are People.

2. Yes, Dwarfism, Dwarfs should be a protected class, people with physical conditions should be protected, portions of society generally under served should be protected.

From what?

Jokes? No

Harassment? Yes

Death Threats? Yes

Hate speech and Targets? Yes

These are 2 positions that violate each other, and therefore holding both of these positions leads to internal inconsistency in your reasoning.

By implying that the principle of having rational consistency in your beliefs has somehow been suspended because 'now people are being killed' is an example of a logical fallacy.

See and that is where your argument specifically falls apart, because while I agree that it is black and white, the problem is that in life there have to always be adjustments, theory vs practice.

It's why whenever you read legal work up, or say take your first drivers test and study, You are never informed or lead to believe these are all the situations and scenarios in life you can expect.

Because you can't which is why laws change, require interpretation and courts hear arguments, and will provided the issue is prudent and is an actual argument, as opposed to something that someone wants re legislated in society.

It is already been decided clearly that you can NOT just say anything you want, that the rights to free speech are NOT absolute rights, where they pertain to specific and real threats to the state or people within the republic.

Just like I said Company's aren't people I know that you probably know that, but they are allowed to operate and lobby like they are citizens.


So where and when would you like to rewrite the laws or argue that THIS case should some how undo all others or should be a different kind of standard?

I am not going to do that for Nazi's and I am specifically not going to do that because the very fucking essence of who they are, relies on that to destroy the very thing, my family members fought and died to prevent.

I wont support efforts to undo that, because this is YOUR fight for whatever reason.

[Saft]

Then that's fascism and we will call it out for that.

Being fascist to Nazism is the only way to quell it. Stop pretending the Nazism is a protected belief or a religion. It's not, and will not, ever be in this country.

I'm usually not one for calling things I disagree with "Nazi", mind you. But when I see salutes, flags, swastikas, chants, paramilitary outfits and riot gear in a "protest"? Yeah, that's Nazi and that's not fucking acceptable.

When the root causes for any harmful idea are not dealt it won't go away because you silence some people and pray. As long as whatever causes the alt-right to grow in US is not looked into you'll never get rid of them. You can't think 1930s rise of nazism = alt-right and think slamming down on them hard will do good because slapping Germany worked, go far enough and you'll end up with prelude to civil war.

[Pannonian]

When the root causes for any harmful idea are not dealt it won't go away because you silence some people and pray. As long as whatever causes the alt-right to grow in US is not looked into you'll never get rid of them. You can't think 1930s rise of nazism = alt-right and think slamming down on them hard will do good because slapping Germany worked, go far enough and you'll end up with prelude to civil war.

The next try to paint "identity politics" as the REAL threat here?

Just a reminder: Nazis killed a person in a terrorist attack, but please elaborate.

[Garnier Fructis]

I think you misinterpret my position. I think that the speech of even hardcore communists or Islamists should also be protected, provided that they are not specifically organizing people to commit crimes.

Your position appears to be:
1. Businesses should be free to conduct business how they want
2. Special classes should exist that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against

These are 2 positions that violate each other, and therefore holding both of these positions leads to internal inconsistency in your reasoning.

By implying that the principle of having rational consistency in your beliefs has somehow been suspended because 'now people are being killed' is an example of a logical fallacy.

There's only inconsistency if both are equally weighted. But they aren't; 1 is subordinate to 2 in the sense that we believe in 1 as long as it does not violate 2.

[Knolan]

No. You are confusing discrimination of customer against discrimination of content.

There is no such thing as a gay wedding cake. You have wedding cakes. Period. The customers were being discriminated against for being gay and refused a wedding cake. It's discrimination against customer, not content.

In this case GoDaddy is discriminating against content, not the customer, which is entirely legal and correct.

The correct analogy would be if GoDaddy took down the site upon learning that the owners of the site were XYZ (gay, white supremacists, etc.)

Which clearly isn't the case.

It's a distinction with a very significant legal difference.

So, if the wedding cake said "Steve & Jon" in the top or they were asked to have a two grooms or any kind of decoration that would show it was a gay wedding, would it be OK?

[Saft]

The next try to paint "identity politics" as the REAL threat here?

Just a reminder: Nazis killed a person in a terrorist attack, but please elaborate.

So we're gonna focus on the one person that committed a terrorist act and put that on the whole group?(I know this sounds an awful lot like what's done with islamic terror) We're not going to get shit done then. Still, the other thread just confuses me because if the terrorist act has proven intent which from stuff I've seen does(proof of otherwise is pretty lacking) then anyone should condemn it because it's despicable to kill people, end of that.

So you're saying identity politics that sjws play around with plays an insignificant role then? Because I think that and the angle the oppression politics has taken annoys quite a few people.

[Lenonis]

So, if the wedding cake said "Steve & Jon" in the top or they were asked to have a two grooms or any kind of decoration that would show it was a gay wedding, would it be OK?

In my opinion, yes. They can get the wedding cake and buy the topper themselves, or find another place to do the lettering.

It's not different than a bakery refusing to put "Heil Hitler" on a cake. (And for god's sake I'm not equating nazis and gays, just following the analogy)

You still get the cake, but your message may be refused.

I, personally, think that's entirely reasonable.

[Knolan]

In my opinion, yes. They can get the wedding cake and buy the topper themselves, or find another place to do the lettering.

It's not different than a bakery refusing to put "Heil Hitler" on a cake. (And for god's sake I'm not equating nazis and gays, just following the analogy)

You still get the cake, but your message may be refused.

I, personally, think that's entirely reasonable.

I, personally disagree, but that is fine.

IMO they are pretty much the same case and both are stupid, as long as no life is put at risk, you should have the right to deal with your clients however you see it fit (assuming they are not doing anything illegal as well).

[Pannonian]

So we're gonna focus on the one person that committed a terrorist act and put that on the whole group?(I know this sounds an awful lot like what's done with islamic terror) We're not going to get shit done then. Still, the other thread just confuses me because if the terrorist act has proven intent which from stuff I've seen does(proof of otherwise is pretty lacking) then anyone should condemn it because it's despicable to kill people, end of that.

So you're saying identity politics that sjws play around with plays an insignificant role then? Because I think that and the angle the oppression politics has taken annoys quite a few people.

No, we need the same differentiated approach when dealing with ISIS. For you to really understand, let me take as example the attack on Nice:

We have they guy commiting the cime - an asshole, no further discussion needed.
We have the group that this guy is recruited from alt-right/islamic-fundamentalists - they're not responsible for this single act, but they should be watched and special precautions taken (like with asshats demonstrating for sharia law)
Lastly we have the big majority: the muslims/the conservatives - no blame to them, because that would be really stupid.

Happy to help.

So after we have taken care of the imminent threat we have to target group 2 specifically to prevent further attacks. In case of radical islam: Preventing homegrown terrorism and combating propaganda ("the west kills muslim babies") same goes for stupid propaganda on the right ("the SJWs want to replace the white race").

That's how I'd go about.

[Saft]

No, we need the same differentiated approach when dealing with ISIS. For you to really understand, let me take as example the attack on Nice:

We have they guy commiting the cime - an asshole, no further discussion needed.
We have the group that this guy is recruited from alt-right/islamic-fundamentalists - they're not responsible for this single act, but they should be watched and special precautions taken (like with asshats demonstrating for sharia law)
Lastly we have the big majority: the muslims/the conservatives - no blame to them, because that would be really stupid.

Happy to help.

So after we have taken care of the imminent threat we have to target group 2 specifically to prevent further attacks. In case of radical islam: Preventing homegrown terrorism and combating propaganda ("the west kills muslim babies") same goes for stupid propaganda on the right ("the SJWs want to replace the white race").

That's how I'd go about.

Feels a bit quick to give him the islamist terrorist treatment right away considering "islamic terrorists" as a loosely defined group have hundreds dead in Europe on their conscience while an alt-right protest or riot on this scale is the first of its kind in relative present with a seemingly random terrorist connected to said group intends to kill people and achieved it.
Frankly I can agree with taking the same course of actions and precautions despite the difference in scale simply because of the guaranteed escalation risk.

What I think you're doing wrong is putting all the blame on right wing propaganda causing this alt-right rise, something has caused this violent reaction in just the last few years and it's not propaganda, certain regressive opinions are constantly spouted and any opposing views are met with the most extreme responses.

[chazus]

While it may be the right thing to do given the circumstances, is it appropriate to shoo business away based on political stances?

This is not a 'political stance'. This is a hate group. moreover, users of Godaddy may not, per their ToU:

Promotes, encourages or engages in terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property;

Which is largely what the website did.

[Amerrol]

I don't like Alex Jones doesn't mean I would support taking away his right to be a fucking dipshit, I would however the moment he steps over the line and advocates killing all the lizard people and even then like in the past he can me open to civil and criminal prosecution.


But when you have Nazi Group, openly advocating War on U.S Soil with chants like "Blood and Soil" that is no longer a free speech issue,that is a safety and life issue which the Constitution also lays the fuck out.

BLM wants to kill all cops. They literally chant that, yet they are seen as a peace group? Something doesn't add up.

[McTroll]

This is not a 'political stance'. This is a hate group. moreover, users of Godaddy may not, per their ToU:

Well, both are not mutually exclusive. And the circumstances I referenced were exactly that: on one hand, the site's message, and on the other hand, the recent events in relation to that message.

[Kragragh]

the best part of this is, the website is pretending they got hacked by anonymous lol

[Venant]

There's only inconsistency if both are equally weighted. But they aren't; 1 is subordinate to 2 in the sense that we believe in 1 as long as it does not violate 2.

Well I disagree. See that was easy enough, if you have a historic tradition of hatred and violence towards others and conflict with the U.S all of the above stated, I am not so liberal as to being free to advocate hate speech or especially murder.



1. No business shouldn't be free to conduct business how they want. There have to be acceptable conditions. However according to Court Corps are People.

2. Yes, Dwarfism, Dwarfs should be a protected class, people with physical conditions should be protected, portions of society generally under served should be protected.

From what?

Jokes? No

Harassment? Yes

Death Threats? Yes

Hate speech and Targets? Yes




See and that is where your argument specifically falls apart, because while I agree that it is black and white, the problem is that in life there have to always be adjustments, theory vs practice.

It's why whenever you read legal work up, or say take your first drivers test and study, You are never informed or lead to believe these are all the situations and scenarios in life you can expect.

Because you can't which is why laws change, require interpretation and courts hear arguments, and will provided the issue is prudent and is an actual argument, as opposed to something that someone wants re legislated in society.

It is already been decided clearly that you can NOT just say anything you want, that the rights to free speech are NOT absolute rights, where they pertain to specific and real threats to the state or people within the republic.

Just like I said Company's aren't people I know that you probably know that, but they are allowed to operate and lobby like they are citizens.


So where and when would you like to rewrite the laws or argue that THIS case should some how undo all others or should be a different kind of standard?

I am not going to do that for Nazi's and I am specifically not going to do that because the very fucking essence of who they are, relies on that to destroy the very thing, my family members fought and died to prevent.

I wont support efforts to undo that, because this is YOUR fight for whatever reason.

So if the Nazis take over and declare that Nazis are the ultimate protected class, what happens then? It sounds like your idea for a system is basically to put a gun on the table that represents power, and then pray that a malicious force never ends up being the one holding the gun.

[McTroll]

the best part of this is, the website is pretending they got hacked by anonymous lol

Doesn't really go with Anon's narrative, indeed.

[Kragragh]

The next try to paint "identity politics" as the REAL threat here?

Just a reminder: Nazis killed a person in a terrorist attack, but please elaborate.

the scary thing is, i used to use nazism as a far outlier to demonstrate that not every viewpoint should be "tolerated"....and yet here we are debating if nazism should be tolerated.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't really go with Anon's narrative, indeed.

GoDaddy has literally said they're stopping the hosting, but DS' readership doesn't go outside the alt-right bubble, so they can get away with a bold faced lie like this.