Originally Posted by
Medium9
And you can substanciate this blanket claim with which objective truths?
"Fucking idiot" and "Nazi" are in very different realms. But nonetheless: Once you start bashing a person, people tend to have a dynamic that's usually called jumping onto the bandwagon, and things may get out of hand quickly or eventually. And once the damage is done, the accusee is pretty much robbed of his life. The laws here give you a lever to pull before things get ugly.
Sure, it's probably not going to get anywhere if I call my neighbour a stupid uneducated cunt. But then again, we're built upon treating everyone the same. So what protects public "important" figures must also apply to every average person, too.
Tell that to people that have wrongfully been accused of being involved with child porn or framed for murder, and sometimes basically publicly executed by social and traditional media.
It's only just an accusation until our echo chambers perpetrate it enough to become a thing the average half-informed citizen takes as a fact. Where do you draw the line? Whom does it affect and by how much? You just can't say while the process has only just begun, and thus it's a valuable thing to have these laws.
And yes, if you called someone here a Nazi and that person is pissed off enough by it to take it to the police, and has witnesses to back it up, it's quite likely that you could be fined. Circumstances of course matter, though, and that is why courts always decide for every individual case.
I'd like a source for this claim. But nevertheless: I personally DO think it's okay that this is possible. See, as said above, circumstances matter. If you call a friend a lazy asshole in a light-hearted manner, and others can attest to that being usual jargon amongst the group, even if said friend would take this to the police, they'd walk away with their heads shaking.
If you get into a heated argument with a stranger and blurt out some insults, possibly in a threatening manner, things will look different.
Many Germans were slowly conned into these proceedings, and when people finally realized the sheer horror of what's going on (and many were intentionally misinformed thanks to controlled media), the whole machinery was so powerful that the resistance that DID exist had to operate on small scales and with as little publicity as possible. There were TONS of people that helped yews, just as there were TONS that blindly believed what was spread on the radio. And there were also tons of sheep that remained mostly complacant and did whatever was asked of them or seemed to benefit them personally the most at the moment. Hitler was a master of using a lot of average people's flaws to his benefit. Don't EVER believe that there would have been ANY wide spread support for him if he laid out all that was going to happen right from the outset. If you do, you're immensly deluded.
And it got you the bestest president in history. Yes, what a valuable thing to have. Hitler wasn't a megalomaniac dictator in a day. He, too, needed the right climate and several years of build-up. ...not entirely unlike things we're seeing the US go through right now, albeit still quite early. But that's a major point why a lot of the world is currently rather concerned about the US. I'm thrilled to see how this will play out over the next few years/decade or two.
Do you really lack the *basic level* of understanding that not wanting a society that runs around cursing, insulting and accusing left and right is a desirable thing?
What people like you don't get is that there is a HUGE difference between these two scenarios:
1) I blurt out "you fucking nazi" into the face of an officer in public
2) I state my discontent like "sir, I think you're not impartial here, and I'd like to file a complaint once we're done here"
1 is being an uncultured swine accusing someone else of being something he likely isn't, potentially damaging his reputation or even endangering his job on a whim, in the heat of the moment, purely driven by unrestrained emotion. 2 is a proper and adult response, leaving the officer an opening to reconsider and maybe even apologize, but holds the potential of having him properly punished if the allegations are found to be true by a court of law.
If YOU were the officer, which treatment would you rather face? (Probably even repeatedly, since people in general like to disagree with police.) Also factor in that the accuser always has a good chance to be wrong in his/her assessment, and that words and accusations are often spat out in a heated and emotional situation, both of which aren't really good in informing any kind of rational thinking.
Recent Blue Posts
Limited PvP -> PvE Free Character Transfers
Feedback: Hunter Updates
What would you expect the AVERAGE wow player clear in a raid for a season?
MMO-Champion
Recent Forum Posts
Bullshit.. WW2 happened because of how many of you Europs agreed with the ideals of the people in charge.
Reply With Quote
