politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I wonder if they ran that language through AI before putting it in writing?
--
The provided definition of "Nihilistic Violent Extremism" is indeed written in a way that could be interpreted broadly and applied subjectively. This is a characteristic that has been used historically for political and social control.
Vagueness of Key Terms: The phrase "hatred of society at large" is an abstract concept, not a concrete, verifiable action. It's an internal state, a motive, that could be attributed to a person or group by an outside observer. This vagueness, similar to the Nazi's use of "enemies of the state" or "asocial," allows for a wide range of individuals to be targeted, including those with different political views or lifestyles, not just those committing specific, violent acts.
Risk of Arbitrary Application: When legal or official definitions lack specific, objective criteria, they open the door for arbitrary and discriminatory application. The Nazis exploited this by using vague laws like Paragraph 175 to persecute homosexuals. The law wasn't designed for this, but its vague wording allowed for expanded interpretation to fit the regime's agenda. Similarly, a definition based on an internal "hatred" could be used to target and punish dissenters or political opponents by labeling their criticism of society as "hatred."
Focus on a Perceived State, Not a Crime: The definition frames the group by a state of being—"hatred"—which is then linked to a desire for "collapse." This is a similar pattern to Nazi propaganda, which didn't just target what Jews or communists did, but what they were. They were defined as a parasitic race whose very existence was a threat, a view that was independent of any specific criminal act. The provided edict, by focusing on a group's emotional state and desired outcome, creates a label that can precede and justify action against them.
This type of broad, subjective language in legal and official definitions is a common feature of authoritarian or repressive systems. It allows the ruling power to define its enemies based on fluid criteria and to legally justify their persecution.
This is incorrect. Paragraph 175 was always designed to prosecute gay sex, and was enforced even during the Weimar Republic. What the Nazis did was expand it - you didn’t have to have sex with a man, just do something that might lead to sex with a man. Essentially, gay men could have gotten away with holding hands or even kissing in earlier eras, sex needed to be proven. But the Nazis made it essentially any gay behavior.
Paragraph 175 continued to be enforced after the Nazis were kicked out - it stayed on the books in West Germany essentially unchanged until 1969. After ‘69 it was changed to only apply to sex with men under 21 or prostitution.
Gay men who were liberated from the camps who had charges under Paragraph 175 were often sent back to finish their sentences. The handbook for the Allies mandated this.
My guess is that it might be a legitimate designation that just needs work on. Note: Trans people and Trans Advocacy should not be considered or placed under such a list of terrorist orgs. When online misanthropic extremist groups(usually neonazi), like "No Lives Matter", Order of Nine Angles(as in geometry angles not angels), and "764" exist, I feel like a new designation should exist.