This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
None ofthat is evidence that he is currently subject to deportation, which was the claim. His citizenship application was no doubt rejected because of his conviction; a permanent resident cannot become a citizen with a conviction within the last 3-5 years. It is a temporary bar not a "terminal" one.
There is only a risk of deportation if he does something that is grounds for revocation of his permanent residence status, which he hasn't done.
If you want to split hairs, what I actually said was:
Which is supported by a statement released a few months ago by CODOH. No doubt Rudolf and his lawyers know more about his risk of deportation than we do. But in any case, Rudolf dropping contact is motivated by the concerns as I said in my comment.
Reading the ruling from the Eleventh Circuit court, there is no doubt that Rudolf has been treated unfairly by the US system:
This is just absurd, as persecution based on an imputed political opinion - a prosecution of so-called "racial hatred" based on his Revisionist work, is clearly what happened. The United States sent him directly to a jail cell in Germany for political opinion that would be protected under the First Amendment.
No, it doesn't. It says exactly what was said before, and does not even mention deportation. For example, there is no claim that any effort has been made to revoke his permanent residence status, which surely they would have mentioned were that happening.
First of all, you have no evidence that he has been treated in any way differently than everyone else who makes a claim of a right to asylum based on political opinion. Without that, you have no way to claim that he was not treated exactly as the law required.
Second, the court said that the administrative record is devoid of of any evidence that the German government ascribed a political opinion to him and then punished him for that imputed belief. The key term there is the administrative record -- the evidence presented to the immigration judge. You have no idea what was in the record. Note that his argument was that "his report [w]as purely scientific, historical, and factual, [so] Scheerer contends the German government ascribed an anti-Semitic ideology to his research, thereby persecuting him under Section 130 for an imputed political opinion." His problem is that, the German law under which he was convicted simply outlaws "publicly approving of, denying, or otherwise trivializing an act committed under the rule of National Socialism in a manner capable of disturbing the public order." (see footnote 2 of the opinion). As people here and elsewhere never cease to argue, simply denying that the Holocaust happened is not, per se, anti-Semitic. (And note that he claims that anti-Semitism was imputed to him, not that he is actually anti-Semitic, which makes it more difficult to prove his case). More importantly, the law applies to ANY act by the Nazis: book burnings, forced sterilization of the mentally ill; war crimes like the Malmedy massacre; etc. Not just Nazi anti-Jewish activity. So the mere fact that he was convicted under the law does not say anything about the motives of the prosecution. He needed more evidence. Did he present any? The court says he didn't, and you have no way of knowing whether that is true.
Do I personally think the Germans prosecuted him because he is anti-Semitic? Yes. But that is my opinion, which is work jack in a court of law. Unless he was able to introduce some evidence of that beyond the mere prosecution under that specific law, there is no way he could have won his case on that ground. And, without looking at the administrative record, it is impossible for me, or you, to say whether it is accurate to say that "the administrative record is devoid of any evidence that the German government ascribed a political opinion to him and then punished him for that imputed belief."
Finally, you say that "a prosecution of so-called "racial hatred" based on his Revisionist work, is clearly what happened," but that is not "clearly" what happened, certainly not clear enough for a court, because Germany has laws outlawing racial hatred, but did not prosecute him under those laws.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link