Feels like the first step before the concentration camps

  • TuffNutzes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The Bureau defines “Nihilistic Violent Extremism” as “criminal conduct… in furtherance of political, social, or religious goals that derive primarily from a hatred of society at large and a desire to bring about its collapse by sowing indiscriminate chaos.”

    What the actual fuck? This is pure bigoted Nazi shit.

      • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        To these people any society with trans people in it is a destroyed society since their society is trans exclusionary.

        • Hector@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          46 minutes ago

          Trans are just the the first of an ever-expanding group of others to be targeted, including pretty much everybody in leadership in the party right now. I think it is pretty safe to assume that dear leader, whomever it is, we’ll become as paranoid as Joseph Stalin and anybody in leadership now will be suspected and purged if they get what they think they want here.

    • TuffNutzes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        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.