Standing back and hooting as someone else commits violent assault ain't right [understatement!], but it's far from calling those people to commit the assault. It doesn't read as incitement to me, 'just' applauding anticipated violence, deplorable as that is.
I'm really not sure text on a website should count as incitement any way (maybe if it's UGC with specific threats against particular people); but is that there even?
You may find there are other blogging platforms out there with actual requests for violence, often justified with a tagline 'Punch a nazi!'.
Edit: that's like saying all the people who say on Twitter 'trump needs a punch to the face' are committing hate speech?
down-with-fascists-and-that-sort-of-thing .com
ban-all-fascists-from-rhode-island .com
fascists-deserved-to-be-punched .com
lets-attack-all-fascists-in-rhode-island .com
list-of-rhode-island-fascists-to-attack-tonight .com
As it escalates in intent of violence and specificity, it becomes more of an issue for any service provider. And you can imagine imagine replacing "fascists" with different groups might get a stronger response earlier, i.e. "animal hurting medical researchers", "illegal aliens", "zionists", "catholics", and so on. But by the time you get to advocating specific illegal actions against specific people, I think you're pretty certain to get cut off.
I don't know if this is true for the daily stormer, but I think generally troll-right groups are going to keep getting cut off because they are doing targeted online harassment. When there are specific victims and things are clearly being coordinated on a certain site that gives service providers a strong motive to cut them off. Versus if someone is publishing some kind of racist newsletter that is only being seen by other racists no one is really going to know enough about that has a motive to cut them off.
So a blog about beating up white christian males for being WCM is fair game? Good news...
They aren’t called Nazi’s because people disagree with them but because they are actual Nazis
Pedantic, perhaps, but I think the proper term for these people is "racists" or "white supremacists" (edit: or even better, Neonazis) . I find the term "Nazi" to be overused in the modern discourse, often hyperbolic in nature, usually to refer to people who lean right of political centre.
Not sure why down voters appear to disagree : I prefer to call a spade a spade.
Today in German, those that are still living are sometimes called "Altnazi", old nazi, to distinguish the racist people that follow their ideology but can't possibly have been alive at that time.
The latter are more precisely called "Neonazi", but that is often shortened to just "Nazi".
Genuine confusion for me. Nazi to me is someone who wants to resurrect Hitler and be ruled by the Fatherland; that seems incongruent with what I expect from USA white supremacist??
You can read about nazism in the US here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism#United_States
In Mein Kampf doesn't Hitler specifically link Aryanism and his anti-Jewish position to Germany's history and geography. If you take the same ideas and plant them in USA you'd get something like Native [North] American master race with Mexican hate, wouldn't you? Backing the Aryanism and adding holocaust denial and such seems to make it very much supporting Hitler's "German" Nazism; it seems inextricably linked with the concept of the Aryan master race which is based on a German [psuedo] history?
I'm probably expecting too much rationale and logical consistency.
For what it's worth, the Congolese government calls themselves democratic. So, make of it what you will.
Outside of historical discussions: I do not.
> Wouldn't "actual Nazis" be members of the German National Socialist Party?
No more so than to be a libertarian you need to be a member of the Libertarian Party. Or that said National Socialists were socialists.
Post-WW2 the term "Nazi" has been widely recognized to refer to a grouping of people that idolize or share the ideology of the Nazi regime and it's descendant movements.
I'm not defending these people, but are they really Nazis? Or just angry, uneducated and disenfranchised white people?
It's just that saying "literal fucking nazis" sounds so much more dramatic than "Neo Nazis" or " fucktards pretending to be nazis".
If you support modern nazi talking points, causes, rhetoric, actions, or regularly give them money (via page views, donation, or merch) then you're almost certainly a nazi. Doesn't matter if someone is white, poor, rich, disenfranchised, privileged, whatever.
Note - I am not making a distinction between historical nazism and neo-nazis because we're talking about the present day not WW2. Modern Nazi's are the Daily Stormer and their ilk.