Re: The Paradox of Tolerance summarizes my opinion:
"You don't usually get a nice coat from it? (OK, in the early 70s there were illustrated fake book covers with titles such as "Hanging as a community project" and "101 uses for Human Skin" but -macabre as they were- they were just dark jokes)."
Although a little historical now, there are certainly examples of human skin being used right up to the end of the 19th century for things like book coverings etc.
"Here's a suggestion. The above statement suggests you best take a moment. Stop typing and just reacting because you're (a) getting awfully far from the original debate and (b) veering sharply into the ridiculous here. Get yourself a cup of coffee (I'd advise decaf as it appears you're getting a tad too excited) and re-read the original debate as well as your answers - give yourself time to think first."
Ah, so you don't have an answer. So, you resort to condascending speech. I'm actually very on target because I was talking about the core implication of effectively stopping these people having a voice. I'm saying there are plenty of other sites that preach very similar things or attitudes to both human beings and other animals. What I stated much earlier, is why should DS be effectively banned a voice, but not these others. I've never said they should or should not be banned, but am pointing out that plenty of other sites promote exactly the same sort of thing, but seem to avoid the same outcome.
So, where does effective censorship stop (by effective, I mean ends up stopping their voice, whether legally or court of public opinion or business needs)? We both hate DSs message. I 100% disagree with them, but if we effectively ban their message, I'm willing to look beyond that simple act and see all the other messages out there that are equally adhorrent in some way. I'm also not prepared to put people above other animals just because they're humans. That distinction is biologically ludicrous. There are plenty of humans I would consider significantly lower than most other animals (including Nazis), but does that mean killing them for no reason is OK?
You're looking at this very simply, not seeing the underlying issues ( principles being applied) and just reacting to the fact they're Nazis. A term that has a horrible historical implication. If Nazi is used to mean far right murderers, what about Communist (or choose another) to mean left wing murderers. Like I've said elsewhere, the extreme left has killed just as many as the extreme right, but who's screaming to take down extreme left websites? The reason is simple, but illogical. There isn't a perceived single catch all word to encompass them all and for some reason, left people (even the extreme) are seen as warm and cuddly to many.