Hey Mink, your link to the translation doesn't work for me. Think you can post it here?

And for the record Rob Corddry does the best Hitler.:)

Funny shit. You would hurry away from any asshole barking like that, no matter what he was wearing.

There's no such thing as a "hate crime." Shamefully, it was American Jews
who conceived and pushed for this affront to liberty.

From the Anti-Defamation League website:

Do hate crime laws violate the First Amendment or punish thought?

"No. Hate crimes laws punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts — even violent thoughts. Hate crime statutes do not punish, nor prohibit in any way, name-calling, verbal abuse or expressions of hatred toward any group even if such statements amount to hate speech. It is only when the perpetrator crosses the line from speech to criminal action that hate crime laws might come into effect."

Bullshit. We already have laws against "violent acts", which means the real target is freedom of speech. Shame on the ADL.

Well, yes, but this could also be seen as a guy being an arsehole and not really having any respect for other people. People should have *freedom* of speech, but that doesn't mean it's totally cool for them to exercise their right in absolutely any way possible. Just because it's "legal" to shout "fuck the jews" doesn't mean it's a nice thing to say, or it's helpful to a healthy democracy. I think some people confuse freedom with a lack of responsibility.

That translation:
"awesome and unique stuff indeed.The clip is a few years old,
and from the dutch comedian-duo "Muntz en Van de Wint" http://www.muntzvandewint.com
It was shot in Austria, and in a time when the leader of the right-winged party FPÖ,he is called "Haider", came into power.
When i'm not wrong, this is basically what is said:

(Hitler) One, Two, One, Two .....Give me a "Sachertorte" and hurry up, otherwise i'll have to gas everyone.Faster.
(Old Woman) What a cheek.I'm going to call the police.
(Policeman) I told you to shut it off.Done, huh?
(Hitler) There you go, missy.
(Missy) Thanks a lot.
(Hitler) One, Two, One, Two .....Do you know who i am,
do you know who i am, hello ?

The second video from another thread is also great.
http://www.reloadus.com/mvdw/video/hitler.html
The guy he's talking to is obviously a FPÖ-politician,and the translation:

(Hitler) One, Two, One, Two .....OPEN UP!
And, do you have a solution for all problems ?
(Politician) We have proposals for many problems.
(Hitler) And all foreigners out of here, now, today and forever.
Sieg Haider.All for Austria.Sieg Haider.Sieg Haidaaaaargggh.

Hope this helps :-).

quantumushroom - "American Jews?" do you kiss your mother with your disgusting mouth?

betamaxx - what exactly do you mean by that? Are you censuring him for using the phrase "American Jews" because you think it's a slur or because you have some beef against that particular group? Just curious. Your post is, honestly, ambiguous.

Yeah, I was confused by that.

Perhaps betamaxx has SEEN the mouth??? It may truly be, disgusting.

My understanding was that the origin of 'hate crime' was to contextualize for a judge/'jury of peers' that the reason behind a seemingly pointless violent crime was that the crime was not personally directed at the victim, but at the social group that they represent to the attacker(s). What this MIGHT mean to a judge or jury is that this person's vendetta against a whole social group means he wasn't just attacking the individual, but a group of individuals (which is a rather interesting conceptual point), that the person's driving hatred could lead them to commit another, similar act in the future, since the motivating factor was hate (& not monetary benefits, or anger with a single person).

In the context of something like this, ... between 'stupid', 'criminal act', and 'hate crime', I'd vote stupid because I know the context is mocking a right wing politician who is perceived to be hilter-esque. If he were chasing jewish children, I could see that being criminal because they have reason to believe they are in danger, ... and because he's wearing a fucking hitler costume and chasing jews while yelling at them, its not that big of a leap in logic to assume that he might be making a statement about his hatred for jews.

... and is the joke that his impersonation of hitler is so shitty?

Maybe the joke is Hitler can only count to two.

the comments so far show that it's pretty confusing to decide between comedy and insult.

Hey. Why can't it be both! I think it's hilarious, because it is so totally over the top.

This is indeed Rob Muntz, notorious for doing this kind of borderline comedy. As was mentioned, this was filmed in Austria right after Jörg Haider (right extremist FPÖ politician) was chosen as PM (or something). This particular scene was the end of his career on national television, although he did continue to work for a local Amsterdam channel. He returned to a different national broadcaster a few years ago, presenting some odd environmentalist quiz.

hey... interesting info... he lost his job for this prank?
and yeah it's right that you can find it funny for many reasons... and just because it's funny doesn't mean it's necessarily acceptable or democratically worthy...
I still can't decide. It's funny because it's extreme... but then i'm kinda with the woman in the cafe... "what a cheek!" ...
but then... why did the cafe serve him? even if he used different words and a different costume, his behaviour is still inappropriate...
and the prank lacks a touch of class.. it's just shouting at jews wearing a hitler costume. does that make the point less valid? should he distribute leaflets explaining his point to everyone? that would be ridiculous, right?
this clip just gives me questions about the boundaries of comedy... but i am still glad that this stuff occasionally happens and the perpetrator isn't tortured for it.

I didn't find this funny. It made me uncomfortable. Not because of the hitler reference, but because the guy was just loud and obnoxious.

Quantamushroom's ridiculous idea about hate crimes gets me more riled up than anything.(even though I know that's his role in the world, or atleast the VS world) It sounds much like the neo-con rhetoric I've heard about racism not existing. That is true bullshit.

Hate crime laws attempt to balance the power between minority groups that are politically and socially at a disadvantage and the majority groups that are in control. This balance through law is necessary if we are to uphold the axiom that all men are created equal. Laws are both rules and a precedent for what society deems right or wrong. By criminalizing acts of violence specifically born out of hatred for a group of people, we are saying that that is specifically wrong. I agree with that. More so than a crime motivated out of hunger, need or passion, a hate crime comes from the most vile part of the human mind. Harboring violent hate based thoughts and actions is not freedom of speech in my book.

This certainly isn't a hate crime, unless death by revulsion occurred post filming.

Is this Saddam video funny then?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/382178/saddam_the_unseen_video/

^This one doesn't even seem to have a point, other than gloating over the power trip of illegally invading a country and killing its leader.

hahaha, great stuff

If you can't laugh about trying to exterminate an entire race of people, what can you laugh at?

History Repeats itself - why didn't the Orthodox Jews pictured in the vid FIGHT BACK and beat the FUK out of this guy instead of running away???? You can't complain about being a victim if you live your life as a coward. FIGHT BACK DAMNIT!

Jesus Christ, if you think YOU fellows have it bad, remember I have to put up with YOUR ignorant, government-school fed socialist hogwash.

The ADL is an American organization made of up of Jewish Americans. Just like the ACLU, a great deal of their legal positions are socialistic nonsense, based on conclusions drawn from the ether, not the Constitution. Yeah, they want to quash anti-Semitism, but there's such a thing as going too far. Even Israel, glorious jewel of the Middle East, is rather socialist, though they are democratic.

A key tenet of the liberal religion is the false notion that minorities are naturally inferior and in need of "special help." Victimology = entitlement = more government power...for liberals only, of course.

Hate crime is thoughtcrime. Have the balls to admit what you're selling is fascism wth good intentions, nothing more.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own set of facts

Another sermon brought to you by the Church of the Painful Truth.

"Hate crime is thoughtcrime."

I'm against hate crime laws as implemented for largely the same reasons as you, but I have to point out that all crime is thoughtcrime. The essential element of any criminal act is intention.

I'm sorry gorillaman, but I respectfully disagree: intention is mostly irrelevant. If someone bonks you on the head with a tennis racket while you were just standing there minding your own business, is it important whether the person who bonked you did it because you were of a certain racial background or because he simply didn't like your yellow shirt? The crime is the bonk, not the intent behind it.


A little history lesson for the woefully ignorant on the origins of hate crimes:

During 1988, the predominant architect of “Anti-Hate” legislation, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, helped sponsor a nationwide, law-student competition to write a model “Anti-Hate” law for America. This law would criminalize not just physical acts of racial violence but statements that might lead to violence.

On April 20-22, the ADL helped sponsor a conference at New York’s prestigious Hofstra University entitled “Group Defamation and Freedom of Speech: The Relationship Between Language and Violence.” Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), also a pioneer of the hate crimes legislation now before Congress, was the keynote speaker. The winner of the hate crimes competition was announced as Joseph Ribakoff, a law student from Whittier College in California.

In his prize-winning proposal, Ribakoff asserted that with the upsurge of “Hate Crimes” in America, it will no longer suffice for the government merely to outlaw acts of physical violence; it must ban those forms of verbal communication which cause hatred, suspicion, and possible violence against groups of people. Ribakoff recommends that federal and state censorship boards be established to review all films and videotapes before they are shown publicly, determining if they contain statements which might stimulate hatred or contempt for some group of people. If so, an immediate court order would ban the film in America. Ribakoff: “Any person, persons, or organizations which publicly shows a film or movie before it has been submitted and reviewed by the agency shall have committed a misdemeanor.”

Further, if anyone is a member of an organization that has publicly shown such a film and intends to remain a member, supportive of its goals, he also will have committed a misdemeanor.

Ribakoff’s prize-winning “Group Libel Statute” was not limited to verbal criticism of Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc., but would indict anyone who criticized homosexuals as a group, causing “mental anguish” to members of that minority.

And so it began. Other countries are far deeper into this Orwellian nightmare than the USA.

Preachers in Canada and Europe can now be jailed for preaching the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

Whether you agree with the Bible or not, that's far scarier than the boogeyman liberals are trying to make out of the Patriot Act.

I'm interested. What is the Patriot Act for in your opinion? And how Orwellian is its name?

You are really seeking QM's advice on a topic? Please.

You're talking about someone whose idealistic world view would include nuclear weapons falling on the middle east and one who doesn't hide his abhorrent hate and misunderstanding of people from there. Someone who rallied around bush and the republicans even when they took the country down the road to hell

But whatever he don't care as long as it's not his kids dying in the frontline.

So you believe in free speech as long as i don't ask QM a question?
He must hide his hate but you can post insults against him?

I want QM to explain what the Patriot Act is for, in his view. According to your analysis, QM's answer will be a pathetic apologist rant easily disprovable with about 3 clicks on google. But you don't want me to ask, let alone read the answer. Who's playing Hitler now?

Dammit! if you want to oppose lunatic extremist bullshit oppression, try and be nice. Jesus, of all people, had a point here, about prejudice and tolerance and all that. He's got an autobiography out, you should give it a read.

"I'm sorry gorillaman, but I respectfully disagree: intention is mostly irrelevant. If someone bonks you on the head with a tennis racket while you were just standing there minding your own business, is it important whether the person who bonked you did it because you were of a certain racial background or because he simply didn't like your yellow shirt? The crime is the bonk, not the intent behind it."

No. You've given two examples of the same thing and pointed out that there's no difference between them, and I don't disagree. However, your assertion that the intent is irrelevant is wrong. It's important to recognize that all crime takes place within the mind, and so to object automatically to what you see as thoughtcrime is irrational.

I'll give some examples of my own, in all of these let's assume you don't deserve to be hit over the head with a tennis racquet:

1. I hit a ball with a racquet.
2. I swing for a ball with a racquet, but hit your head by accident.
3. I hit your head with a racquet on purpose.

This may seem elementary, and I'm sure everyone would agree that only (3) is an example of crime. Why? Because of intention. My simple bodily actions of tensing my fingers so, moving my arm thus, play no part in the crime. Neither do my extended, compound actions such as gripping a racquet or swinging a racquet. Even the duel physical/mental artifact of swinging a racquet at someone's head in order to cause injury or pain cannot be considered to constitute any part of a crime, there are any number of situations (e.g. self-defence) in which a person executing such an action must be considered blameless. Only falsely believing you deserve it, or deciding to attack you in spite of the knowledge that you do not can be considered my crime, and this is a wholly mental activity. Now consider:

4. I swing for your head with a racquet and miss.
5. I would hit you over the head with a racquet, but never get an opportunity.

In each of these, the intention is identical with (3), only the consequences differ. Now, again, most people would agree that (4) involves the same level of criminality as (3), again, because of my intention. What about (5)? There's your thoughtcrime, and this is where current conceptions of law break down. This is why we need to start punishing people for their ideas and leave base action out of the equation entirely.

who is the "We" who will decide which ideas to punish? How will these ideas be defined and measured?

I imagine you could spend seven million years in court trying to pick apart the intention from the action. You would need a perfect lie detector too.

Don't you sometimes want to hit someone? But you don't, right, it was just a thought that popped into your head only to be rejected. How "criminal" is that flash of thought?

Oh, and I haven't seen many encouraging statistics on repeat offending lately, maybe punishment is more for the benefit of angry vindictive vengeful "members of the public" than it is for solving an actual problem?

But yeah, all this crime/punishment logic would be nice if it were at all practical outside of a hollywood scifi movie or a prison builders' convention.

Obviously I'm speaking in terms of the ideal, but the difficulty of achieving the ideal does not affect the necessity of recognizing and working toward it. You may as well advocate the abolition of all law since we cannot name any absolute arbiter of right and wrong.

In your example, feeling the impulse to hit someone would not be a crime. Deciding to hit them would. Actually hitting them is the irrelevant consequence of the criminal thought.

I would advocate the abolition of approaching the problem backwards, we are arguing about judgement and punishment instead of the causes of crime. All tinkering with the "justice" system is after the fact.
The only way to stop murderers with a "justice" system is to cut their arms and legs off, and why not cut their tongue out while you are at it? Better hope you caught the right guy!
Maybe you like the idea of getting people to pay for trains by randomly executing fare evaders?

I'm not going to engage in a discussion about sociology. Do you disagree that crime is wholly mental, and if not why are we arguing?

sorry i thought you were QM.

Hitler is *dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by gorgonheap.

hitler always make me laugh. it's fun.
of course, it's fun if you have a very ironic mind.

born english, born ironic.

Great!!! Funny how people have long memory re: the Führer, but forget about the crimes committed by them (e.g. occupying Palestine)...

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.