Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-02-2017, 05:57 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Jesus, what a kind and gentle judgment! If you'd read damn near anything I posted ever you might realize how fucking stupid this statement is, but I guess you're not going to bother. Plus, being called a nazi sympathizer for claiming that we shouldn't suspend a group's basic human rights then make that group so broad as to be meaningless is totally better than being called a nazi.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Have you all lost your goddamn minds, or am I the only one not in on the joke?
Simple: there is disagreement on whether anyone is "[making] that group so broad as to be meaningless". You obviously think so. Do you think anyone you're arguing with thinks so?
  #52  
Old 09-02-2017, 06:24 PM
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,978
Steophan was making excuses for actual Nazis, as in, people who proudly wore the Nazi symbols. He was trying to distance this neo-Nazi movement from Nazism. He was treating Nazis differently than BLM or Antifa. He was arguing freedom of speech in the face of actual violence.

Steophan is also an authoritarian, and makes up excuses to defend bad cops. He opposed standing up against bad cops. He thus is not the kind of person people want to give the benefit of the doubt.

And, as of my last post in the thread, he had not actually disavowed the actual core beliefs on Nazism, which seems oddly suspicious.

It makes perfect sense to call him a Nazi sympathizer. He can, of course, prove otherwise. It's not a matter of an ever-widening definition. He very much seems to be doing the thing that would make him a Nazi sympathizer.

Though I'll also point out that no one is advocating punching him for this, so I don't see how it would be relevant even if you did disagree with the definition. According to your OP, it's okay to have a too wide definition as long as you aren't using it as an excuse to punch people.
  #53  
Old 09-02-2017, 06:48 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Steophan was making excuses for actual Nazis, as in, people who proudly wore the Nazi symbols.
Yep, that's the definition of a Nazi, one who wears a particular set of symbols. You absolute fucking moron.

Obviously I'm going to defend the right of neo-Nazis, or anyone else with ridiculous, objectionable views (such as yourself) to hold and express those views because I'm not a fascist. I'm not going to threaten or use violence against people because of their views precisely because their views - which include doing those things - are wrong.

I don't sympathise with neo-Nazi's, fascists, white supremacists, and so on. I pity them. They are sad, pathetic people who have no understanding of how the world works, no clue why their own lives are so miserable, and are lashing out for someone to blame. Interestingly, they are the precise same reasons I pity you.
  #54  
Old 09-03-2017, 12:23 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Steophan was making excuses for actual Nazis, as in, people who proudly wore the Nazi symbols. He was trying to distance this neo-Nazi movement from Nazism. He was treating Nazis differently than BLM or Antifa. He was arguing freedom of speech in the face of actual violence.

Steophan is also an authoritarian, and makes up excuses to defend bad cops. He opposed standing up against bad cops. He thus is not the kind of person people want to give the benefit of the doubt.

And, as of my last post in the thread, he had not actually disavowed the actual core beliefs on Nazism, which seems oddly suspicious.

It makes perfect sense to call him a Nazi sympathizer. He can, of course, prove otherwise. It's not a matter of an ever-widening definition. He very much seems to be doing the thing that would make him a Nazi sympathizer.

Though I'll also point out that no one is advocating punching him for this, so I don't see how it would be relevant even if you did disagree with the definition. According to your OP, it's okay to have a too wide definition as long as you aren't using it as an excuse to punch people.
And yet, if it walks like a Nazi, dresses like a Nazi, waves Nazi flags like a Nazi, spouts Nazi slogans like a Nazi, and sieg heils like a Nazi,

chances are it's a Nazi.

And if it marches with and fights alongside Nazis, it's either a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer.

Last edited by SteveG1; 09-03-2017 at 12:24 PM.
  #55  
Old 09-03-2017, 12:26 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
They are sad, pathetic people who have no understanding of how the world works, no clue why their own lives are so miserable, and are lashing out for someone to blame. Interestingly, they are the precise same reasons I pity you.
This is called projection.
  #56  
Old 09-03-2017, 12:40 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
This is called projection.
You think that's not a valid description of white supremacists? It's observably a valid description of BigT, as anyone who's read more than 3 of his posts will know.
  #57  
Old 09-03-2017, 01:33 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Obviously I'm going to defend the right of neo-Nazis, or anyone else with ridiculous, objectionable views (such as yourself) to hold and express those views because I'm not a fascist. I'm not going to threaten or use violence against people because of their views precisely because their views - which include doing those things - are wrong.

I don't sympathise with neo-Nazi's, fascists, white supremacists, and so on. I pity them. They are sad, pathetic people who have no understanding of how the world works, no clue why their own lives are so miserable, and are lashing out for someone to blame. Interestingly, they are the precise same reasons I pity you.
And as I pointed before that would be the case if it the issue that brought this to a head did not include black people or women being murdered by the supremacists and fascists.

Again the main issues I see here are that:

1) The Nazi's, fascists, white supremacists crossed a line there that negated any free speech considerations.

2) Somehow the point is also missed that indeed most if not all of the people in this discussion do respect freedom of speech even for Nazis. But what is also ignored is that:

3) Others have indeed the freedom of expression to tell the Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists that their views are deplorable.

4) It is indeed crucial for anyone that is just defending Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists just for free speech reasons to also use their free speech to leave the point that indeed killing people to stop the free speech of people that denounce fascists and white supremacists should not be tolerated. And as me and many others have done in the past: it is indeed crucial for many moderates and conservatives that do believe in the American way to tell them, even at the risk of losing their friendship, that fascist or white supremacy ideas should not be considered.

That is because while we are discussing this one of my biggest fears of electing Trump is happening: many conservatives are giving too much oxygen to the Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...eat-to-us-than
Quote:
Poll: GOP voters say news media poses greater threat to US than white supremacists

A new Fox News poll released Wednesday finds that an overwhelming 69 percent of Republican voters believe the news media poses a greater threat to the United States than white supremacists.
Quote:
In the same poll, 70 percent of all respondents said President Trump hates the news media more than he hates white supremacists. That number includes 83 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans.

Participants were also polled on their view of Trump's response to violence in Charlottesville, Va., earlier this month. Trump initially blamed "many sides" for the violence that resulted in one death and dozens of injuries when white supremacists clashed with anti-racist protesters at a rally they had organized to protest the removal of a Confederate statue.

The responses were split among party lines, with 72 percent of Republicans approving of Trump's response to the violence and 91 percent of Democrats disapproving.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...nd-race-animus
Quote:
While of course not all Trump voters were motivated by race, Trumpís candidacy gave oxygen to many votersí worst tendencies. Public Religion Research Institute showed worries about ďcultural displacement,Ē and support for deportation of undocumented immigrants were better predictors of Trump support among the white working class than economic fears. Pew found in multiple surveys major differences on immigration between Trump voters and non-Trump Republican primary voters. Other outlets further confirm. To suggest racial tensions didnít contribute to Trumpís rise is to simply ignore the obvious or wish it wasnít so. His presidency so far has shown no sign of shifting gears.
  #58  
Old 09-03-2017, 02:20 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
4) It is indeed crucial for anyone that is just defending Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists just for free speech reasons to also use their free speech to leave the point that indeed killing people to stop the free speech of people that denounce fascists and white supremacists should not be tolerated. And as me and many others have done in the past: it is indeed crucial for many moderates and conservatives that do believe in the American way to tell them, even at the risk of losing their friendship, that fascist or white supremacy ideas should not be considered.
And this is where you and the rest of your "of course they must be nazi sympathiser" despicable friends go off the rails. These can be and often are two separate discussions!

If I, or anyone, defend the the absolute right to free speech (and yes I mean ABSOLUTE) for everyone and even if I say that everyone includes such despicable groups as nazis, klan members, and even GIGObusters I am under NO OBLIGATION to express my own views on whether or not this speech is approriate. If you can't separate someones views about whether or not free speech includes hate speech, from whether they endorse WHAT'S IN that speech then that's your problem and not anyone else's!

mc
  #59  
Old 09-03-2017, 02:30 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
And this is where you and the rest of your "of course they must be nazi sympathiser" despicable friends go off the rails. These can be and often are two separate discussions!
As one that also participated ijn other discussions, sure, I do think that some hyperbole has taken place, but my points stand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
If I, or anyone, defend the the absolute right to free speech (and yes I mean ABSOLUTE) for everyone and even if I say that everyone includes such despicable groups as nazis, klan members, and even GIGObusters I am under NO OBLIGATION to express my own views on whether or not this speech is approriate. If you can't separate someones views about whether or not free speech includes hate speech, from whether they endorse WHAT'S IN that speech then that's your problem and not anyone else's!

mc
That is fine, but the point I made was also related to a property that I have seen most conservatives here use: That of ignoring that we are here also defending the free speech of the people that were shot or run over by Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists.

Also:

Quote:
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?t=108674

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-03-2017 at 02:32 PM.
  #60  
Old 09-03-2017, 02:45 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That is because while we are discussing this one of my biggest fears of electing Trump is happening: many conservatives are giving too much oxygen to the Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists.
And If you really fear nazis and klan members then you should be encouraging them to speak up more and participate more in public discourse. Because right now actions to silence these groups give them a certain cache; than can say "if we weren't right, those evil lefty libs wouldn't be trying to silence us"
When you push their discourse out of the public you make it easy for them to misrepresent what they actually stand for. Some people can be fooled into believing that it's about standing up for white people's rights against some new form of reverse discrimination. Or that the Confederacy was about protecting the state's rights to self government.

The beliefs of groups like the nazis can't stand up to public scrutiny; they are exposed for the lies that they are. Groups like the Klan have been around for hundreds of years, we've even had several white supremacist Presidents before the current one, and yet they are still considered fringe groups.

mc
  #61  
Old 09-03-2017, 02:52 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 931
I do like me some XKCD!

mc
  #62  
Old 09-03-2017, 03:39 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
And If you really fear nazis and klan members then you should be encouraging them to speak up more and participate more in public discourse. Because right now actions to silence these groups give them a certain cache; than can say "if we weren't right, those evil lefty libs wouldn't be trying to silence us"
Well, this shows that you are are an ignorant of what I have said in the past, in the past I have pointed out that indeed it is thanks to them participating that then we are aware of who are the dupes of today. And it is funny to me how the never ending efforts from conservatives of today to undermine unions and worker rights is one reason that we have now business owners that can fire the asses of the ones that are nazi or racist assholes today, as XKCD puts it.

So, the more the better so as to deal properly with those extremists because it is looking as if conservatives today are not minding getting support of deplorables like those ones.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-03-2017 at 03:43 PM.
  #63  
Old 09-03-2017, 03:57 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
And If you really fear nazis and klan members then you should be encouraging them to speak up more and participate more in public discourse. Because right now actions to silence these groups give them a certain cache; than can say "if we weren't right, those evil lefty libs wouldn't be trying to silence us"
Of course I have to notice that what I pointed early does stand: many conservatives here do willfully forget that we are having this conversation because Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists are silencing people that opposed to them when Nazis shoot at them or run over them.

As you say, we indeed know now (if one knows history, one already knows) what the fascists will do if they are allowed to gain power. With their actions we already do know who they are trying to silence. We have also the issue that right now they have a sympathizer in chief in the White House.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-03-2017 at 03:59 PM.
  #64  
Old 09-03-2017, 05:17 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
1) The Nazi's, fascists, white supremacists crossed a line there that negated any free speech considerations.
That line can only be crossed when someone moves from speech to action, and that action should be dealt with according to the law.

Quote:
4) It is indeed crucial for anyone that is just defending Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists just for free speech reasons to also use their free speech to leave the point that indeed killing people to stop the free speech of people that denounce fascists and white supremacists should not be tolerated. And as me and many others have done in the past: it is indeed crucial for many moderates and conservatives that do believe in the American way to tell them, even at the risk of losing their friendship, that fascist or white supremacy ideas should not be considered.
The thing is, no-one here is defending those beliefs, and many people are attacking them. There's no reason to add "me too" to every post that does so. I've made it clear, repeatedly, that I don't share those despicable views - and it's precisely because I reject fascist views that I think freedom of speech is so important, as is settling things in court not through violence.

Quote:
That is because while we are discussing this one of my biggest fears of electing Trump is happening: many conservatives are giving too much oxygen to the Nazi's, fascists and white supremacists.
It's worth remembering that Trump voters make up something less than a quarter of Americans, and I suspect his hardcore supporters are less than half of that. The Dems threw away the election by putting up the second-worst candidate that I can remember seeing in an election where a swing to the right was always expected. As is often the case, a poor campaign mixed with political apathy led to a terrible result.

However, Trump and the Republicans won a legitimate election, no matter how much that sucks. They are not revolutionaries nor dictators, they are working within the system. Nazis don't do that.
  #65  
Old 09-03-2017, 05:33 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
It's worth remembering that Trump voters make up something less than a quarter of Americans, and I suspect his hardcore supporters are less than half of that. The Dems threw away the election by putting up the second-worst candidate that I can remember seeing in an election where a swing to the right was always expected. As is often the case, a poor campaign mixed with political apathy led to a terrible result.

However, Trump and the Republicans won a legitimate election, no matter how much that sucks. They are not revolutionaries nor dictators, they are working within the system. Nazis don't do that.
More than a reason then to stop giving them oxygen.

As noted, more republicans are swallowing the idea that the media is more dangerous than the white supremacists, Hillary is not the president so she is irrelevant now, and we have to deal with the Cheeto in chief.

Deal.
  #66  
Old 09-03-2017, 05:37 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
That line can only be crossed when someone moves from speech to action, and that action should be dealt with according to the law.
...
The thing is, no-one here is defending those beliefs, and many people are attacking them.
The line was already crossed. Attacking them verbally and in the media and in the courts, is completely proper. Attacking them physically when they are in the process of physically attacking someone else (defending their victims) is completely appropriate too.

Last edited by SteveG1; 09-03-2017 at 05:38 PM.
  #67  
Old 09-03-2017, 05:42 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
The line was already crossed. Attacking them verbally and in the media and in the courts, is completely proper. Attacking them physically when they are in the process of physically attacking someone else (defending their victims) is completely appropriate too.
If you want to take that argument to say that they no longer have the right to free speech because some members are violent, then you also need to apply it to all the other groups that have violent members, whether it's pro-life protesters or BLM.
  #68  
Old 09-03-2017, 06:17 PM
SteveG1 SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 12,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
If you want to take that argument to say that they no longer have the right to free speech because some members are violent, then you also need to apply it to all the other groups that have violent members, whether it's pro-life protesters or BLM.
Fuck that, you "both sides many fine people" Nazi sympathizer son of a bitch.

Only the ONE collective group has MURDERED anyone, so go fuck right off.
  #69  
Old 09-03-2017, 06:38 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
Fuck that, you "both sides many fine people" Nazi sympathizer son of a bitch.

Only the ONE collective group has MURDERED anyone, so go fuck right off.
Hahahaha no. Left wing revolutionaries have killed more people than the Nazis ever did, you fucking moron. And that group includes the BLM "protester" who shot 5 cops - that's 4 more people than were killed by the white supremacists at that protest, for anyone keeping count.
  #70  
Old 09-03-2017, 06:55 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Hahahaha no. Left wing revolutionaries have killed more people than the Nazis ever did, you fucking moron.
We are talking about what is happening in America. And what you said here does brand you a red herring moron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
And that group includes the BLM "protester" who shot 5 cops - that's 4 more people than were killed by the white supremacists at that protest, for anyone keeping count.
The news reported that Johnson had no connection to any extremist groups. By contrast recent recordings/transcripts showed that the Nazis were geared to cause harm as a group.

https://www.wired.com/story/leaked-a...ille-lawsuits/
Quote:
Transcripts show participants openly planning violence while organizers instruct them to obey the law. Participants on one call debated when it would be permissible to use riot shields as weapons. “Some screaming little Latina bitch comes at you and knocks your teeth on your riot shield, that means you hit her, and you’re going to get in trouble for the weapons,” one participant says.
Quote:
Mosley says he is careful to hew to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, a landmark 1968 case that said the government cannot punish even hateful speech unless it incites “imminent lawless action.” Allen Lichtenstein, a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, says the ensuing violence would have to happen “more or less immediately.” Mosley says his political opponents get hysterical over the "dark humor" of the alt-right. “The idea that little tractor meme is somehow a call to run people over is ridiculous,” he says. In a courtroom, however, judges or juries may take a different view of such statements.

Litzenburg, the lawyer for the women injured at the protest, says the organizers’ warnings against violence may not protect them legally. “Saying ‘y’all be good now wink wink’ I don’t think washes your hands of violence in this case,” he says. Potential claims by organizers that they acted in self-defense could be undercut by chatroom transcripts that show they were “waiting and hoping for [an action] that will justifiably trigger a violent response,” says Jeffrey Douglas, a board member of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-03-2017 at 07:00 PM.
  #71  
Old 12-04-2017, 03:51 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,280
Budget Player Cadet

To be clear - I'm not calling zoid or Donald or random Conservatives or anyone else, Nazis, because "I don't like them". This is not about my personal feelings - although admittedly I do not go to any effort to hide my feelings about Nazis. And why should I, or any other, red-blooded American girl?

This is an objective assessment of Donald's Nazi behavior and his Conservative supporters defending his Nazism.

My point in reminding zoid that the definition for "anyone (even someone who claims to be a "fellow liberal") who expresses sympathy for Nazis," is, "Nazi sympathizer", well, .. seems sort of obvious to me.

Your attempt to reduce to this to a unimportant personal opinion, as if we were debating butterscotch ice cream (Gross. Come at me.) is duly noted.

I would certainly be pleased to punch a Nazi, but there don't seem to be any in my computer room at the moment. I pride myself on maintaining a Nazi-free home. It's just me and my elderly poodle-mix, and man, you wouldn't want to know what he calls Donald.
  #72  
Old 12-04-2017, 08:12 PM
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 32,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
And this is where you and the rest of your "of course they must be nazi sympathiser" despicable friends go off the rails. These can be and often are two separate discussions!

If I, or anyone, defend the the absolute right to free speech (and yes I mean ABSOLUTE) for everyone and even if I say that everyone includes such despicable groups as nazis, klan members, and even GIGObusters I am under NO OBLIGATION to express my own views on whether or not this speech is approriate. If you can't separate someones views about whether or not free speech includes hate speech, from whether they endorse WHAT'S IN that speech then that's your problem and not anyone else's!

mc
You are correct that there is no such obligation. However, the default is always that you support the people you are defending. And adding a bit saying you don't agree with them is extremely easy, and avoids misunderstandings.

Sure, maybe you don't do so at first. You assume everyone knows you hate Nazis. Fine. But then you are specifically accused of agreeing with Nazis. If you, at that point, refuse to disavow them, then what other reason can there be?

What's more, the longer it takes you to disavow them, the worse it looks. It's best to do it as early as you can.

It's better to not be misunderstood in the first place than to have to try and fix things after the fact. Another thing about people: once they decide something, that thought has inertia. It's harder to come back from being thought to be a Nazi than to make it clear you aren't one from the beginning.

Last edited by BigT; 12-04-2017 at 08:13 PM.
  #73  
Old 12-05-2017, 04:41 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
Budget Player Cadet

To be clear - I'm not calling zoid or Donald or random Conservatives or anyone else, Nazis, because "I don't like them". This is not about my personal feelings - although admittedly I do not go to any effort to hide my feelings about Nazis. And why should I, or any other, red-blooded American girl?

This is an objective assessment of Donald's Nazi behavior and his Conservative supporters defending his Nazism.
Define "Nazi".

My whole point here is, we can either treat the group as universally worth our scorn and worth denying basic rights, or we can have a loose, vague, unclear definition that apparently includes some half the fucking country. We can't have both. Like, the guy in that NYTimes piece who identifies as a Nazi? He's a Nazi. You can tell because he supports ethnic cleansing and fascism, and also calls himself a Nazi.

Richard Spencer? A little tougher of a call, but as a fascist who supports ethnic cleansing, yeah, sure, he's a Nazi.

Donald Trump? Debatably a fan of fascism, and I've seen no indication of him being into ethnic cleansing, and very little indication that he's even particularly more racist than much of his demographic. In what universe does he count as a nazi?

Milo Yiannopolous? He's literally a gay Jew! He's an asshole, and he holds a bunch of regressive, harmful, stupid beliefs and spouts them in particularly offensive ways, but anyone calling a gay Jew a Nazi needs a new term or a fucking reality check.

Quote:
My point in reminding zoid that the definition for "anyone (even someone who claims to be a "fellow liberal") who expresses sympathy for Nazis," is, "Nazi sympathizer", well, .. seems sort of obvious to me.
I think that in denying certain fringe groups basic rights, we cede the high ground, admit that we cannot beat them on an even playing field, and leave ourselves open to the same tactic being used against us and to the inevitable blowback when we go too far and someone seems sympathetic. (Did the Berkeley riots help or hurt Milo Yiannopolous's social cachet?)

Does the above paragraph make me a Nazi sympathizer?

Quote:
Your attempt to reduce to this to a unimportant personal opinion, as if we were debating butterscotch ice cream (Gross. Come at me.) is duly noted.
I think one of us is misunderstanding the other, because I have no idea what you're talking about here.
  #74  
Old 12-05-2017, 12:00 PM
Skywatcher Skywatcher is offline
Uncharted
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 31,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Milo Yiannopolous? He's literally a gay Jew! He's an asshole, and he holds a bunch of regressive, harmful, stupid beliefs and spouts them in particularly offensive ways, but anyone calling a gay Jew a Nazi needs a new term or a fucking reality check.
Self-hating gays exist, as do anti-Semitic self-hating Jews. Stands to reason that anti-Semitic self-hating gay Jews also exist.
  #75  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:41 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Define "Nazi".
A Nazi is a person who supports the goals, actions and beliefs of the Nazi Party, including, but not limited to:

- Ahistoric ideas about Aryans and Indo-Europeans
- Unsupported beliefs in the superiority of the White Race
- Unsupported beliefs in the existence of the white race in any sort of meaningful biological way
- Irrational and unscientific ideas about the inferiority of other ethnicities and sexualities
- Support for segregation, discrimination & wholesale destruction of other ethnicities & sexualities
- Perpetuation of Nazi-era slogans (Blood & Soil) or accoutrements (Swastikas)
- Reverence for the historical leaders of the Nazi party
- Willingness to commit violence in support of any of the above stupidity
- Willingness to defend and support those who commit violence in support of the above stupidity
- Refusal to condemn violence in support of Nazis and Nazism
- Endless sealioning about ethics in anti-Nazi journalism and "What even is a Nazi, really?"

That last one is you, Budget. That's what I am talking about here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

My whole point here is, we can either treat the group as universally worth our scorn and worth denying basic rights, or we can have a loose, vague, unclear definition that apparently includes some half the fucking country. We can't have both.
The only person saying that we have both is you - and it's only true if you're under the impression that those of us who call Donald and his supporters Nazis, are using "Nazis" as a synonym for, "Bad Hombres".

Again, I think that's just you, dude, and I think you're saying it's vague because you don't want to have to stop sympathizing with people who act like Nazis in public.

FTR - I don't have a vague, unclear definition of Nazism. It's actually not that hard to spot a Nazi. Let's play a few rounds!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

Like, the guy in that NYTimes piece who identifies as a Nazi? He's a Nazi. You can tell because he supports ethnic cleansing and fascism, and also calls himself a Nazi.
See! This isn't so hard!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Richard Spencer? A little tougher of a call, but as a fascist who supports ethnic cleansing, yeah, sure, he's a Nazi.
What is so tough about this one? Dude supports Nazi beliefs = Dude is a Nazi. It's really not complicated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Donald Trump? Debatably a fan of fascism, and I've seen no indication of him being into ethnic cleansing, and very little indication that he's even particularly more racist than much of his demographic. In what universe does he count as a nazi?
Same rule as with Richard Spenser: Dude supports Nazi beliefs = Dude is a Nazi.

Using my definition I established above, Donald trips on:


- Irrational and unscientific ideas about the inferiority of other ethnicities and sexualities
- Support for segregation, discrimination & wholesale destruction of other ethnicities & sexualities
- Perpetuation of Nazi-era slogans (Blood & Soil) or accoutrements (Swastikas)
- Willingness to defend and support those who commit violence in support of the above stupidity
- Refusal to condemn violence in support of Nazis and Nazism

Additionally, Donald's repeated retweets of stuff from hate sites on the internet make it crystal clear where his interests lie.

Sure, he lies, and plays dumb about it, but everyone who wants to can pick up what he's laying down.


(We're skipping lightly past the question of whether Donald is "particularly more racist than much of his demographic." A person's Naziness is not judged on how much more or less other people are Nazis. I will only note that if a man is judged by the company he keeps, Donald should stop hanging out with Stephan Miller and Sebastian Gorka.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Milo Yiannopolous? He's literally a gay Jew! He's an asshole, and he holds a bunch of regressive, harmful, stupid beliefs and spouts them in particularly offensive ways, but anyone calling a gay Jew a Nazi needs a new term or a fucking reality check.
Ah. Hm. Yeah. How to put this delicately. Apparently you're not aware that there were quite a number of Jews who actually helped the Nazis. They hoped that their assimilation into the dominant German culture would protect them and win them official acceptance. It did not ... although initially the Nazi party was happy to exploit them in rounding up non-cooperating Jews and stealing their property.

There's a list of some of these collaborationist groups, including the Judenrat and the so-called Jewish Gestapo (Group 13) here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._collaboration


And here's a list of some of the notable Jewish collaborators -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._collaborators

including Calel Perechodnik, a member of the Jewish Gestapo -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calel_Perechodnik


All of this to say - Milo being Jewish and/or Gay doesn't mean that he can't a Nazi.

The Jewish collaborators (who were, admittedly, in a nightmare situation) were motivated by fear, self-loathing and self-interest. Many of them were openly anti-semitic, either before or after their experiences.

I'm not going to track it down right now, but I've certainly heard enough of Milo's chatter to have heard him speak of his self-loathing and homophobia. He says that being gay is abnormal, that he wishes he could cure himself, that gay men should go back in the closet because it's bad for society to have gay relationships and gay households, that lesbians are just confused straight women.

Granted - it's possible that Milo is just an amoral sociopath, saying whatever keeps Daddy Trump and his fans happy because the pay is good. I've read enough of that too, from people who know him personally. That doesn't absolve him of being a Nazi.

Oh yeah, Milo's either a Nazi or a sociopath, or both, because he trips point number 4 & 5 in my definition:

- Irrational and unscientific ideas about the inferiority of other ethnicities and sexualities
- Support for segregation, discrimination and/or wholesale destruction of other ethnicities & sexualities



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I think that in denying certain fringe groups basic rights, we cede the high ground, admit that we cannot beat them on an even playing field, and leave ourselves open to the same tactic being used against us and to the inevitable blowback when we go too far and someone seems sympathetic. (Did the Berkeley riots help or hurt Milo Yiannopolous's social cachet?)

Does the above paragraph make me a Nazi sympathizer?
No, not when you're talking about "What is an appropriate tactic to employ when one encounters a Nazi".

It's when you dismiss the idea that there are actual Nazis operating openly and insist that we have no reasons for calling people Nazis, and try to defend the nazis - that's an expression of Nazi sypmpathy.

Since you asked - Milo Yiannopolous has no social cachet to speak of. His "Free Speech Week" was a joke that became a "Free Speech Weekend" and then a "Free Speech Rally" and then finally a "Free Speech Photo-op". All of his God Emperor's friends stood him up. He was wildly outnumbered by the anti-hate protestors exercising their freedom of speech. He stuck Berkeley with an $800k bill for security and clean up - you think they're going to invite him back? Milo came out of this looking like a desperate, washed-up, twerp. Anyone who hears him speak knows what he's selling, and it's not any kind of "freedom".

I don't know why I spent so long talking about this choad.

Last edited by Merneith; 12-05-2017 at 09:45 PM.
  #76  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:53 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 50,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Milo Yiannopolous? He's literally a gay Jew! He's an asshole, and he holds a bunch of regressive, harmful, stupid beliefs and spouts them in particularly offensive ways, but anyone calling a gay Jew a Nazi needs a new term or a fucking reality check.
You've never heard of the kapos?

Someone needs a "fucking reality check", but it's not Merneith. I suggest you do some research of your own.

Think of all the closet cases out there who hate gays. The violent racists who turn out to have black or Jewish ancestry.
  #77  
Old 12-05-2017, 10:19 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
Ah. Hm. Yeah. How to put this delicately. Apparently you're not aware that there were quite a number of Jews who actually helped the Nazis. They hoped that their assimilation into the dominant German culture would protect them and win them official acceptance. It did not ... although initially the Nazi party was happy to exploit them in rounding up non-cooperating Jews and stealing their property.

There's a list of some of these collaborationist groups, including the Judenrat and the so-called Jewish Gestapo (Group 13) here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._collaboration


And here's a list of some of the notable Jewish collaborators -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._collaborators

including Calel Perechodnik, a member of the Jewish Gestapo -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calel_Perechodnik


All of this to say - Milo being Jewish and/or Gay doesn't mean that he can't a Nazi.
And just to cover the other side of the whole "gay Jewish Nazis are impossible!" thing, Ernst Rohm.
  #78  
Old 12-05-2017, 11:08 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
And just to cover the other side of the whole "gay Jewish Nazis are impossible!" thing, Ernst Rohm.
And that BTW should be a good warning for the ones that think that being simpatico with the Nazis will spare them, it might... until the long knives come out.
  #79  
Old 12-06-2017, 08:33 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
A Nazi is a person who supports the goals, actions and beliefs of the Nazi Party, including, but not limited to:

- Ahistoric ideas about Aryans and Indo-Europeans
- Unsupported beliefs in the superiority of the White Race
- Unsupported beliefs in the existence of the white race in any sort of meaningful biological way
- Irrational and unscientific ideas about the inferiority of other ethnicities and sexualities
- Support for segregation, discrimination & wholesale destruction of other ethnicities & sexualities
- Perpetuation of Nazi-era slogans (Blood & Soil) or accoutrements (Swastikas)
- Reverence for the historical leaders of the Nazi party
- Willingness to commit violence in support of any of the above stupidity
- Willingness to defend and support those who commit violence in support of the above stupidity
- Refusal to condemn violence in support of Nazis and Nazism
- Endless sealioning about ethics in anti-Nazi journalism and "What even is a Nazi, really?"

That last one is you, Budget. That's what I am talking about here.
Congratulations, you just pigeonholed myself, most of the rationalist community, and most people even remotely concerned with how we're responding to the incredibly tiny wave of white nationalism surfacing into the role of "nazi".

My thesis is this: we are far too hasty to call people "nazis", and we simultaneously have a cultural convention where our reaction to nazis is a visceral rejection up to and including excluding them from the public square. I have little problem with the latter, but if we're going to go to such extreme lengths, we need to be very clear on who we're actually targeting. Let's take a look at who we're targeting, eh?

Quote:
- Unsupported beliefs in the superiority of the White Race
Does this include Charles Murray, who advocates for universal basic income and sees the cultural or genetic inferiority of black people as something best solved through help from the government? I mean, he's noxious, but he's probably not a Nazi. This throws a whole lot of people - please note: stupid, racist, unpleasant people, who we should definitely do something about - into the "nazi" category that kinda don't belong there.

Quote:
- Unsupported beliefs in the existence of the white race in any sort of meaningful biological way
Hey, same problem. Did you know that people can be wrong about racial issues, and/or be racist idiots, without being nazis?

Quote:
- Irrational and unscientific ideas about the inferiority of other ethnicities and sexualities
Again, is Charles Murray a Nazi? I don't think so. There are a lot of ways to be wrong on race without committing the cardinal sins that make the Nazis so heinous. They're still bad, but you just swept a whole bunch of garden-variety racists under the Nazi banner. Hey, is Ben Shapiro a nazi? I don't like the guy, I think he's a racist asshole, but he's still not a Nazi, as one might be able to tell by his big thing being constant accusations that anyone who isn't 100% pro-israel is antisemitic.

Quote:
- Support for segregation, discrimination & wholesale destruction of other ethnicities & sexualities
This is where I see the problem with nazis. Nazis, unlike many other kinds of garden-variety racism, very explicitly support this. They are in favor of segregation, discrimination, and ethnic cleansing. That's what makes them so bad. Similarly:

Quote:
- Willingness to commit violence in support of any of the above stupidity
- Willingness to defend and support those who commit violence in support of the above stupidity
All of this is AOK. In fact, this is why we oppose the nazis so fervently. Because the ideology is inherently violent and intolerant.

But a lot of the excess stuff seems... well, superfluous. This is where I get hung up here. If someone asks, "Why are Nazis Evil?" and I respond, "Because they're Nazis", I haven't actually answered the question. I've just given them a label. What's actually wrong with nazi ideology? My answer: should they ever actually take power, their ideology leads inexorably to a conclusion of ethnic cleansing and historic atrocities. By signaling that they support this ideology, they have made it clear that they see no problem with that end point. Furthermore, their actual path to political success and their actions once they have political power is characterized by violence. This is far from a comprehensive look at "why Nazis are bad", but I feel like it's not that hard to fill in the blanks for any given ethical system.

So when I ask "Is Donald Trump a Nazi", what I'm looking for is not shit like "has Nazi insignia" or "is racist" (most rich white old men are more than a little bit racist, as it turns out), I'm looking for support of ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and taking firm action on racism.

There's a lot we can criticize him for, and we should be worried about his autocratic tendencies. But we should be worried about that for reasons entirely separate from the idea that he's a fucking nazi. Because he isn't.

Quote:
Again, I think that's just you, dude, and I think you're saying it's vague because you don't want to have to stop sympathizing with people who act like Nazis in public.
And if you spent like five minutes looking over my posting history, you'll see that I've spent quite a bit of time slagging off exactly the people you argue I'm "sympathizing" with. I wrote at least one pit thread on Milo, I've been quite vocal about cutting family members out of my life for supporting Trump, and I'm not sure if I've ever posted about Richard Spencer but if I did it probably had something to do with me laughing at him being used as a human speedbag. So fuck your bullshit accusations. You clearly haven't read anything I've posted here if you're able to sit there and say something this fucking stupid.

Quote:
Same rule as with Richard Spenser: Dude supports Nazi beliefs = Dude is a Nazi.

Using my definition I established above, Donald trips on:


- Irrational and unscientific ideas about the inferiority of other ethnicities and sexualities
- Support for segregation, discrimination & wholesale destruction of other ethnicities & sexualities
- Perpetuation of Nazi-era slogans (Blood & Soil) or accoutrements (Swastikas)
- Willingness to defend and support those who commit violence in support of the above stupidity
- Refusal to condemn violence in support of Nazis and Nazism

Additionally, Donald's repeated retweets of stuff from hate sites on the internet make it crystal clear where his interests lie.

Sure, he lies, and plays dumb about it, but everyone who wants to can pick up what he's laying down.
This is a pretty cogent argument. Counterpoint: his Jewish family, his fairly explicit courting of racial demographics (clumsy, crappy, uncomfortable, but imagine how racist it would look if a president didn't explicitly go out of his way to mention how much he likes African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans), his rejection of David Duke (yes, he did in fact reject David Duke), and so on, and so forth. So why's he defending neo-nazis? First thought: he might not have figured out that they're neo-nazis. Second thought: he did. It wasn't a clear-cut, powerful refutation the way most people would have hoped, but he did, in fact, condemn the violence in charlottesville, and he did condemn the neo-nazis responsible. His attempts to control the narrative were transparently bullshit, but it had worked up until then to just reflect anything with whataboutism, so why stop? I don't think he's a Nazi. I think he's an idiot grasping for any possible partisan advantage.

Look, to me the key question is this: does Donald Trump support ethnic cleansing and a return of discriminatory policy and practice? I don't think he does, or if he does, he does a pretty good job of hiding it.


Quote:
No, not when you're talking about "What is an appropriate tactic to employ when one encounters a Nazi".

It's when you dismiss the idea that there are actual Nazis operating openly and insist that we have no reasons for calling people Nazis, and try to defend the nazis - that's an expression of Nazi sypmpathy.
(Bolding mine)

Good news: I've done no such thing. I haven't done any of that. Stefan Gorski is almost certainly a nazi. Richard Spencer: definitely a Nazi. Those assholes who marched in Charlottesville: Nazis, or close enough to be willing to share a parade ground with 'em.

I just think if we're going to make a definition so broad as to include basically anyone who's a racist, we should be careful what connotation we attach to it. That's the point here. If we're going to call every garden-variety right-wing racist a nazi, we cannot then turn around and say, "we should punch Nazis". You'd start in Bumfuck, Alabama, and before clearing the city limits your hand's gonna be broken and a bunch of pissed-off randos who don't identify as Nazis, think Hitler was awful, and more (but just happen to be casually racist) are going to be mighty pissed at you. I think there aren't very many nazis.
  #80  
Old 12-06-2017, 10:03 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I just think if we're going to make a definition so broad as to include basically anyone who's a racist, we should be careful what connotation we attach to it. That's the point here. If we're going to call every garden-variety right-wing racist a nazi, we cannot then turn around and say, "we should punch Nazis". You'd start in Bumfuck, Alabama, and before clearing the city limits your hand's gonna be broken and a bunch of pissed-off randos who don't identify as Nazis, think Hitler was awful, and more (but just happen to be casually racist) are going to be mighty pissed at you. I think there aren't very many nazis.
And of course, nowhere does Merneith proposes doing your straw man.

As for Trump, I have to notice that he is like Nixon, no matter that he had a secretary of state that was a jew and that he listened to his advice, Nixon was shown later to be a jew and minority hater.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/us...s/11nixon.html

And while I do agree that Trump is not a Nazi, ( he does not help much to discourage that people like David Duke or American Nazis from thinking that Trump is actually doing his public condemnations of then under duress ) Trump does sabotage himself to make his wink of his eye to look even better to the fascists.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...r-illustration
Quote:
Brenner interviewed Trump, who said it was a gift from “my friend Marty Davis from Paramount who gave me a copy of Mein Kampf, and he’s a Jew” and denied having read the book: “If I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them.’”

Davis later told Brenner: “I did give him a book about Hitler, but it was My New Order, Hitler’s speeches, not Mein Kampf. I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I’m not Jewish.”

Last edited by GIGObuster; 12-06-2017 at 10:04 AM.
  #81  
Old 12-06-2017, 03:39 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Congratulations, you just pigeonholed myself, most of the rationalist community, and most people even remotely concerned with how we're responding to the incredibly tiny wave of white nationalism surfacing into the role of "nazi".
No. Some of you are Nazi sympathizers and some of you are just dumber than dog shit.

But as I remarked in the post that started this conversation up again, Nazis aren't just the ones pulling the trigger. All the people who support, defend, protect, and downplay the shooters are also Nazis.

It's not just the people wearing, "Have you heard the Good News about National Socialism?" buttons. This is non-controversial to people who aren't Nazis.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
My thesis is this: we are far too hasty to call people "nazis", and we simultaneously have a cultural convention where our reaction to nazis is a visceral rejection up to and including excluding them from the public square.
My thesis is that people who do Nazi shit or support other people doing Nazi shit, are Nazis.

If you want to discuss public policy toward Nazis, that's a conversation that rational people can pursue rationally.

If you want to say that the term Nazi should be applied only to violent racists ... that's a semantic argument which ultimately seeks to downplay the damage caused by Nazi support networks. Simply pretending that Nazi supporters don't exist or aren't a big deal is not a rational approach.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Does this include Charles Murray, who advocates for universal basic income and sees the cultural or genetic inferiority of black people as something best solved through help from the government? I mean, he's noxious, but he's probably not a Nazi. This throws a whole lot of people - please note: stupid, racist, unpleasant people, who we should definitely do something about - into the "nazi" category that kinda don't belong there.
Charles Murray, the guy who says IQ is genetic and that black people are genetically less intelligent, as measured by IQ tests (which, according to Charles Murray, are always fair and balanced assessments of intelligence?)

Yeah, Dude believes Nazi shit = Dude is a You Know What.

Why you think his opinion on UBI is relevant or affects that equation is beyond men.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

Hey, same problem. Did you know that people can be wrong about racial issues, and/or be racist idiots, without being nazis?
I'll allow that, as a theoretical possibility, but in my opinion, the onus is on the racist idiot to explain why he shouldn't be labelled a Nazi. I don't feel any obligation to extend him the benefit of the doubt.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

Again, is Charles Murray a Nazi? I don't think so. There are a lot of ways to be wrong on race without committing the cardinal sins that make the Nazis so heinous. They're still bad, but you just swept a whole bunch of garden-variety racists under the Nazi banner. Hey, is Ben Shapiro a nazi? I don't like the guy, I think he's a racist asshole, but he's still not a Nazi, as one might be able to tell by his big thing being constant accusations that anyone who isn't 100% pro-israel is antisemitic.
I don't really know much about Ben Shapiro, except that he accused Chuck Hegel of accepting donations from Hamas, which ended up being bullshit. If he hates Hamas (or Hegel) because he thinks that they're genetically inferior, then he's probably a Nazi. If he hates Hamas because they blow up school buses of children, then he might not be a Nazi. If he hates Chuck Hegel because Hegel is an Obama appointee, then he's probably on the dumber-than-dogshit list - but that's doesn't mean that he's not also on the Nazi list.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post


This is where I see the problem with nazis. Nazis, unlike many other kinds of garden-variety racism, very explicitly support this. They are in favor of segregation, discrimination, and ethnic cleansing. That's what makes them so bad.

But a lot of the excess stuff seems... well, superfluous. This is where I get hung up here. If someone asks, "Why are Nazis Evil?" and I respond, "Because they're Nazis", I haven't actually answered the question. I've just given them a label. What's actually wrong with nazi ideology? My answer: should they ever actually take power, their ideology leads inexorably to a conclusion of ethnic cleansing and historic atrocities. By signaling that they support this ideology, they have made it clear that they see no problem with that end point. Furthermore, their actual path to political success and their actions once they have political power is characterized by violence. This is far from a comprehensive look at "why Nazis are bad", but I feel like it's not that hard to fill in the blanks for any given ethical system.
Emphasis mine.

The underlined part is is the part I want to highlight here. With very broad exceptions, people don't take power purely through violence any more. Hitler and the original Nazi party didn't assassinate their way to power. They staged violent acts like the Beer Hall putsch and Kristallnacht and then used the resulting anger and fear to rally support for increasing their own power.

The people who looked at Kristallnacht and decided to increase their support for Hitler and the Nazi Party - were also Nazis, even if they didn't participate in Kristallnacht itself.

This is one of the ways that Donald Trump is a Nazi. He started his campaign by saying Mexicans are rapists and murderers. Then he staged violent Mexican protests at his rallies (What a coincidence!) and he used those protests to say, "See! I'm right about Mexican immigrants!" and as soon as he was in office, he immediately moved to cracking down on immigrants (illegal and otherwise), refugees and other foreigners.

Donald's hatred for people of color is what his supporters love most about him, btw. That's why he keeps attacking black athletes and pop stars: it's what his base wants.

In more current news, Donald is provoking Muslim attacks in the Middle East because he wants a good Muslim riot - for the same reason that the original Nazis wanted violence related to Jews. That's why he sent those stupid videos, trying to incite fear of Muslim violence, a few weeks ago. That was a bust, and unfortunately, most of the recent gun violence has been by non-Muslim white men. So recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel ought to get him a few bombings or riots he can use.

This is why Donald is a Nazi. Not because I don't like him. Because he's using actual violent Nazi tactics while spreading Nazi imagery.


(sidenote: Firefox doesn't know how Kristallnacht is spelled. It wants me to replace Kristallnacht with Walpurgisnacht, which seems sort of random that Firefox knows about one but not the other. At the same time ... it's sort of appropriate.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

So when I ask "Is Donald Trump a Nazi", what I'm looking for is not shit like "has Nazi insignia" or "is racist" (most rich white old men are more than a little bit racist, as it turns out), I'm looking for support of ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and taking firm action on racism.

There's a lot we can criticize him for, and we should be worried about his autocratic tendencies. But we should be worried about that for reasons entirely separate from the idea that he's a fucking nazi. Because he isn't.
Sorry, I just don't find your argument persuasive. I will continue to assume that Dudes who send messages with Nazi imagery are Nazis. I'm comfortable with assessment.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

And if you spent like five minutes looking over my posting history, you'll see that I've spent quite a bit of time slagging off exactly the people you argue I'm "sympathizing" with. I wrote at least one pit thread on Milo, I've been quite vocal about cutting family members out of my life for supporting Trump, and I'm not sure if I've ever posted about Richard Spencer but if I did it probably had something to do with me laughing at him being used as a human speedbag. So fuck your bullshit accusations. You clearly haven't read anything I've posted here if you're able to sit there and say something this fucking stupid.
People keep trying to impress me with their liberal bona fides. I don't give a shit. I don't care how you self-identify. I don't care what labels you use for yourself. I don't care what flag you wave.

No. I have not made a study of your posting history - nor am I going to start. I don't care what you've posted in other threads.

None of that is relevant to the conversation that we're having here, in this thread, right now, where you are trying to downplay people sympathizing with Nazis and excuse people doing blatantly Nazi behavior.

Dudes who act like Nazis are Nazis.
Dudes who sympathize, excuse and protect, Nazis are Nazi Sympathizers.

If you don't want to be called a Nazi Sympathizer then stop carrying water for them.

I don't call people Nazis because I like or dislike them, or because of what club they belong to. I call someone a Nazi because that someone is acting like a Nazi.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

This is a pretty cogent argument. Counterpoint: his Jewish family,
You know who else had Jewish family?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

his fairly explicit courting of racial demographics (clumsy, crappy, uncomfortable, but imagine how racist it would look if a president didn't explicitly go out of his way to mention how much he likes African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans),
For real? Donald can't be a Nazi because he's openly racist?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

his rejection of David Duke (yes, he did in fact reject David Duke), and so on, and so forth.
Even Donald Duke didn't believe his rejection of Donald Duke.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

So why's he defending neo-nazis? First thought: he might not have figured out that they're neo-nazis.
It's true. Donald Trump is dumber than dogshit. But the two lists are not mutually exclusive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

Second thought: he did. It wasn't a clear-cut, powerful refutation the way most people would have hoped, but he did, in fact, condemn the violence in charlottesville, and he did condemn the neo-nazis responsible. His attempts to control the narrative were transparently bullshit, but it had worked up until then to just reflect anything with whataboutism, so why stop? I don't think he's a Nazi.
(I believe you're trying to say that Donald rejected the Neo-Nazis.)

Third Thought: He didn't try to refute the Neo-nazis, although he was eventually forced to read a hostage statement about it. But his initial response was to excuse the Nazi violence happening out in broad daylight and then to blame the "Alt-Left" for inciting it.

That's Donald Trump, acting like a Nazi. All the people trying to excuse him or protect him are acting like Nazi sympathizers.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

I think he's an idiot grasping for any possible partisan advantage.
Lot of that going around.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

Look, to me the key question is this: does Donald Trump support ethnic cleansing and a return of discriminatory policy and practice? I don't think he does, or if he does, he does a pretty good job of hiding it.
This is the same Donald Trump who's been sued for unfair housing discrimination, who's been fighting all year to ban Muslims from entering the US, who cut local black schools off the Easter egg roll list, who's tried to kick all the transpeople out of the military, who's DOJ is arguing that business should be free to discriminate against gay people, who never bothered to express sympathy about the Minneapolis mosque bombing, who still, months later, hasn't been able to restore water & electricity to Puerto Rico, who had a guy wearing Neo-Nazi medals at his inauguration, who has bragged about his sexual predation ...

And so on.

And so forth.

Seriously, if you're still carrying water for Donald Trump, and you still insist you don't see him doing anything discriminatory ... Oh just shut up, you goddamn Nazi sympathizer. I'm done here.

Last edited by Merneith; 12-06-2017 at 03:40 PM.
  #82  
Old 12-07-2017, 05:15 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
No. Some of you are Nazi sympathizers and some of you are just dumber than dog shit.

[...]

My thesis is that people who do Nazi shit or support other people doing Nazi shit, are Nazis.
So which one is it? We, a fairly large group of people who are left-wing, hate Nazis, hate Hitler, hate the neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville, hate Trump, and oppose fascism and racism in all its forms but just so happen to think that we're defining "Nazi" a little too broadly when the word has such powerful social and political connotations... Are we Nazis or just Nazi sympathizers?

Quote:
If you want to say that the term Nazi should be applied only to violent racists ... that's a semantic argument which ultimately seeks to downplay the damage caused by Nazi support networks. Simply pretending that Nazi supporters don't exist or aren't a big deal is not a rational approach.
Okay, so how do we tell who's a "Nazi supporter"? I'd apply your previous methodology, but as stated, we pick up a whole lot of people who are "Nazi supporters" in the same that the guy holding up a "Dirty Commie Bastards" sign is a communist. Like me.

Quote:
Charles Murray, the guy who says IQ is genetic and that black people are genetically less intelligent, as measured by IQ tests (which, according to Charles Murray, are always fair and balanced assessments of intelligence?)

Yeah, Dude believes Nazi shit = Dude is a You Know What.
Again, this is a stupid argument. We've had numerous overtly racist regimes. Virtually every society before the late 1900s was explicitly and overtly racist. And yet somehow, Nazis are specifically awful and evil and bad. Clearly, the specific problem with Nazis is that they believe IQ tests are largely accurage, believe IQ is genetic, and believe that black people score lower on IQ tests!

Or, y'know, the whole "genocide" thing. Could be that.




Quote:
People keep trying to impress me with their liberal bona fides. I don't give a shit. I don't care how you self-identify. I don't care what labels you use for yourself. I don't care what flag you wave.

No. I have not made a study of your posting history - nor am I going to start. I don't care what you've posted in other threads.

None of that is relevant to the conversation that we're having here, in this thread, right now, where you are trying to downplay people sympathizing with Nazis and excuse people doing blatantly Nazi behavior.

Dudes who act like Nazis are Nazis.
Dudes who sympathize, excuse and protect, Nazis are Nazi Sympathizers.

If you don't want to be called a Nazi Sympathizer then stop carrying water for them.
There's an excluded middle between "Let me just suck Trump's cock a little harder" and "Trump is not literally a nazi". It includes my position, which is, just to be clear: "Trump is a goddamn garbage fire, easily the least qualified and likely to become the worst president of the last century at least, has authoritarian tendencies that are seriously disturbing and should be removed from office as soon as humanly possible". But I think that excluding that middle:

A) is actively harmful to the goal of preventing Nazi recruitment
B) plays very effectively into various right-wing narratives about the left being hyperbolic and violent
C) places way too much emphasis on a tiny, virtually insignificant group who, at their biggest event ever with nazis coming from across the country, managed maybe a few hundred and were totally swamped by just local counter-protesters

Quote:
In more current news, Donald is provoking Muslim attacks in the Middle East because he wants a good Muslim riot
Oh come on this is just fucking stupid. Trump promised to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on the campaign trail, and now he's going through with his (stupid, stupid, STUPID) promise. Clearly, the only reason he'd do that is because he wants to incite violence. This, in turn, is evidence that he's a nazi. Are you shitting me?

Quote:
Oh just shut up, you goddamn Nazi sympathizer. I'm done here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
I would certainly be pleased to punch a Nazi,
Hmm.

So just so we're clear, over the course of a few posts, you have made it explicitly clear that you think that Nazis are worth punching, and equally clear that you think that I'm a nazi sympathizer (and thus a nazi) because I disagree with you. Not because I disagree with you on the issue of "are jews humans" or "should we eliminate inferior races" or even "are Nazis the scum of the earth" (!!!), but because I think you're too hasty to label people nazis. Apparently you miss the irony here. You are exactly the kind of person this thread is aimed towards.

Can we maybe at least exclude the people very loudly, very clearly saying, "Nazis are the scum of the earth" from the group of people we are accusing of being nazis or nazi sympathizers? Or is that a step too far?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-07-2017 at 05:18 AM.
  #83  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:36 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,934
Well Merneith, I do have to agree that in the earlier post you did say that you will be glad to punch a Nazi, I would also be, but only after seeing that they are using actual violence towards the ones protesting peacefully against them.

While I do agree with a lot of what you say, it is clear that the nit is the idea of punching of the new Nazis for no reason. It is indeed not a good idea.

In the meantime I do have to say that it is really dumb for others to continue to go as if falling for racist ideas such as IQ being driven by genetics, authoritarian behavior geared to encourage extreme right wing to grow, violence against peaceful protesters of fascism, etc. should be poo pooed. One should remind the fascists or the many right wingers that are falling for that propaganda of where that leads eventually.

While violence against Nazis should not be used with no reason, efforts to discourage them, such as limiting their funding by discouraging the people or groups funding them.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 12-07-2017 at 10:41 AM.
  #84  
Old 12-07-2017, 04:53 PM
Merneith Merneith is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,280
Gigobuster - I am entirely onboard with punching Nazis via disrupting their funding sources. I will certainly agree that it is a more effective approach! And as I said earlier, there don't happen to be any Nazis physically present just here at the moment. I am happy to explore metaphorical punchings, if you like.

As I said, we can certainly have a conversation about our public policy toward Nazis. I am open to a discussion of the more civilized methods of applied violence.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017