Your sarcasm is obscuring your point, if you have one.
I believe that what he’s saying is:
If it dresses like a neo-Nazi, and walks like a neo-Nazi, and wears tattoos like a neo-Nazi…
We’re not Steben’s judge and jury. But I wouldn’t want to be his defense attorney either.
Snark is not a substitute for an argument. His argument was simple, and I have a hard time believing that you didn’t get it. You were the one who brought up your distaste for the hobby of historical reenactment as an argument against these Nazi reenactors. He simply argued that the fact that you don’t get historical reenactments should have no bearing on the topic.
He wasn’t debating himself. He was directly addressing a paragraph in your OP. You may not have meant what he thought you meant, but any misunderstanding became your fault when you refused to explain how you were being misunderstood, and instead chose to take an obviously rhetorical question literally.
Your distaste for historical reenactment should have made you think that you didn’t understand all the reasons these people might do what they do, and informed your judgment. Instead, at best it seems to have not informed your judgement at all, and, at worst, it seems to have made you more sure that these guys were either social misfits or neo-Nazis.
Being dismissive of your opponent will never actually result in winning a debate. I don’t know why it is so common. Be dismissive after you’ve won, not before.
Deliberately ignoring all the arguments against your position does tend to make things easier, huh?
Seriously, being dismissive of or otherwise ignoring other people’s arguments doesn’t make you win. It actually does the opposite, as it comes across as you not having any better arguments.
Agreed, but this was the post that was in reply to:
There’s no argument there that I’m ignoring or dismissing, just the implication that the people at the party were fascists. I argued, with the facts at my disposal, that those facts didn’t show them to be fascists.
Further, I think my “evidence for” included all the evidence brought to bear in the thread, at the time of my post.
Glad you can make that decision for our society. Damn that whole free speech, freedom of assembly thing! We have Frank Merton to decide what can be allowed and not allowed. Someone should make you Fuhrer with your infinite wisdom.
Are you seriously arguing now that my personal opinion has no relevance on a topic about one’s personal opinion? You know you’re not helping yourself here.
OK. You’re dismissed then.
BigT, the Nazi reenacters in the documentary linked above had very similar “Evidence against these men being fascists”, minus the Nazi flag flying on a pole, I guess. Did you watch it?
Yeah, you’d be right if he had said any of those things. Not tolerated≠ not allowed. It’s not an argument in semantics.
The argument being made here is that historical re-enactment is okay as long it doesn’t involve Nazism. There is an obvious double standard here and it has only been addressed with the flimsy logic that “Nazi’s were especially bad people.”
Certainly, one is not allowed to dress in 19th-century Western American apparel either, as the Native Americans were given a Holocaust of their own by those folks.
I’m all for neo-Nazi standing up proud and loud for what they believe. I prefer them out in the open than hiding behind obscure veils like historic re-enactors.
N.B. not all historic re-enactors are neo-nazis or racists, etc… But at least some, like in the OP, appear to be just that.
His post before that was about police in Vietnam, where he lives and whose government he frequently praises, probably breaking up such a party. It’s not a big stretch to put the posts together and come away with the impression that he wants police to suppress fascist beliefs.
Given additional information provided by stpauler on Scott Steben, has your position changed?
I see what you did there.
Ok. Well, this guy seems like a Neo Nazi, and that’s not cool.
No. My position wasn’t that no WW2 re-enactors could ever be neo-Nazis, it was:
-
WW2 re-enactors who portray Germans shouldn’t be assumed to be neo-Nazis; the states of being a re-enactor and being a neo-Nazi are distinct.
-
Wearing Nazi-era German uniforms to a private dinner isn’t morally wrong, because it hurts no one.
Now, if it turns out these particular units of the WW2HRS are lousy with neo-Nazis, either the WW2HRS was lying about keeping them out, or they did a shoddy job of it and should clean house to keep their good name.
Would you also say that WW2 German re-enacters are no more likely to be neo-Nazis than the general population?
Nobody puts Bormann in the corner!
I have no idea. I don’t know any re-enacters, and the only exposure I have to their community is a few newspaper articles. How the hell should I know?
I’d imagine they are more likely to be neo-Nazis, than, say, neo-confederates (the subset of neo-confederate people who enjoy re-enactment will probably prefer civil war re-enacting), but I’d be surprised if it’s primarily a neo-Nazi thing or that there are more baddies in the hobby than in the general population.
For one, would the US military re-enactors play nice with real neo-Nazis? War re-enactment needs two sides to work, and I can’t picture the other groups being cool with pretending to fight real Nazis.
There are historical reenactors here on the Board, for the Revolutionary and Civil wars. Elendil’s Heir springs to mind. Dressing up as godless Brits or Johnny Rebs for something like that doesn’t bother me. The Nazis seem to be in a whole other category though. I’m not even sure I’ve heard of any WWII reenactments. Do those even exist?