Overuse of Nazi comparisons

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think I've ever described right wing terrorism as anything other than the most common form of terrorism in the U.S. It's also super rare like all forms of terrorism in the U.S.

The Nazi party is understood to have killed at least 6 million people in less than a decade and that doesn't count the war casualties. Right wing hate groups in the U.S. are credited with fewer than 50 deaths in 2019. At that pace they would need 60 years to equal the death toll of 9/11 and 130,000 years to equal the death toll of the Nazis. Comparing the two in evilness is appropriate, comparing the two in terms of scope and reach in their society is ridiculous.

Bottom line: Comparing mainstream Trump voters to nazis does not decrease right wing violence. If anything it increases the power of right wing groups by giving cover to real nazis and increasing violent confrontation with left wing groups

Last edited by Antrax on 21 Nov 2020, 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nazi is a hyperbolic term, frequently.

I don’t particularly like some conservative ideas.....but it’s a stretch to call most of them “Nazi.”

Those comparisons are incredibly unfair if we're comparing the American far-right to the NSDAP during the war, but the NSDAP was also initially a fringe movement that was treated dismissively until it suddenly had far more power than anyone had imagined it could ever achieve. It's a warning to not be dismissive of the potential for the threat they represent to grow.

Further, it's the more mainstream portions of the right choosing to enable these people that causes far-left groups to become so fixated and loud because they know they'll be among the first people targeted if and when their predictions start coming true. Remember how crazy people said it was to suggest that Trump wouldn't concede? Well, who's crazy now? I'll give you a hint, it's the people pretending away reality because reality is too alarming for them at the moment.

I don’t feel Trump is a Nazi—but I do feel like he wanted to be a dictator like Putin.

The Nazi Party came to power by stirring up trouble and then blaming all of Germany's problems (including the ones they'd just created) on certain nations and groups of people. The French, Jews, homosexuals, blacks, gypsies, the disabled..... It was an irrational, bullying, cruel culture that turned neighbours against neighbours and demeaned anyone not in charge (in other words, everyone who wasn't white, male and a Nazi).

Any of that sound familiar?

Stirring up trouble, picking on anyone "other" and promoting a continual blame culture is Donald to a T.

The way to defeat the American far-right is reconciliation between the mainstream left and the mainstream right. You only grow the influence of the far-right by attacking the mainstream right as being far right.

It's like the left learned nothing from the ascension of Donald Trump. He only succeeded because they constantly attacked him...

I'd agree that Nazi isn't the best term and that it encourages those who think splitting hairs is enough to rebut a generally correct understanding by complaining that the nomenclature used wasn't perfect. That said, all I can do is be precise with my own word choices, they're the only word choices I can be responsible for.

The failures of the neo-liberal establishment have been the main factor the rise of far-right populist groups. Giving them more power or having them cooperate more on stealing from working people in order to cut taxes for the wealthy and engage in more wars is the last thing that will improve this problem.

I think I'm out of this discussion. Doesn't seem like anyone is going to budge from their preconceived notions.

I think an overuse of Nazi comparisons contributes to the rise of Nazi elements. I think increased radicalization on both the right and the left is a problem. I think reconciliation between the mainstream elements of the right and left is necessary to heal this country. I think hyperbole and slippery slope fallacies are unhelpful to that cause. If you don't think that, well I did my best to try and convince you.

There's plenty of Trump's actual statements and actions to critique. Resorting to hyperbolic statements and slippery slopes "well Trump might do this" is unnecessary.

All I can say is take note of the economic concerns shared by progressives and the alt-right, and how both are growing relative to the neo-liberal establishment of the Democrats and GOP. Those are what's motivating people, those are what's driving the wedge because both parties for too long treated populist movement that intersected with their values as people who could be used to turn out dedicated voters without ever delivering anything significant. The only real difference is that the populist right has taken over the GOP in many ways while the Democrats are still fighting to keep people like AOC sidelined.

He lost the election so that is a start.

Should never have been the republican nominee in 2016. People forget how close he was to losing in the early days of that primary. Being the anti-media candidate was his main selling feature, and the media constantly attacking him gave him tons of free publicity.

Should never have been as close to winning in 2020 as he was. Attacking him for his most serious offenses would have been far more effective than attacking him for everything. Impeachment likely hurt the Democrats more than it hurt him.

While all Nazi’s are authoritarians not all authoritarians are Nazi’s. While all Nazi’s are racist every person with bigoted views is not a Nazi. If you given the chance would participate in or support the white race conquering the world and systematically eliminating groups of people by murdering them you are a Nazi. If you think it is too bad Hitler did not finish the job and that he lost the war you are Nazi.


Prior to WWII Nazi Germany existed and the Nazi Party existed. What did not exist at that point was the ability to participate in and support capturing the world and systematically murdering a whole group of people which is similar to the position "Neo Nazis" are in America now. If you post Nazi signs because you worship Hitler you support what he did and would likely participate in genocide if you have the ability and given the chance you are a Nazi, ie not inconsistent with the literal definition of Nazi's that I favor.


It's not a matter of catering to them it is a matter of correctly understanding them to destroy them. This is a major reason why governments and businesses spend so much money on intelligence gathering.



Equating people who want to correctly define the political views of others with people accepting them is an assumption.



While rapist apologists and rapists are often the same people they are not always the same thing. Both are severe character flaws. The same fact with racist and racist denier. There are people who think blacks are inferior and think racism is largely solved because of lack of knowledge. Is this not the whole idea behind the woke definition of privilege?



This is an autism board, what about ableism?


IMHO not so much a grand conspiracy, more groupthink. There are censorious people of all political stripes, and snowflakes of all political stripes. I think one reason for all the attention put on the left of late is a product of the rapid success they have had of late in changing meanings of language, broadening what should be stigmatized. Flawed views should not be grouped in with evil views to the point beyond criticism of actual consequences because all are bad.

My main concern is that terms like "Nazi", "fascist" and "bigot" are used far more often to stifle criticism than to describe people who actually deserve those labels.

Rape apologist: someone who defends a rapist and victim blames. "Maybe you sent him the wrong signals?" "Did you say no?" "What were you wearing?" "You shouldn't have drank so much." "You're just making it up because you regret it."

Rapist: someone who does the act.


Not the same thing. People may become rape apologists because they are also in denial that someone they all know can do such a thing. If the rapist has a good reputation, people will side with him and assume he is innocent. Even family members become rape apologists because they don't want to believe their angel can do such a thing.


Statistics have shown rape accusations are rare. Statistics have shown many get away with it and lot of it goes unreported. Many people become rape apologists when they know someone who is being "accused" of rape.



Lol okay so I guess believing in science of transgender, believing in facts and systemic racism and implicit racial bias is all group thinking.

BTW groupthinking seems to imply people only believe in that stuff because everyone else does. Not because they are not bigots and because they have done their research to understand more. Thinking this is all groupthinking looks like they all think this is a big conspiracy. I have seen posts online saying that we only go along with it to avoid being called a bigot, that looks like projection to me. Maybe that is what they do in real life. But online they go to places like gender critical and post their TERF stuff.

But I will just let the transphobes and racists think they are special and let them think it's all group thinking and continue being a victim of how meanie this "woke" culture is and how "intolorant" and "bigoted" everyone is. They are right and everyone else is wrong.

The not a grand conspiracy but groupthink line is a criticism of what is common in Trumpist circles, Fox News etc. I am using groupthink similar to the way “bubble” is used. Thinking a certain way because the people they interact think that way is a human trait most of us do more then we care to admit. Thinking the progressives/liberals/SJW’s/deep state are involved in a grand conspiracy sans evidence is a prime example of 2020 groupthink.