Why people with ASD / Autism / AS should not be a neo nazi

Post Reply New Topic

To me whether Trump is a bigot or just intentionally appealing to them is irrelevant to the damage he is causing.

As far as “Nazi” and “Neo Nazi” is concerned my preference is that we do away with the euphemism “Neo” completely and just call them Nazis. But what has happened are two concurrent things the overuse of “neo nazi” to describe all sorts of viewpoints and using “neo” to describe any current person or group who subscribes to Nazi beliefs leaving “Nazi” to someone who actually participated in the Third Reich. What is the difference between a current person who believes in Nazi ideals and a participant in the Third Reich? Power to carry out a Nazi program either as a leader or a participant in a group in a meaningful way. Even terrorism that kills thousands does not automatically do that.

Probably not irrelevant as they have the potential to carry out very deadly terror attacks but this is what I have been unsuccessfully trying to get at. I just think they are a lot less relevant then the “wokes” at the moment. And not just real Nazis but white nationalists/separatists etc. in general.

And the rest of your post I did not quote is pretty spot on also.

This seems like a weird definition of "tiny and irrelevant".
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Also I love the implication that conservatives can't be "woke" too. The substance of the "woke-ness" just changes. There will always be "clever" people who think they have some grand insight to the wider world - there's people like that on here every day - acting like cos they made a statement that seems logical on the surface or makes sense to them, it somehow inherently reveals truth in the process. Like the conserva-woke idea that "the rich elite are using their money to buy off the poor and lazy to enforce their new world order", not even realizing that now they're quoting Klan ideology.

While it's true that extremists exist in all walks of life, not all extremists are equal. Acting like all sides are equally bad is laughable at best, and a risky lie at worst. Besides, the argument usually goes, "both sides are equally bad, but my side is still better!" "Both sides!" is the card played by the side who's so bad, they can't even attempt to hide it, so their only escape / excuse remaining is to claim that the other side is just as bad, so it's a justified response.

Both sides *are* bad, in their own way - because every human is human, and nobody is without fault - there are plenty of "liberals" who are only liberal for how it can benefit them, just like there are plenty of conservatives who are only conservative because of how it benefits them - motivated self-interest is not a rare trait, least of all among those who seek power. It's not like there's two distinct and opposite camps. There's just people. But people get hung up on labels, and power, and rationalizations, and convince themselves of the rightness of what they're doing - because the easiest person to lie to is yourself.

Most people aren't as smart as they think they are. But they don't let that stop them.

A left-wing "authoritarian regime" is extremely unlikely here in the U.S.A. The left in general, "illiberal" or otherwise, is just NOT very politically powerful in this country. The Democratic Party has a small and vocal progressive wing; but, for the most part, the Dems are middle-of-the-road, not left-wing, whereas the Republican Party has steadily gone further and further to the right during my lifetime.

Perhaps the "illiberal left" looks more powerful than it really is, because it has managed to persuade some powerful institutions to go along with some aspects of its agenda -- primarily its ideas on etiquette (a.k.a. "political correctness"). However, apart from etiquette, the interests of corporate America are not generally aligned with the goals of the left wing.

Another reason why the left seems powerful these days is because there's one particular issue on which the left has gotten a lot of traction lately, namely police brutality. They've gotten traction on it because it's an obvious glaring horrible problem -- which has become much more obvious these days than it used to be, thanks to the ubiquity of smartphone cameras. Local governments are even going along with the idea of "De-fund the police!" (NOT a good solution, in my opinion) -- probably because, thanks to the economic fallout of the CoViD crisis, local governments now have little choice but to "de-fund" a lot of stuff anyway, including the police.

(By the way, please do NOT confuse the BLM protesters with the looters. For the most part, the looters are criminal gangs seizing an opportunity to get away with massive theft while the police are distracted by the protest marches/rallies. The protestors themselves are NOT the looters and are, for the most part, peaceful. However, IMO, the looters are a good example of why "de-funding the police" is NOT a good idea. I do think major police reform is needed, but the reforms will cost money.)

Anyhow, these days, the main people who actually have a chance of installing a "truly authoritarian regime" are today's Republicans. They're the ones currently struggling to maintain their grip on power and, in order to do so, pulling all sorts of shenanigans.

This is a great analysis!

How about: You should not be a Neo-Nazi because Neo-Nazis are racist bastards.

The small istsy bitsy problem is determining whom "them" is. I have seen claims that antifa shouldn't decide whom is fascist but the million dollar question is why fascist thinking is still around? Who gets to decide? or do the groups already announce their intentions? what intentions are fascist?

I'll pose a question whether people who have hierarchical thinking that they deserve to be treated better than other humans because of their "birth" are not already primed to be fascist?

There isn't a recruitment pool for people whom join far right groups. They come from a wide variety of backgrounds.

The only real issue is the use of the word neo-Nazi instead of the word fascist.

Not every fascist would want America to go to war with the entire world and redefining the term to only include the most extreme examples simply isn't an honest understanding of the topic.

Was every single German in 1933 a staunch supporter of the Nazi party and every single element of their ideology? Of course not. Did plenty of 'not quite Nazis' enable the Nazi party to come to power? Most certainly.

We shouldn't wait until after they've demonstrated themselves to be just as terrible as the OG Nazis because we said 'never again' and in order to mean it that means we have to act before the atrocities become comparable instead of hoping that maybe they'll just never go that far.

Mass exterminations aren't what defines fascism anyways so the American alt-right don't need to engage in them to qualify as actual legitimate fascists.

That's not an argument likely to convince someone who is already leaning in a neo-Nazi direction. I think the OP's original point was that being a neo-Nazi would clearly be against the interests of any autistic person.

This is what they've been ignoring. Oppression is oppression, even if these examples are irrelevant to WWII history, they're still occurring on a national scale & Trump still Facebooked us all nazi dog whistles.

Ah, that makes sense too.

Last edited by Whale_Tuune on 28 Oct 2020, 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So, are you saying nearly 50% of people who voted are neo-nazi sympathisers?

Last edited by Pepe on 28 Oct 2020, 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Some people consider parties like the GOP and the Tories to be fascist.

I would like to see the GOP go to the center or center-right, and have more Susan Collinses and fewer Ted Cruzes.

I voted for Biden.

Some do.



I'm sure that is a gross generalisation.
Most people, even Republicans, aren't in favour of murders.

The POTUS is....
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nation ... c-n1241581