Overuse of Nazi comparisons

Post Reply New Topic

That's because you don't know what this word means & you're too focused on the semantics rather than the reality that people all over the world have been affected by fascism & racism. You say they're not here. Great. You sure seem to be creating an environment where fascism is blended in.

It's a lot easier to insist that there's no racist posters here if we're just expected to pretend that posters who express opinions that sound racist aren't actually racist. They're just free-thinkers and anyone who disagrees with that take is a totalitarian engaging in groupthink.

So it's "we" now instead of "certain members". Who all is we? Are there meetings?

I tried getting free thinkers to form their own convictions before. They are parrots straight to the bone.

There is a spectrrum of from-mild-to-severe racist opinions regularily posted on WP.
I recommend identifying opinions as racist (preferably with explanation, I believe most people are unaware of their own biases) over calling posters racist. It's just much more productive.

'we' = this community

Do you normally struggle this much with pronouns or are you just pretending? I don't wish to mock you if you really just need help with reading English.

If it's once or twice, it's fair to discuss it as an opinion. If it's consistent it's fair to call it what it is instead of worrying about how fragile their ego might be.

Further, if it's acted upon by moderation quickly that reduces the need for posters who aren't mods to speak up. When that doesn't occur you can expect people to point out that it's unwelcome here. If a poster doesn't wish to be known for racism they're free to not post racist opinions here. Once they choose to do so it's their own damn fault if that's the reputation they earn.

It was already specified by you as being contained to "certain posters" within the community.

"So what you're saying is that you'd like an autism board to censor certain posters from discussing their special interest?"

Last edited by Tempus Fugit on 23 Nov 2020, 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's indicative of how far to the right American politics has shifted, that it now appears to be ok to give a platform to extreme right wing views in the interests of keeping things "fair".

Why permit anyone pedalling hatred, intolerance, elitism, discrimination and other very obviously antisocial and uncivilised beliefs an outlet?

The extra layer of hypocrisy here is the huge wailing and gnashing of teeth whenever anything left of the modern US Democrat Party is mentioned.

The two great cons of the alt-right.

No.1 - greed is good, and anyone wishing to help anybody else (unless they're a tax-dodging multinational corporation) is a Communist and therefore evil.

No.2 - all of the injustices in society can be quickly and easily sorted out through the introduction of even greater injustices.

There is a nicely worded paragraph on the origins of Nazism on Wiki, which reads:

"The historical roots of Nazism are to be found in various elements of European political culture which were in circulation in the intellectual capitals of the continent, what Joachim Fest called the "scrapheap of ideas" prevalent at the time. In Hitler and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic, historian Martin Broszat points out that:

[A]lmost all essential elements of ... Nazi ideology were to be found in the radical positions of ideological protest movements [in pre-1914 Germany]. These were: a virulent anti-Semitism, a blood-and-soil ideology, the notion of a master race, [and] the idea of territorial acquisition and settlement in the East. These ideas were embedded in a popular nationalism which was vigorously anti-modernist, anti-humanist and pseudo-religious.

Brought together, the result was an anti-intellectual and politically semi-illiterate ideology lacking cohesion, a product of mass culture which allowed its followers emotional attachment and offered a simplified and easily-digestible world-view based on a political mythology for the masses."

The introduction to the Wiki page on Nazism also notes, "Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its creed."

Just as a reminder, Facism is defined as "..a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

In modern terms, a Neo-Nazi is therefore someone who promotes the following:

1. white supremacy
2. national supremacy
3. male supremacy
4. heterosexual supremacy
5. authoritarianism
6. the desirability of hierarchy, inequality, and Darwinist "survival of the fittest"
7. misappropriated patriotism (whereby being anti-Nazi is portrayed as being anti- the nation state)
8. overly simplistic, popularist rhetoric based around sound bites and "spin"
9. anti-humanist
10. anti-Liberal
11. anti-Marxist
12. anti-anarchist
13. anti-science
14. anti-intellectual, anti-academia, anti-expert and anti-fact
15. a tendency to deliberately jumble up groups 9 to 14
16. pseudo-religious
17. pseudo-moral, in a totalitarian fashion (you must surrender individual control for the greater good of the nation)
18. notions of regaining past glories and reasserting "traditional" values
19. an overtly confrontational, aggressive leadership style
20. blatant disregard for the democratic process
21. disregard, ridicule and oppression of political opponents

Also worth remembering that "Hitler and other Nazi legal theorists were inspired by America's institutional racism and saw it as the model to follow. In particular, they saw it as a model for the expansion of territory and the elimination of indigenous inhabitants therefrom, for laws denying full citizenship for blacks, which they wanted to implement also against Jews, and for racist immigration laws banning some races. In "Mein Kampf" Hitler extolled America as the only contemporary example of a country with racist ("völkisch") citizenship statutes in the 1920s, and Nazi lawyers made use of the American models in crafting laws for Nazi Germany. U.S. citizenship laws and anti-miscegenation laws directly inspired the two principal Nuremberg Laws—the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law."

Have a think about what this all means. In particular where America is now, compared to where Germany was in the 1920s and 30s. They're not very far apart at all. Most tellingly, the control of the media is so tight that this is being normalised as good ole' American values, rather than being pointed out for what it is. Though even Fox seem to be waking up now, so maybe there is some hope?

Last edited by Redd_Kross on 23 Nov 2020, 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, if demeaning PoC and placing the interests and well-being of whites ahead of all others is their special interest, yes, I'd prefer for that view to be censored because that view being tolerated makes this place inherently less welcoming to PoC. Tolerating it amounts to placing those people's interests ahead of those they're making the forum less welcoming to.

Here a Neo-Nazi is whomever the "certain posters" team decides is a Neo-Nazi one way or another and then they go to work on that person.

You're entitled to this opinion even if it's objectively false. If it were true you could prove it.

The whole routine has caused or at least greatly added to the general air of toxicity that many former members complained about before leaving. I'm guessing the "certain posters" consider that to be a victory.

Last edited by Tempus Fugit on 23 Nov 2020, 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Use the report button. There is only a handful of moderators and while we try to act quickly - it really helps prevent harmful escalations - we don't read all posts in all discussions.

You're only being backed into an imaginary corner. If you choose to behave as persona non grata, we will tell you. For now you're just dancing on that line as if it implies no association with the fascist alt-right. Insisting that a problem is not present on the internet is just as dumb as insisting it's not a problem in real life.

Do you really believe that none of those posters have never contributed to the toxic atmosphere or to posters choosing to leave?

That 'toxic atmosphere' has existed for quite awhile and some of those posters were part of the problem. Just because you'd prefer that they would have succeeded in driving off other posters instead of being driven off doesn't change that they were part of what created the toxic atmosphere.

But please, tell everyone how it's entirely the fault of the posters you personally disagree with and not at all contributed to by posters you do agree with.