Overuse of Nazi comparisons

Post Reply New Topic

I believe it comes down to the bullying issue that's been brought up in the past Magz. It seems that the "certain posters" feel it's their job to bully off anyone they think is a nazi, fascist, racist etc. And also anyone who they perceive as standing in their righteous way. Which of course creates a toxic environment.

As one member in good standing who left WP said, "It's in your face everywhere you go".

If you speak against it you're censoring them, trying to enable fascism and racism etc. All the people who have left WP were all part of it and good riddance to them. At least that's what it seems like to me.

Since when did disagreement amount to bullying?

I'm personally familiar with bullying on here and thankfully those bullies failed at having me banned because it became clear who the aggressor was.

I got told off for calling a comment 'ignorant' so no, I don't think people are specifically saying 'so and so is a racist' on any long term basis. Name calling is seen as bad here.

At least when it comes to other users.

Someone like Trump ISNT another user (afaik... aspies rarely get far in politics tbh so I doubt there's any world leaders on here...)

We have no power at all over WP past.
Everyone of us have some limited influence over WP present and future.

Unless saying racist things is their special interest, that should be censored since it violates the rules here.

Calling someone out for having racist or sexist views isn't bullying, it's reflecting their truth back at them. If they get upset by that, then they have some serious internal ideological conflicts to sort out.

I agree there's a risk of bullying if a post is taken way out of hand, and blown up out of proportion. But having said that, with discrimination it's pretty cut and dried. You're either a racist or you're not, for example. A part-time racist is still a racist, by definition.

I know it's too late. But it's irksome to me and I needed to get it off my chest. I'm sorry about that. I'll try not to harp on it.

I'm bowled over by some poster's sincere concerns for the deepest inner feelings of a fascist who locks Hispanic kids in cages, violates freedom of religion, aggrandizes extra-judicial killings & mocks everyone here.

Standing up for your own rights is not the same thing as creating a police state which claims to do so.

One thing I have learned on the internet over the years is there is good bullying and bad bullying.

The good bullies stand up for themselves against other bullies and they stand up for human rights and stand against bigotry and fight against it. They do call outs on bad actions and bad opinions (eg. homophobia, transphobia, racism, classism, misogyny).

No, it's not cut and dry. It can be highly subjective and entirely up to interpretation based on perceived subtleties ie what they consider veiled racism which can be whatever they decide it is. Really if you're not entirely on their side, you've already slipped into that territory.

Or anything the righteous bullies decide comes anywhere close to any of that. The way to keep picking people off is to keep broadening what qualifies.

Exactly.

I think the era of Trump has become pretty much cultlike with some of his more ardent fans tbh.

These Trump supporters need to start thinking of themselves more as (which the right traditionally likes) individuals with ideological viewpoints and less like Trump Fans. What will happen when he leaves office? Will they still hang onto his every word? What about next time America elects a Republican? Will these uber loyalists still obsess over Trump?

It's not healthy. Corbyn is one of my favourite politicians & if he was PM (I wish) then got voted out, I would hope he left number 10 with dignity rather than insisting it never happened. Otherwise he'd be a Communist Dictator rather than a Labour PM and I would stop supporting him.

Some people have really fast and loose definitions of "bullying". Some people seem to consider "bullying" to mean, "not letting me be right" or "disagreeing with me" or "not letting me have the last word".

I remember when people used to whine and cry about LIBEL! and SLANDER! on this forum - there wasn't any - but people still cried about it.

I've had someone try to tell me that since they have reading problems, it wasn't "fair" that I was arguing so effectively, with long and thorough explanations, so would I mind arguing "worse" so it would be more "fair" or something...

If you're concerned about "bullying", report it. Simple.

I don't know about you but plenty of the posters you'd likely include in this bloc are pretty blunt in their disagreements among themselves as well.

For that matter most accusations of racism do get explained unless it's something that's been pointed out and explained repeatedly in the past. This is an accusation that a few posters like to make over and over again but it's largely not true in practice even if it gets defended in theory. Further, posters who might ask naively insensitive questions tend to be given the benefit of the doubt when they seem genuinely interested in learning.

The backlash might appear disproportionate but that's largely a result of significant transgressions being noticed by a wide swath of that section's userbase. How often is it one poster being especially vitriolic vs a mass of comments from several posters? It might be wise to consider when one's comment is redundant in those cases.

Most aren't any more cult-like devoted to Trump than people have been to past presidents. That's mostly just a propagandist narrative. And it's been applied during each presidency. There was an "Obama cult" too and "Obama was a dictator" also. Just Google those terms for Obama era articles if you don't believe me.

Last edited by Tempus Fugit on 23 Nov 2020, 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not really, because the definitions of racism encompass those grey areas. So for example the individual (as opposed to institutional) definition of "racism" in the Cambridge Dictionary reads:

"harmful or unfair things that people say, do, or think based on the belief that their own race makes them more intelligent, good, moral, etc. than people of other races"

How harmful or unfair those words are, or to what extent you believe in racial superiority (beyond the fact you do), doesn't matter.

In situations where there's implied racism (or an allegation thereof), simple clarification of what was meant should suffice. I agree some people do get triggered by simple facts. For example it's a known phenomenon that Afro-Caribbean males in the UK have been disproportionately affected by Covid-19. There's nothing wrong in stating that as a fact. It would however be racist to then make some spurious point about genetic weakness / superiority off the back of it. But it's not hard to tell the difference between the two, is it?

Last edited by Redd_Kross on 23 Nov 2020, 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.