Overuse of Nazi comparisons

Post Reply New Topic

Fascism isn't defined by either racism or by desiring to commit genocide, so one wouldn't need to engage in those behaviours to still fit the definition.

If fascists return I'll describe them as such and I'll deal with whatever consequences result when and if that situation occurs. You've made your position clear and I have made mine clear.

Until WrongPlanet members all agree to the same standardized definitions of "Nazi", "Fascist", and any other political affiliations, we will have these labels mis-applied to anyone who is not liked by someone else.

IMHO one does not have to open about their support of systematic murder of a group(s) and worldwide conquest by the white race to be a nazi but they have to have them because they are defining features of Nazism.

To be a fascist one does not "have to go that far"

You could say:
"Don't jump in front of things that aren't aimed at you"
"Just because someone puts it down doesn't mean you have to pick it up"
"If it's not yours, don't claim ownership of it"
"If it's that vague don't assume it means you"
"If it's that vague, ask"

Just a few examples. After all, you don't have to be the target, you just have to take the hit, to claim you're being "targeted".

When you see a comment, ask yourself is this comment true about you? If not, it's not about you. Taking offense to it makes it look like you are taking admission to it or else who would be offended if it is not directed at them nor does it describe them? Why assume it's directed at you if the comment doesn't describe you? It makes no sense.

EXACTLY

There's such a thing as a comment that's a lie about someone. In the case of the comment that keeps being talked about, I'll ask again, who else in this thread would "I'll get a good laugh out of getting banned from the outside by some dude who just walked in & played this card." be referring to? Who has the newest account in this thread?

There's the age old cop out game of claiming a comment was too vague to apply to some individual, even though it's pretty obvious. I remember when that game was played in the Dear "You"...From "Me" thread in the Haven to make vague attacks against certain members. One has to either be obtuse or in most cases pretend to be obtuse not to see who's being talked about.

Do you think one can preach fascism and stay within WP rules at the same time?

So you mean people who are no longer on WP?

Yes, I agree with that. But it isn't how Magz framed it, which is what I was challenging.

Often times I can't tell what comment is about another user or not. Only way it's obvious is if you are guilty of it so you know it's directed at you or if you saw that recent drama and then someone mentioned it in another thread.

If someone said something like "someone posted a thread about liking pine apples on pizza, I couldn't believe how many people in it were disgusting" I would look for that thread and read it and decide who is disgusting in it and if I see no comments indicating that, then that was just their opinion and feeling about that thread. I wouldn't know what users they were talking about. I don't blindly believe what people say about other users. Even if they show "proof," that is up for me to interpret their comments, not me deciding what the comments meant just because the accuser said so. The reason is because of how people interpret comments and language and not taking things literal so their assumption may be wrong about that user. This is why mods can't ban users here we don't like if we think they are bullies and attackers and they do it under a guise and have some ulterior motive. If they did just that, then lot of people would be getting banned someone someone misinterpreted their tone or posts and thought they were a troll or something. Even if the mod agrees with you about that user, they still can't ban them because that is their opinion of them and their interpretation of them. They have to be fair and principled. But on some places mods can ban whoever they want just because they can. They don't do that here.

If I had posted in it and I didn't think I was gross in it, maybe they were not talking about me. Same as when mods here often point out rules and give out warnings in a thread here, I have no idea if I did anything wrong. Since I don't think I broke any rules, I am not going to think it's directed at me. It would be anxiety if you always worried a comment here is always about you even if it's not true. "Oh no, did I post something gross in that thread, oh no."

I have seen that quite a lot here over the years where members worry a comment is about them so they start apologizing not knowing what they are sorry for. I even had to send a member here a PM once telling them they hadn't upset me and I wasn't talking about them when I made that one thread in The haven. But I am always puzzled by it because they never accused me of faking any feelings. And that one particular member did apologize to me so I forgave her.

And another thing I realized is when I used to take certain topics here and anywhere else personally and felt attacked by them, I realized I only felt that way because it was me feeling that way about my own diagnoses so I am so worried I come off as fake and not disabled enough for others. That was my own insecurity about myself so I was projecting it onto others and making it be about me. So this helps me understand why anyone else would make a comment be about them, they may be dealing with insecurity and are worried that is what people think of them. I had stopped taking it personally if anyone jumps on me when I make a comment and seem to taken offense. I realize this isn't me, it is them with their issue about how they feel about themselves. I mostly ignore it because it's too draining to deal with them and defending myself so I don't even care anymore.

If you're upset about the fact that people here were talking about Nazis and calling Trump one and you thought you were called one, are you worried you come off as one or worried people think you are one? Some may interpret that as you are admitting to being one while others may see that as insecurity about yourself.

Yes, I believe one can espouse fascist ideology without overstepping the forum's bounds or requiring immediate moderator attention. I wouldn't advocate that a poster who advocates for such be removed simply for espousing such ideas; that said regardless of whether or not the identify as such there's a pretty consistent definition and a poster who espouses such shouldn't be able to dodge the label because they prefer to be called a nationalist or a conservative or some other more acceptable term. It's messy if they're merely a fellow traveller, but if we have to give leeway for how people use political terms it should apply in both directions. If a poster is constantly labelling others as fascists unfairly correcting their usage should probably be the first step, someone who mostly agrees with them should do that favour, but failing that a mod.

I don't believe there have been any posters explicitly espousing such ideology as of recent. We have posters who have been more vocal but if they no longer express political opinions I'm not comfortable insisting they must still stand for what they once did. Further, they're entitled to be here even if what they stand for is disagreeable to some posters.

I don't believe I've referred to anyone as one, or even as sounding like one in this thread. That said, they come and go and it seems unreasonable to treat that phrase as the very worst slur one can be called when it's merely a label that describes a certain set of beliefs that do occasionally get espoused here, especially when so far all we've seen is one poster greatly twist another poster's words in order to claim he had been targeted with the phrase. If using that phrase is something that deserves punishment than so does falsely claiming someone applied it to you when they didn't.

Part of what worries me with the approach you're advocating for is that it would encourage the game we're already seeing where a poster twists another poster's words to make them look far worse than they actually were. We don't need another HE CALLED ME A MANGY DOG WITH FLEAS incident.

So no-one is a Nazi unless they explicitly tell you they are? Well I can't see a flaw in that logic. Oh, wait....

Fascism is a political and social mindset. If the defining characteristics of that mindset are all out there on display, beyond any reasonable doubt, there's nothing left to discuss. The fact that the person with that mindset hasn't necessarily hung a label on it, doesn't mean the label doesn't fit. Does a horse only become a horse if you hang a sign around its neck that says "HORSE"? And does doing so make any great difference to how it behaves?

We're seeing a huge rise in fascist / neo-Nazi populist propaganda at the moment, dressed up as completely new ideas. Ultra right wing views are becoming increasingly normalised in the media, such that many people don't understand the true gravity of what they're being drip-fed, or where it could all lead. This seems to be a particular blindspot in America at the moment, but there are echoes of it all round Europe. I wouldn't necessarily state "You're a fascist!" in those circumstances, but I'd certainly be drawing attention to the parallels, and asking what's different.

Strangely what often happens in those circumstances is blanket denial - a refusal to contemplate there might be anything to ponder. "If I ignore this uncomfortable post it'll go away!". Not really, the principles still exist whether you engage with them or not. It's revealing when an individual would rather ignore a list of political characteristics than go through them saying "yeah I agree with that, don't agree with that, partly agree with this one".

But of course there couldn't possibly be neo-Nazis in permanent denial out there, could there?

That's fair.
It looks like we're talking about different situations.

The "overuse" and "insult" situations I have in mind is when someone jumps to conclusions to label one as nazi/fascist based on... an equivalent of the incident you just mentioned.

Permanently playing the victim seems to be a big thing with the extreme right, at the moment. It's no different to slapping a kid round the back of the head, then saying "WHAT?" when they turn round. "Just because I want to exterminate the Muslims, they're all picking on me!". Aww bless, that's not very fair is it?

You've got to be concerned when even the Pope is warning about "extremist, resentful and aggressive nationalism" - especially as the Catholic Church has some previous form there.

"The Pope he got the Nazis, to clean up their messes.
In exchange for gold and paintings, he gave them new addresses"

as Shaun Ryder once sang.

If the Vatican is getting edgy, something's up.

I guess it's fair to ask, how often have you seen that happen? Does it ever get reported? If it's a problem obviously it needs to be addressed, but how much of a problem is it at the moment? And does it mostly only ever occur when there's posters who do fit the term and others come to their defence?

Perhaps we could track reports, as well as how the reports were ultimately judged to see if it actually is a problem or if it's just being used as an excuse for some posters to shut down those who disagree with them.

In the hypothetical where a poster is expressing their support for a group like the Proud Boys, that poster will likely end up being called that but their actions kind of support the label. If another (more mainstream conservative) poster gets involved in defending Poster 1 they might in the context of that conflict appear to be sympathizing with fascism when it's more fair to say they're sympathizing with a fascist (as one of them, not all of them).

That would be a mess to moderate because Poster 2 probably isn't a fascist or a fascist sympathizer broadly, but they're literally doing exactly that on an individual level and pointing that out shouldn't warrant punishment even though it's predictable that hurt feelings will result.

For what it's with OP has commented that we all have missed his angle because we started bickering about (mostly old) drama on here and didn't realize he meant in the world beyond WP.

I'm sure you can understand why I'm touchy about posters twisting each others words in order to make reports given how it was done to me a few months back.

There's other posters who do that in order to make a strawman they can defeat instead of dealing with the actual quote and that's also a problem that should be dealt with, although since that isn't done to manipulate moderation into acting against anyone it's not quite the same problem.

I totally know who you are talking about and referring too because I saw that being mentioned in another thread back in August.

Don't worry I didn't blindly believe that user when they made that claim. I thought they were speaking hypothetically, not that it actually happened. Then I took it as a grain of salt when it turned out they meant it for real and I would need to see that thread and post for me to judge. I am aware of word twisting and different interpretations.