(10-06-2023, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, it was clearly directed at Hollo, as he asked for a statement from a Dem that echoed Stalinist ideals in the same way Trump's statements echoed Nazi ideals. This is not, of course, to say you aren't free to respond to it, but you asked for the context in which my post was made. So, we both agree that Hillary's statement was egregiously stupid, in the same way as Trump's. Even so, would I compare Hillary to Stalin or Pol Pot? Is it fair to lump Hillary, as odious as she is, in with dictators responsible for mass murder and other horrifying acts? No, it is not. Her words may echo theirs in ways, much as Trump's words echo others, but such an extreme comparison is not warranted and is only made to paint the person, and by extension their supporters, as being in lock step with some of the most horrifying regimes the planet has ever seen.
I have consistently stated I loathe Nazi comparisons as they are far too extreme. They carry far too much baggage, especially for how casually, and comfortably, some people make these comparisons. Did Trump say something that could have come out of the mouth of a national socialist? Yes. Did Hillary say something that could have come out of the mouth of a Stalinist? Yes. Is comparing either of them to those extreme ideologies, especially given the horrors those ideologies enacted on others, a fair or even wise thing to do? I say absolutely not, and anyone willing to traffic in them really needs to examine why they are so comfortable equating those with whom they disagree to the worst people humanity has to ever had to offer.
I'd argue Hillary's comments about reeducation camps are more along the lines of the parts of our own glorious history during WWII that we like to pretend didn't happen. So basically Trump is echoing the Nazis and Hillary is sounding like the most uncomfortable side of FDR. It's the worst of WWII from both sides of the coin.
We can disagree in how apt we think these comparisons are. I feel like Hitler's playbook is becoming more and more acceptable in this country because it gets results. My discomfort with this stuff comes down to us having 2 political parties, one having an easy-mode into power, and our blind loyalties to our parties being used against us, as I see it.
But as long as this stuff plays well with Americans, why not just admit that we're soft on Nazism? If the Germans can shake it, we can catch it.
(10-06-2023, 11:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: That's some pretty ridiculous shit, and if she were leading the democratic primaries by like 60 points I'd be even more disillusioned with our two party crap fest than I already am. Hilly sucked, Hillary lost, and one low bar I'll say the democrats passed is that they aren't insisting she needs to be president while she says shit like this.
Then again, Biden has another year or so to say the same thing. It'd be fitting if the 2024 election were "I'll put them in camps" versus "I'll keep our blood pure."
Maybe you were posting that for someone else, but I assure you that seeing democrats say stuff like this doesn't soften my stance on the GOP laying down and/or applauding while Trump does it. If anything this just further bolsters my self-fellating for voting for Gary Johnson in 2016. Is that a pun? Didn't mean it to be if it is.
(10-05-2023, 09:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: It was a widely overused accusation. But that weird people use it to bully cops etc. does not mean that the accusation now lost all its meaning in any case. There are still cases of actual Nazi language around, after all.
First, I wish it was just "weird" people who casually hurl these accusations. They occur far too often to only be the purview of the "weird". Yes, there are times in which a person can echo sentiments from national socialism or Stalinist communism. But echoing of certain sentiments is not, IMO, sufficient cause to attempt to equate them with either ideology as a whole. As I stated before, both regimes committed unspeakable atrocities, thus any comparison to them is also a comparison to those atrocities. That being the case, unless you are echoing the very worst aspects of these ideologies; e.g. "X" race is evil and needs to be exterminated, or the "ruling class" is evil and needs to be exterminated, such a comparison is unfair due to the extreme baggage that so obviously accompanies it.
Quote:Probably not. But that also has little to do with the case at hand.
Oh, I completely disagree. If you're going to traffic in these types of comparisons then who you target and why becomes very important. Why, because it determines your intent. If you apply these labels to one person, or group, but not to another, especially one that the comparisons is more apt, then one is left to ask why in one case and not the other? In this case the answer is clear, because doing it against Trump attacks people you disagree with and doing it in the other alienates people who are on your side. So, if we're discussing why these comparisons are made, and if they should be made at all, this comparison is absolutely germane to the subject at hand.
Quote:Yes, but this is not about Trump or anyone being opposed to immigration. It's about him using Nazi phrases while doing so. Quite literal Nazi phrases. Btw. it might be another coincidence (it would still be horrible language, imho), or he gets ideas from the wrong kind of people.
You asked for examples of Dems engaging in this type of behavior. Aside from Hillary giving me an absolute gift in this regard last night (which I addressed in an above post), I'll use Ilhan Omar, who has more than once echoed Nazi propaganda on the subject of Jewish people. In one instance accusing Israel of "hypnotizing" the world, a direct Nazi propaganda concept, and in another equating them to using wealth to bribe others into compliance, yet another antisemitic trope ripped right from the pages of The Daily Stormer. Even so, while I certainly believe that Omar is an antisemite, I would not equate her to the Nazis, despite her apparent comfort in espousing tropes taken directly from their anti-Jewish propaganda. Why, because while I believe her to be bigoted towards Jews I do not think she is a proponent of national socialism. Again, she may echo their sentiments on this topic, but the Nazi comparison is far too loaded and carries far too much weight.
Quote:Sure. A Nazi regime in the strictest sense will never materialize as such again, so every comparison will fail at some point; but certain elements can. Tropes like the language used. Pointing to rhetorical duplicates does not necessarily mean the ones using the Nazi language are themselves to be seen as actual Nazis now. But these tropes can still be seen as typical for rising anti-democratic, populist authoritarian forces, or fascists if you will. Many of whom used and use certain pages from the Nazi playbook, especially language-wise.
Well, if we're using propaganda as a benchmark than North Korea is more Nazi than the Nazis themselves. The point isn't whether someone, or some regime echoes certain aspects of that regime, or Stalinism, it's whether echoing some parts of it justifies equating that person the the ideology as a whole. Because whether you like it or not, when you make the comparison you're doing it completely, in every aspect. Very, very few people are nuanced enough to see such a comparison and think, "well, they certainly did echo Nazi sentiments with that statement, but I will, of course, rationally disconnect that comparison to the worst atrocities of the Nazi regime when I consider this comparison". This simply does not happen. The very reason the comparison is used is to fully equate the person in question to every aspect of that regime. Even if that is not the intent, it is the effect you will achieve.
Quote:I don't know if it makes any sense to make Nazi-China comparisons, that's a completely different culture with a completely different history and I can not quite comment on their rhetoric. But they certainly fall under the authoritarian category and that is debated plenty. Sweet Baerbock called Xi a dictator recently and imho that shoe fits well enough.
The culture is immaterial. Do they mirror the actual actions of the Nazi regime is the question at hand. Do they round up political dissidents and either "reeducate" them or kill them? Yes. Do they actively stifle any dissent, often in brutal ways? Yes. Do they use the citizenry to spy on each other and report "anti-state" behavior to the authorities? Yes. Do they place "undesirable" ethnicities in concentration camps and then exterminate them? Again yes. Do they engage in provocative and aggressive behavior with neighboring states, claiming their territories as their own? Yes.
These are the ways in which a comparison to the Nazis is warranted, by adhering to their worst excesses. Making the comparison for far lesser reasons whilst ignoring a far more apt, and richly deserved, example again just exposes the real reason the comparison is made. To slap a label on those with which you disagree. And in this case the absolute worst label that can be applied.
Quote:I mean, by all means, do it. There's a chance that afterwards I will still not see the left as close to the worst excesses of communism as I see Trump to fascism, but I'm comfortable with any decent counterpoint. If AOC used a common phrase from Stalin, for example, you'd have a splendid comparison.
I did with Omar, and again with Hillary in another post. I could certainly find more examples, but I think this will suffice to move the conversation forward. Looking forward to your reply. No hurry, of course.
(10-06-2023, 01:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd argue Hillary's comments about reeducation camps are more along the lines of the parts of our own glorious history during WWII that we like to pretend didn't happen. So basically Trump is echoing the Nazis and Hillary is sounding like the most uncomfortable side of FDR. It's the worst of WWII from both sides of the coin.
The Japanese were placed in internment camps, not re-education camps. As awful as they both are there is a distinct and very important difference.
Quote:We can disagree in how apt we think these comparisons are. I feel like Hitler's playbook is becoming more and more acceptable in this country because it gets results. My discomfort with this stuff comes down to us having 2 political parties, one having an easy-mode into power, and our blind loyalties to our parties being used against us, as I see it.
It depends on what you mean by Hitler's playbook. Do you mean demagoguery? Because that's been around far longer than Hitler and has been used in this country way before the rise of national socialism. Do you mean the concept of telling egregious lies? I would again refer you to the sentence above. You mean using xenophobia? I trust the point is being made.
Quote:But as long as this stuff plays well with Americans, why not just admit that we're soft on Nazism? If the Germans can shake it, we can catch it.
Why? Because we're not soft on Nazism. No one is advocating for annexing parts of Canada. No one is advocating for the rounding up and extermination of undesirable ethnicities of people with disabilities. The Nazis did not invent the things your referring to, nor have they been their sole practitioners in the last hundred years. This is why the comparison is both dangerous and utterly flawed. The Nazis didn't invent these concepts, they used them because they work and always have. As I said to Hollo above, a comparison to the Nazis automatically encapsulates every aspect of the Nazi regime. There is no chance such an accusation is made but followed up with, "well, you're not a Nazi in x,y and z manner." If you're making the comparison then you're making the comparison, it's not a buffet line where you get to pick the aspects you use for the comparison and everyone will ignore what you chose not to use. You're either all in or don't make them, because that's the effect you're going to have.
The short of it is the concept of "You are suffering and it is due in no small part to entire group of people X and Y and Z." Is that something only the Nazis did? No, but it's like the way All Alone In the Watchtower was a Bob Dylan song, but you can't really fault people for thinking of Jimi Hendrix when you mention it. Who did it first? Who did it best? Who did it most recently?
Also, we can look at this single statement from Trump and talk it away, but revelation by compilation prevents a lot of folks from not thinking of other "kinda Nazi" stuff that's been mingling with our mainstream politics lately. As I've said before, this seems to coincide with the WII generation finally being gone and us just regressing towards what is convenient. It's convenient to use and it's convenient to ignore and dismiss as hyperbole in implementation and critique.
We're all more lazy than anything else, I guess. Anywho, I hope you're right and the Nazi playbook creeping into our political system and being desired by our populace is merely me pulling a chicken little and seeing ghosts of Hitler. I wasn't around for LBJ vs Goldwater, and I guess that was pretty heated too so maybe I'm just convincing myself to worry and things are smoother than I think.
(10-06-2023, 01:18 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd argue Hillary's comments about reeducation camps are more along the lines of the parts of our own glorious history during WWII that we like to pretend didn't happen. So basically Trump is echoing the Nazis and Hillary is sounding like the most uncomfortable side of FDR. It's the worst of WWII from both sides of the coin.
It's important to note that Hillary makes no mention of "reeducation camps". Hillary used the word "deprogramming". And while there is certainly a significantly problematic history associated with that word, it was coined in the 70s and is associated with (often misguided) attempts to rehabilitate people that were under the influence (perceived or actual) of cults or new religious movements.
Still undoubtedly a pretty abhorrent choice of words from Clinton (rehabilitation would have landed heaps better) but to try and associate it with Stalin or Pol Pot or any organized government movement is a pretty flimsy attempt to open the window for a whataboutism argument.
(10-06-2023, 02:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The short of it is the concept of "You are suffering and it is due in no small part to entire group of people X and Y and Z." Is that something only the Nazis did? No, but it's like the way All Alone In the Watchtower was a Bob Dylan song, but you can't really fault people for thinking of Jimi Hendrix when you mention it. Who did it first? Who did it best? Who did it most recently?
There's some good points here, but I don't think it gets you over the hill. One could easily argue that the Soviets succeeded at all of this on a far greater scale than the Nazis, and certainly for a much longer time. Interestingly enough the Soviets are still looked up to and emulated by far left, uneducated edge lords. One can certainly wear a Soviet shirt in public without much fear of reprisal. Not so much with national socialism. I think the actual answer is that Nazi comparison are easy to make, as they are so extreme. They're the fall back of the intellectually lazy and those uninterested in actual discussion or debate, simply because the allegation is so charged it's a conversation stopper. It also instantly frames the accuser as the "god guy" even when they clearly are not to the impartial observer.
Quote:Also, we can look at this single statement from Trump and talk it away, but revelation by compilation prevents a lot of folks from not thinking of other "kinda Nazi" stuff that's been mingling with our mainstream politics lately. As I've said before, this seems to coincide with the WII generation finally being gone and us just regressing towards what is convenient. It's convenient to use and it's convenient to ignore and dismiss as hyperbole in implementation and critique.
Again, one can mirror certain aspects of national socialism without warranting a full blown comparison. Any nationalist movement, and if one is so inclined even patriotism, can be equated to national socialism in the same way. Also, would the Nazi comparison be made as it is in this thread if immigrants to this country were largely Caucasian? Somehow I don't think so, despite the Nazis being largely concerned with "lesser" examples of white people, such as Slavs. Also, your last sentence perfectly encapsulates the people who use these comparisons as well.
Quote:We're all more lazy than anything else, I guess. Anywho, I hope you're right and the Nazi playbook creeping into our political system and being desired by our populace is merely me pulling a chicken little and seeing ghosts of Hitler. I wasn't around for LBJ vs Goldwater, and I guess that was pretty heated too so maybe I'm just convincing myself to worry and things are smoother than I think.
This kind of thing is hardly confined to Trump. Biden's constant harping about the dangers of "white supremacy", which is largely interpreted by the far left as any white person who dares not hate themselves, is easily as racially divisive as anything Trump has said. I've said this in previously, the past three years have been very revealing as to the extent of racism that is expressed and held by people who are not Caucasian. It got so bad they literally had to change the definition of racism to avoid being rightfully labeled as one.
As for Nazism, or even an approximate, taking hold here, I wouldn't be concerned. The series of events that led to the rise of national socialism were a literal perfect storm. Even so, the Nazi party was losing momentum and fading when Hitler was made chancellor due to the back room dealings of Franz von Papen, who vainly hoped to stay in power by puppet mastering Hitler. Without his machinations Hitler would never have become chancellor and the Nazi party would have faded into obscurity. And this is in a country with a long history of authoritarianism and no tradition of personal freedom or democracy. Both of which the US has in spades.
(10-06-2023, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First, I wish it was just "weird" people who casually hurl these accusations. They occur far too often to only be the purview of the "weird".
As I said, it was way overused and there are many strange people around who shout Nazi at everyone who does not align with them, and cops certainly are a particularly common enemy of the ideologically blinded. Sorry for saying "weird", it's just a term, that expresses that while I do not doubt such instances repeat themselves often, it is still not how a common person would act.
(10-06-2023, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, there are times in which a person can echo sentiments from national socialism or Stalinist communism. But echoing of certain sentiments is not, IMO, sufficient cause to attempt to equate them with either ideology as a whole.
I don't think anyone here tried to equate Trump with the Nazi ideology as a whole. I for one made quite an effort to make that distinction clear, and I diid not see anyone else claim that Trump is in fact a Nazi.
Which leads me to the main point of the evening, there also are lots of unfair communism or Stalinism or antisemitism accusations around. But that does not mean one can not complain about Omar's language and she has now a free pass. And you do not, you critizise her harshly over it, and I don't quite see the huge qualitative distinction between her case and the Trump case. If you have issues with her using her kind of language, I don't think you can scold folks for doing the same thing when it comes to Trump. You might say Nazi is in a sense even worse or carries even more baggage, and that is true. But what is the alternative when Trump or anyone actually uses Nazi phrases, are folks expected to be silent about it unless it's really while standing under a swastika with a raised arm and shouting Sieg Heil? I do not think that is a reasonable reaction to the indeed blatant overuse of the Nazi accusation.
(10-06-2023, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I stated before, both regimes committed unspeakable atrocities, thus any comparison to them is also a comparison to those atrocities.
I don't think that is true. A comparison of his phrases to Nazi phrases does not mean I accuse Trump of wanting to murder all Jews. I do not believe that. That does not mean I can not mention him doing it and possibly serving certain sentiments that have some closeness to the ideology.
(10-06-2023, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I completely disagree. If you're going to traffic in these types of comparisons then who you target and why becomes very important. Why, because it determines your intent. If you apply these labels to one person, or group, but not to another, especially one that the comparisons is more apt, then one is left to ask why in one case and not the other? In this case the answer is clear, because doing it against Trump attacks people you disagree with and doing it in the other alienates people who are on your side.
Well, I'd argue let's go after Omar and Hillary and Trump for their respective dubious tropes, they all deserve critizism (I would personally see Trump as the worst offender of the three, but these nuances don't really matter). Using your own point made here, I can just as well argue that anyone who crosses any name from the list, including Trump's name, does so for reasons of ideology and shows his intent.
On the specific example, there's also the issue that all spotlight is on Trump while most people including me won't know much about the groups [La Raza] you mentioned. They are fringe like the proud boys; Trump or Hillary or Omar are not. Especially Trump of course, he is the one running for POTUS. Of course he draws additional scrutiny and one does not have to conclude every critizism with the words "but, of course, similar things must be said about our own fringe - and sadly maybe not always all that fringe - elements within the left". That such issues exist, well, I'd have no problem with a thread addressing those issues either. They just don't always have to mix.
(10-06-2023, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, if we're using propaganda as a benchmark than North Korea is more Nazi than the Nazis themselves. The point isn't whether someone, or some regime echoes certain aspects of that regime, or Stalinism, it's whether echoing some parts of it justifies equating that person the the ideology as a whole. Because whether you like it or not, when you make the comparison you're doing it completely, in every aspect. Very, very few people are nuanced enough to see such a comparison and think, "well, they certainly did echo Nazi sentiments with that statement, but I will, of course, rationally disconnect that comparison to the worst atrocities of the Nazi regime when I consider this comparison". This simply does not happen. The very reason the comparison is used is to fully equate the person in question to every aspect of that regime. Even if that is not the intent, it is the effect you will achieve.
I have a wholly different take on this, as stated before. Honestly, in this thread the only person who claims the OP, intentionally or not, effectively fully equates Trump to every aspect of the Nazi regime is you. Most other people here (except for those that just want to slam liberal threads) seem to be nuanced enough to get that this is not what he was doing or intended to do. If folks take it an other way, it can be explained and most fair-minded people will at least see the explanation as valid, even when they do not agree.
You yourself are among those, as you said, very few people that is nuanced enough to rationally disconnect Nazi phrases from every aspect of Nazi atrocities. Because you very well can follow me on that path rationally. You just still seem to insist that other people can not. And sure some probably can't, but what gives. They should not dominate the path of the conversation.
(10-06-2023, 01:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The culture is immaterial. Do they mirror the actual actions of the Nazi regime is the question at hand. Do they round up political dissidents and either "reeducate" them or kill them? Yes. Do they actively stifle any dissent, often in brutal ways? Yes. Do they use the citizenry to spy on each other and report "anti-state" behavior to the authorities? Yes. Do they place "undesirable" ethnicities in concentration camps and then exterminate them? Again yes. Do they engage in provocative and aggressive behavior with neighboring states, claiming their territories as their own? Yes.
I totally get your rationale. It's just, still any references to the Nazi regime will fail on a rhetorical level, for indeed most people associate Nazi ideology with the supremacy of the anglo-saxon (or Aryan, to be precise) race, and hence for China and Korea other unflattering terms and comparisons are applied. I mean, everything you said about China can be said about the Stalin regime on an even larger scale, and still we do not call them a Nazi regime either. We call them a communist regime and are fine with it. Same with China. When Xi comes out and shouts our honour means loyalty, I might reconsider.
The Nazi comparison, in this case, stems from using a phrase commonly used by Nazis (and again, even if it is coincidental the language used by Trump here is abhorrent to me - I feel that should be mentioned plenty). And also from the observation that Trump is a repeated offender, like when he called the press the enemy of the people, sees very fine people within white supremaacist's ranks, gets endorsed by far-right Naziesque groups and then some (at least that's my perspective). It does not exactly fall out of thin air. For sure, my personal opinion would be that he is taking tropes from questionable sources and is too gullible and reckless to reflect before repeating them as his own. "Just" that. But please let me mention he uses Nazi phrases when he uses Nazi phrases, I'd urge you to do the same when any liberal does it.
So, a little context to what Hillary Clinton said:
Starts about 1:30 where she is talking about the small group of "MAGA extremists in congress" who taking their marching orders from P01335809 and suggests that to get them to stop doing that they may at some point will need a "formal deprogramming" of the cult members.
The idea of "camps" is purely speculative and created to make a connection to groups in order to make what P01135809 said seem less shocking.
Had she said they need to be sent to the Gulags I'd see a comparison. However she didn't and there isn't.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-07-2023, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: So, a little context to what Hillary Clinton said:
Starts about 1:30 where she is talking about the small group of "MAGA extremists in congress" who taking their marching orders from P01335809 and suggests that to get them to stop doing that they may at some point will need a "formal deprogramming" of the cult members.
The idea of "camps" is purely speculative and created to make a connection to groups in order to make what P01135809 said seem less shocking.
Had she said they need to be sent to the Gulags I'd see a comparison. However she didn't and there isn't.
Love or hate it, Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people (I think?) so the idea that only a small group of the GOP representatives would gleefully help Trump murder their own mothers actually seems a bit low given how many Americans would likely be all for it. Just my 2 cents.
(10-06-2023, 04:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: As I said, it was way overused and there are many strange people around who shout Nazi at everyone who does not align with them, and cops certainly are a particularly common enemy of the ideologically blinded. Sorry for saying "weird", it's just a term, that expresses that while I do not doubt such instances repeat themselves often, it is still not how a common person would act.
The fact that is is used in such a cavalier manner should give anyone pause to use it at all.
Quote:I don't think anyone here tried to equate Trump with the Nazi ideology as a whole. I for one made quite an effort to make that distinction clear, and I diid not see anyone else claim that Trump is in fact a Nazi.
Which leads me to the main point of the evening, there also are lots of unfair communism or Stalinism or antisemitism accusations around. But that does not mean one can not complain about Omar's language and she has now a free pass. And you do not, you critizise her harshly over it, and I don't quite see the huge qualitative distinction between her case and the Trump case. If you have issues with her using her kind of language, I don't think you can scold folks for doing the same thing when it comes to Trump. You might say Nazi is in a sense even worse or carries even more baggage, and that is true. But what is the alternative when Trump or anyone actually uses Nazi phrases, are folks expected to be silent about it unless it's really while standing under a swastika with a raised arm and shouting Sieg Heil? I do not think that is a reasonable reaction to the indeed blatant overuse of the Nazi accusation.
You don't have to equate him to Nazism as a whole, the moment you make a Nazi comparison that is done for you. This is precisely why I despise the comparison.
Quote:I don't think that is true. A comparison of his phrases to Nazi phrases does not mean I accuse Trump of wanting to murder all Jews. I do not believe that. That does not mean I can not mention him doing it and possibly serving certain sentiments that have some closeness to the ideology.
Of you made the comparison I would understand that. Many would not. When many, if not most, others make the comparison they are doing so in totum.
Quote:Well, I'd argue let's go after Omar and Hillary and Trump for their respective dubious tropes, they all deserve critizism (I would personally see Trump as the worst offender of the three, but these nuances don't really matter). Using your own point made here, I can just as well argue that anyone who crosses any name from the list, including Trump's name, does so for reasons of ideology and shows his intent.
Criticism is one thing, comparison to regimes steeped in mas murder is another.
Quote:On the specific example, there's also the issue that all spotlight is on Trump while most people including me won't know much about the groups [La Raza] you mentioned. They are fringe like the proud boys; Trump or Hillary or Omar are not. Especially Trump of course, he is the one running for POTUS. Of course he draws additional scrutiny and one does not have to conclude every critizism with the words "but, of course, similar things must be said about our own fringe - and sadly maybe not always all that fringe - elements within the left". That such issues exist, well, I'd have no problem with a thread addressing those issues either. They just don't always have to mix.
A thread being made about them is not the issue. Despite the importance we sometimes ascribe to this place it is a postage stamp floating in the ocean in terms of public discourse. I am speaking of comparisons being made in the mass media or by public figure.
Quote:I have a wholly different take on this, as stated before. Honestly, in this thread the only person who claims the OP, intentionally or not, effectively fully equates Trump to every aspect of the Nazi regime is you. Most other people here (except for those that just want to slam liberal threads) seem to be nuanced enough to get that this is not what he was doing or intended to do. If folks take it an other way, it can be explained and most fair-minded people will at least see the explanation as valid, even when they do not agree.
You yourself are among those, as you said, very few people that is nuanced enough to rationally disconnect Nazi phrases from every aspect of Nazi atrocities. Because you very well can follow me on that path rationally. You just still seem to insist that other people can not. And sure some probably can't, but what gives. They should not dominate the path of the conversation.
I'm not saying the intention is to equate Trump with Nazism as a whole. I am, again, saying that making the comparison at all accomplishes exactly that for the vast majority of people. It's such a charged accusation, it cannot help but taint everything about the person and associate them with Nazism as a whole.
Quote:I totally get your rationale. It's just, still any references to the Nazi regime will fail on a rhetorical level, for indeed most people associate Nazi ideology with the supremacy of the anglo-saxon (or Aryan, to be precise) race, and hence for China and Korea other unflattering terms and comparisons are applied. I mean, everything you said about China can be said about the Stalin regime on an even larger scale, and still we do not call them a Nazi regime either. We call them a communist regime and are fine with it. Same with China. When Xi comes out and shouts our honour means loyalty, I might reconsider.
The only substantive difference between Nazism and Soviet/CCP communism is that Nazism used race as their justification and communism uses class. Their atrocities are equally vile and one could easily argue that communism is worse in terms of number of people murdered. Yet, for some odd reason, it's perfectly acceptable to wear a hammer and sickle shirt on the street. Hell, I had a PoliSci professor who was a self professed Soviet style communist. A topic for another thread I suppose.
Quote:The Nazi comparison, in this case, stems from using a phrase commonly used by Nazis (and again, even if it is coincidental the language used by Trump here is abhorrent to me - I feel that should be mentioned plenty). And also from the observation that Trump is a repeated offender, like when he called the press the enemy of the people, sees very fine people within white supremaacist's ranks, gets endorsed by far-right Naziesque groups and then some (at least that's my perspective). It does not exactly fall out of thin air. For sure, my personal opinion would be that he is taking tropes from questionable sources and is too gullible and reckless to reflect before repeating them as his own. "Just" that. But please let me mention he uses Nazi phrases when he uses Nazi phrases, I'd urge you to do the same when any liberal does it.
Then use terms like xenophobe or bigot. They accurately describe the man without the attendant baggage of comparisons to Nazism. You are, of course, more than welcome to make the comparison if you wish, as is anyone in a country without laws against that type of speech. But unless it is made against a person who adheres to the tenants of national socialism I'm going to take issue for it for the reasons I've stated.
(10-07-2023, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: So, a little context to what Hillary Clinton said:
Starts about 1:30 where she is talking about the small group of "MAGA extremists in congress" who taking their marching orders from P01335809 and suggests that to get them to stop doing that they may at some point will need a "formal deprogramming" of the cult members.
The idea of "camps" is purely speculative and created to make a connection to groups in order to make what P01135809 said seem less shocking.
Had she said they need to be sent to the Gulags I'd see a comparison. However she didn't and there isn't.
Of course you have no issue with it. You're as partisan as the most ardent red hat wearer. Let's not pretend if a GOP member made a comment about "deprogramming" the defund the police wing of the Democratic party that you wouldn't make a thread condemning it within five minutes.
(10-07-2023, 12:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course you have no issue with it. You're as partisan as the most ardent red hat wearer. Let's not pretend if a GOP member made a comment about "deprogramming" the defund the police wing of the Democratic party that you wouldn't make a thread condemning it within five minutes.
You might even compare them to a Nazi.
Have I ever called anyone a Nazi?
Interesting that you went with the "defund the police wing" when you are the only one talking about the police.
To the topic at hand I didn't say I had "no issue with" what Clinton said. I said in context she said nothing like a Communist regime when compared to what P01135809 said compared to what Hitler said. That you choose to extrapolate it into a talking point to defend him is on you.
Lastly, and personally, I see a difference between saying someone uses Hitler's terminology and playbook than saying they are a Nazi. The Nazi's followed Hitler. Hitler was the evil one. I'm sure many, many of his followers were evil also but he was the one creating the furor (pun kinda intended) and rallying the troops do to what he wanted.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-07-2023, 01:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Have I ever called anyone a Nazi?
Huh, I thought the use of the emoji was understood around here.
Quote:Interesting that you went with the "defund the police wing" when you are the only one talking about the police.
Ughh, it hurts sometimes. I was using an extreme faction of the Dem party in the same way Hillary used an extreme faction of the GOP.
Quote:To the topic at hand I didn't say I had "no issue with" what Clinton said. I said in context she said nothing like a Communist regime when compared to what P01135809 said compared to what Hitler said. That you choose to extrapolate it into a talking point to defend him is on you.
Interesting, do you have an issue with what she said? What she said is 100% in line with communist regimes in exactly that same way what Trump said echoes national socialism. "Deprograming" your political opponents could have come right from the mouth of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot and no one would blink an eye. And what is it with you guys thinking I'm defending Trump? Only a room temperature IQ could conjure that up. I am saying, for maybe the hundredth time, that Nazi analogies are too extreme and used far too casually. I described Trump as xenophobic and a bigot, hardly a rousing defense. It's fascinating that you would accuse me of misrepresenting Hillary's very clear statement while then completely misrepresenting mine.
Quote:Lastly, and personally, I see a difference between saying someone uses Hitler's terminology and playbook than saying they are a Nazi. The Nazi's followed Hitler. Hitler was the evil one. I'm sure many, many of his followers were evil also but he was the one creating the furor (pun kinda intended) and rallying the troops do to what he wanted.
You do know that I've literally addressed this point several times in this very thread? Once you compare someone to the Nazis you are, intentional or not, lumping them in with everything associated with the Nazis. Hence my dislike for the comparison in the vast majority of cases.
I tend to ignore the name calling anymore, so many are overused they've lost their true meaning.
To me it's just a death cry when you have nothing better to say to someone whose views are different from your own. It's nothing more than a bully/belitting tactic that most people can see right thru.
(10-05-2023, 08:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's rather simple to tie any nationalist movement to Nazism. Interestingly enough a far better comparison to Nazism can be made to the La Raza (literally The People) movement, which emphasizes strong identification to ethnocentric ties within the Latin-American community. Of course, no leftists would ever dare make a comparison of any other ethnic propagation ideology to Nazism if the ethnicity in question wasn't Caucasian.
Quite simply, this is a typically lazy attempt to tar anyone who dares still support Trump as a Nazi. Of course, far leftists eat this kind of crap up, because it lets them imagine themselves as the "good guys" fighting against the remnants of the most evil political movement in modern history. It's why people like Dill applaud the use of these analogies, it's a simple blunt instrument used to silence and stifle any dissent or discussion.
Like I said, Godwin's law in OP. A record that can be tied, but never broken.
Pretty sure this "leftist" has dared to compare "ethnic propagation ideology" to that of the current North Korean regime and before it, the Japanese Imperialist, and in each case the ethnicity in question is not Caucasian.
Seems to me you just say a lot things that aren't really tied to any kind of factual record, whether referring to this forum or to the world at large.
E.g., Speaking of "typically lazy attempts," can you actually cite a post in which dill "applauds" the use of Nazi analogies?
Especially as a "simple blunt instrument to stifle any dissent or discussion"?
20 dollars says you cannot.
Best you can do is find one of my many posts arguing that scholarship on authoritarian regimes is useful to maintaining democracy now.
(10-05-2023, 09:23 PM)hollodero Wrote: It was a widely overused accusation. But that weird people use it to bully cops etc. does not mean that the accusation now lost all its meaning in any case. There are still cases of actual Nazi language around, after all.
Yes, but this is not about Trump or anyone being opposed to immigration. It's about him using Nazi phrases while doing so. Quite literal Nazi phrases. Btw. it might be another coincidence (it would still be horrible language, imho), or he gets ideas from the wrong kind of people.
Sure. A Nazi regime in the strictest sense will never materialize as such again, so every comparison will fail at some point; but certain elements can. Tropes like the language used. Pointing to rhetorical duplicates does not necessarily mean the ones using the Nazi language are themselves to be seen as actual Nazis now. But these tropes can still be seen as typical for rising anti-democratic, populist authoritarian forces, or fascists if you will. Many of whom used and use certain pages from the Nazi playbook, especially language-wise. I don't know if it makes any sense to make Nazi-China comparisons, that's a completely different culture with a completely different history and I can not quite comment on their rhetoric. But they certainly fall under the authoritarian category and that is debated plenty. Sweet Baerbock called Xi a dictator recently and imho that shoe fits well enough.
Lot of good points here. I just want to expand on a couple.
1. Yes, overused. But there are at least two ways of applying the Nazi label. 1) to whom-/whatever you don't like (the "soup Nazi" on Seinfeld). or 2) to statements, policies and actions which actually do parallel Nazi statements, policies and actions because they proceed from parallel grounds. What was bad about the "poisoning the blood" phrase when Nazis used it was they were creating an organic metaphor of the state as racial body being infected by a grouping of its own citizens to dehumanize them and make "cleansing" more acceptable. Jews were also described as scum, bacilli, fungus and cockroaches and the like. This sort of language is not limited to Nazis though. E.g., Hutu spoke of Tutsi that way in Rwanda. Some of your neighbors, e.g. Jobbik, speak that way of Roma now. The issue is less the Nazi connection but THAT the "blood poisoning" metaphor was used at all. And as you note in your next post, by someone with history of making similar sentiments and a desire to inflect actual policy with them.
2. Second bolded, yes, though I prefer the terms "authoritarian" and "autocratic," and have argued against using "fascism" as a general term for such.As I've mentioned before, there is now considerable scholarship on authoritarianism--personalities, governments, policies, etc. At a time when liberal democracies appear to be in retreat and US democracy is under threat, it should seem valuable (at least to those wishing to preserve democracy) to know what authoritarianism looks like so one can red flag it when it appears. That may not be possible where people cannot distinguish between accusation and social-scientific analysis--or don't want to. Where people can so distinguish, then Dino's article is not just people saying another bad thing about Trump, but an insight into how he frames social/political problems. But we all went over this ground on the Afghanistan thread two years ago. The pro- and anti-social science camps have not changed.
3. Regarding the Nazi-China comparison, again, that's just the kind of imprecision that results when people cannot distinguish between authoritarianism in general and distinct subsets like Nazism. It's like calling anyone who follows any professional sport a basketball fan.
There is a possibly useful North Korean comparison to Nazism here, though, because the current North Korean Regime does represent itself in its propaganda as a "clean race" fighting off foreign pollution and the like. It also operates on a Fuehrerprinzip and China does not. The turn away from internationalism to ethnic purity is potentially there for China, but so far as I know it has not gone down that road yet. NK also seems to aestheticize politics, which was a trait of European fascisms. I suppose all political parties do to some degree, but NK's total control over media presentation may be the difference in their case.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
