The Unvaxinated = the Taliban

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2021, 02:35 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Like who ? 

Give some names of Ultra liberal goons ?

I stated people I encountered, but if you want to go to the national level, then sure. 

Quote:I would like to know them because they don't seem to see on the international spectrum at the contrary of Cruz, Abbott, Kozar, Mc Carthy, Taylor Green, Gaetz, Bohbert ...

AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, Talib, basically the whole "Squad" (dumbest nickname ever btw).  Your list contains some names for obvious reasons, but McCarthy, Greg Abbott and Cruz don't belong on that list.  You can dislike their politics, intensely, but they don't belong in the same category as Greene or other QAnon types.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-01-2021, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I stated people I encountered, but if you want to go to the national level, then sure. 


AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, Talib, basically the whole "Squad" (dumbest nickname ever btw).  Your list contains some names for obvious reasons, but McCarthy, Greg Abbott and Cruz don't belong on that list.  You can dislike their politics, intensely, but they don't belong in the same category as Greene or other QAnon types.

I saw AOC bringing water to people during these Texas freezing, raising money caring about people. She didnd't seem like a horrible human being.

Cruz left his own dog to fly to Cancun when his people were freezing and blamed his kids. If that is decency then we are done here.

Somehow, we just have the models we deserve. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2021, 03:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I saw AOC bringing water to people during these Texas freezing, raising money caring about people. She didnd't seem like a horrible human being.

Oh, she brought people water?  Then never mind.  I know this is coming to come off as smart ass (because it kind of is), but you're literally the type of person they make those appearances for.

Quote:Cruz left his own dog to fly to Cancun when his people were freezing and blamed his kids. If that is decency then we are done here.

Somehow, we just have the models we deserve. 

Wait, are we talking about what kind of people they are on a personal level or the extreme nature of their politics?  You seem to be conflating two different things now.  

[Wes Mantooth]

(09-01-2021, 03:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Cruz left his own dog to fly to Cancun when his people were freezing and blamed his kids. If that is decency then we are done here.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-ted-cruz-leave-his-dog-snowflake-home-alone-during-trip-cancun-1570691
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9949571077
https://people.com/pets/sen-ted-cruz-also-left-his-dog-snowflake-behind-during-cancun-trip/

There's a lot of things you can not like Ted Cruz for.  Traveling and having people take care of your dog while you are gone is not one of them.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-01-2021, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, she brought people water?  Then never mind.  I know this is coming to come off as smart ass (because it kind of is), but you're literally the type of person they make those appearances for.


Wait, are we talking about what kind of people they are on a personal level or the extreme nature of their politics?  You seem to be conflating two different things now.  

On a personal level. 

As a human being I said.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2021, 04:21 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: On a personal level. 

As a human being I said.

That wasn't clear, but I now understand what you're saying.  To that I respond you have close to zero idea what any of these people are like as human beings, just like you have no idea what kind of person an actor or athlete is.  You're basing your analysis on a superficial amount of information provided to you by sources that likely have an agenda.  At the end of the day you don't have anything close to enough information to make a judgment with.

For example, George W. Bush might be a great guy to hang out with and have a beer.  But his policies and presidency were a frigging disaster.  Also, if we're going the people as human beings route then your left wingers, especially in the entertainment industry, aren't going to fare well, and I can tell you that from numerous person experiences.  

[Dill]

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not saying anything new here.  I don't think there was anyone who didn't understand what your stated objective was.  The problem is you don't understand how your stated goal and reality do not intersect, at all.  You say you may make such comparisons with good intentions, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is the case.  However, the real world ramifications of such comparisons are radically different then your stated goal.  They do not increase understanding and they absolutely increase division and demonization.  When one's actions cause a polar opposite results to that intended it would behoove said person to reexamine said practice and analyze why such unintended results were achieved.

I'm saying this with the intent of being non-confrontational, because I think you're on the cusp of realizing why these comparisons are such a poor idea.  I work, especially within the past few years, with a lot of academics and advocates interested in criminal justice reform.  They largely, with some notable exceptions, have good intentions and genuinely want to make things better.  The problem, and it always, always comes up, is that they have zero real world experience of how their proposed ideas will actually impact society in the real world.  When they get the opposite result or their stated goal they always react with bewilderment, despite our informing them that exactly what happened would happen and why.  To state it in one sentence, they understand theory, they do not understand people.

Thanks for the non-confrontational approach.

If I understand your first paragraph, the claim is that conducting public discussion of politics which undermine democracy has "real world ramifications" which are exactly the opposite than those intended. You speak of "polar opposite results" for example.

But I don't see that you have clearly established this claimed cause/effect relation. I haven't seen much evidence of Right Wing outrage over the scholarship I have mentioned. Do you have such?  It is not clear at all that books, such as those I mentioned, have no intended effect, such as increasing the knowledge/understanding of authoritarian politics in those who read them. Remember, we are discussing something quite different from tweets and memes. We can track the CRT hysteria directly back to its origin in Fox News segments and measure its progress in proposed legislation and video of angry parents confronting school boards. Anything like that for scholarship on authoritarian regimes? 

The premise of your second paragraph seems to be that people writing about authoritarian regimes have "zero real world experience of how their proposed ideas will actually impact society," and so their proposals inevitably fail. I am not sure how you know the kind or degree of experience they have, or what counts as "real world." You analogize them to criminal justice advocates, and write about them as if they had proposed legislation which, like a tariff, has produced measurable opposite effects. And they are contrasted to people like yourself, who know "people."

Yet I don't see any evidence of your claimed effect. 

Further, when I see "division" and "polarization" in US society, that rarely seems to follow from Nazi/Taliban comparisons, even at the tweet level. Rather, they depends much more upon who is speaking and the movement to transform proposals into politics--e.g., a wall to keep out "rapists" or a SCOTUS decision legitimizing gay marriage. Taliban tweets did not drive the movement to ban Sharia law in various states. I'd wager that, if Taliban/Nazi tweets ended today, the effect on "division" would be nil. 

Understanding something of "theory," by the way, is a prerequisite of democratic government. In order for that to work, the voting populace must know how democracy works and value democratic over anti-democratic politics. They must be able to tell the difference. I think I can better connect current divisions in the US to an inability to tell that difference, than to outrage because "Moore called us 'Taliban.'"

(09-01-2021, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How does this tie into you and your Nazi/Taliban comparisons?  You state you make them to draw attention to what you believe are alarming trends in our country/democracy.  You attempt to highlight behavior you believe to be analogous to that exhibited by these awful groups with the intention of ensuring we never go down the same road.  The problem is, and will always be with such comparisons, is that the average person doesn't get the nuance, they see "X" group they don't like is comparable to Nazis/Taliban.  Most people don't want to engage in deep thought about ideological differences, they're in group "A" and the people they disagree with are in group "B".  When someone makes an argument comparing group "B" with Nazis or Taliban the only thing they internalize is group "B" are Nazis or Taliban.  I've provided two very obvious examples from major public figures in this thread, and digging up numerous other examples would be childishly simple.

So, seeing as your stated goal is rarely, if ever, achieved in large numbers and your exact opposite intention is much more like the default interpretation than an aberration one must conclude that such comparisons, well intentioned on your part though they may be, are inherently destructive, polarizing and inflammatory.  I could end with a statement about the road to hell and all, but I trust you, and anyone else reading, get the point.

To the first bolded, it looks like we disagree on what "the average person" can or should be expected to understand. If you are right, then we are in trouble, because liberal democracy is predicated upon enough "average" people understanding enough about anti-democratic politics to keep their government democratic in form. That's always been the gamble, the experiment. And it requires some "book learnin'" to maintain that expected understanding, e.g., of principles of democratic government, how precarious such government is, and what guises anti-democratic tendencies may take. It also requires public discussion of politics which moves beyound sound bites and political caricature. 

Where I am proposing that informed public discussion/debate can educate, you are proposing such informed debate does more (as yet unsubstantiated) damage. If I understand you correctly.

I'd say part of our "division" at present arises from a deficit of knowledge about how democracies fail. If we cannot remedy that through public discussion we are already lost. Such discussion should be complemented by re-affirming civility and evidence-based reasoning, to move people past deliberate obstructors. Part of our "division" is a division over whether and how such complements should be valued--e.g., by not electing politicians who disrespect them.

Division also follows from books and news reports that are not at all well intentioned. Mark Levin's American Marxism will have a far wider readership than Stanley's How Fascism Works, though the former is disinformation and the latter is not. I don't think the remedy to that is for the scholars to shut up because they might offend the un- or disinformed. Surely we cannot let disinformation flow unopposed because responsible scholarship would upset people.

Your girlfriend doesn't understand how you can tell all your handguns apart. I say she should could learn quickly enough how to do that, if it were important to her. Books like Stanely's are calibrated to 12th grade/college freshmen level readers. Most adults can manage it too. Enough can manage comparisons between group "A" and group "B" to make a difference.

Thanks again for working through your reasons like this. Now you can show whether I have misunderstood them and/or provide some of the evidence I've found lacking.

[Dill]

(09-01-2021, 03:10 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I saw AOC bringing water to people during these Texas freezing, raising money caring about people. She didnd't seem like a horrible human being.

Cruz left his own dog to fly to Cancun when his people were freezing and blamed his kids. If that is decency then we are done here.

Somehow, we just have the models we deserve. 

Yes, by all indications, she is a person whose goal is to restore our degraded conception of public good. 

She wants to be a voice for those largely without power.  Very different from nasty Ted Cruz or worse Trump and Gaetz and Greene.

But to the Right she is a socialist witch who would destroy our way of life, an "extremist" free associated to all manner of "evil."  
Better Greene than green.  Until people can agree on standards of "good person," these kinds of "your side vs. ours" will be muddled.

[hollodero]

(09-01-2021, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I stated people I encountered, but if you want to go to the national level, then sure. 


AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, Talib, basically the whole "Squad" (dumbest nickname ever btw).  Your list contains some names for obvious reasons, but McCarthy, Greg Abbott and Cruz don't belong on that list.  You can dislike their politics, intensely, but they don't belong in the same category as Greene or other QAnon types.

Yeah they also do not belong on a list with AOC et al.

One main reason amongst many others being that they all can not bring themselves to condemn the Capitol storm and rather are compliant with the person who says he loves those guys, that the election was stolen and rigged and that police flat-out murdered that one female insurrectionist.

That is not even about intensely disliking their politics, it's intensely disliking their approach to democracy and I do not see anything remotely comparable from the likes of the AOC's.


Oh and btw. it is very unfair to compare democratic socialists to sommunists. Case in point, I grew up in a country that was to a large extent formed by social democrats' policies. We had nothing in common with our eastern neighbors, neither in theory nor in experience, that were formed by communist policies.



----
@thread topic: I understand the point of view. I am extremely annoyed by Nazi comparisons, often brought by very compassionate left-wing types that demand to either agree with them on all counts or "being with the Nazis". Quite common in my country, and sure common in the US as well. 
On the other hand though, I think it has to remain fair to make certain comparisons with the rise of past authoritarian regimes and the deeds and especially the rhetorics of today's politicians from the right. In some cases, these comparisons are hard to avoid. Eg. in my country, the comparison to the rise of the Nazi regime. And there are just certain similarities in said rise and the rise of Trumpism. That's not me trying to paint the American right as a whole in a particularly bad light, it's just an impression that has some merit at times (and no merit in many other instances). Demonizing the 'elites' and the media comes to mind, or operating with oversimplifications and appealing to a person's most hateful notions. All things Trumpism imho does and all things that also are a key component in the rise of authoritarian regimes, up to the Nazis.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-01-2021, 05:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, by all indications, she is a person whose goal is to restore our degraded conception of public good. 

She wants to be a voice for those largely without power.  Very different from nasty Ted Cruz or worse Trump and Gaetz and Greene.

But to the Right she is a socialist witch who would destroy our way of life, an "extremist" free associated to all manner of "evil."  
Better Greene than green.  Until people can agree on standards of "good person," these kinds of "your side vs. ours" will be muddled.

She would be a centrist in Europe ... 

Nothing more. 

Their left is our centrists, their right is our extreme right and their extreme right are off european charts.

[Arturo Bandini]

Considering the topic.

You have to find the position of the talibans on the afghan spectrum make your own political spectrum map and then compare where they stand on the graphic and you'll have the answer.

[Arturo Bandini]

(09-01-2021, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That wasn't clear, but I now understand what you're saying.  To that I respond you have close to zero idea what any of these people are like as human beings, just like you have no idea what kind of person an actor or athlete is.  You're basing your analysis on a superficial amount of information provided to you by sources that likely have an agenda.  At the end of the day you don't have anything close to enough information to make a judgment with.

For example, George W. Bush might be a great guy to hang out with and have a beer.  But his policies and presidency were a frigging disaster.  Also, if we're going the people as human beings route then your left wingers, especially in the entertainment industry, aren't going to fare well, and I can tell you that from numerous person experiences.  

I don't expect a terrible human being to take good political stances. They like to hurt the poorer, bully, humiliate because they are abusers and that shows when they speak.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-01-2021, 02:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Lucky you. 

I live in Indiana County PA, with a vaccination rate of barely 30%. Hospital beds in intensive care are now full and doctors are sending patients to other hospitals out of county.

I just arrived home after a month in Montana where, in cities like Great Falls and on Indian reservations like the Crow, bed space has once again risen to crisis levels. 

Don't know what to tell ya.  

My County vax rate is 46%.  The county is 1400 square miles with a population of 96,000.  I am also privy to daily census of inpatient and ER beds along with overall patient census.

It's not luck.  I chose to live here on purpose.  Far removed from any major population makes for a great, super low crime, happy life.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-03-2021, 03:20 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Don't know what to tell ya.  

My County vax rate is 46%.  The county is 1400 square miles with a population of 96,000.  I am also privy to daily census of inpatient and ER beds along with overall patient census.

It's not luck.  I chose to live here on purpose.  Far removed from any major population makes for a great, super low crime, happy life.

Thats great.  A lot of rural areas are in trouble because they have less beds in the first place.  What county are you in?

[treee]

Religious fundamentalists are only worse because they are more entrenched in most societies. The pandemic will eventually come to pass, so the harm levels being done by the antivax crowd will eventually diminish again from a numbers standpoint in the not too distant future. Religious fundamentalism will still be here long after this pandemic is over and probably even still being dragged along kicking and screaming by the rest of secular society for every human achievement even by the time the next pandemic rolls around.

[GMDino]

(09-03-2021, 03:26 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Thats great.  A lot of rural areas are in trouble because they have less beds in the first place.  What county are you in?

I'm guessing either Narnia or Disneyland.

[Dill]

(09-02-2021, 04:29 AM)hollodero Wrote:  I think it has to remain fair to make certain comparisons with the rise of past authoritarian regimes and the deeds and especially the rhetorics of today's politicians from the right. In some cases, these comparisons are hard to avoid. 

Indeed it does. And indeed they are hard to avoid--though one must know what to compare. It is not beheadings and death camps.

Since I appear to be the primary advocate for comparative scholarship on authoritarian regimes here, I think it incumbent upon me to specify some terms of comaprison, keeping in mind that the goal is to recognize and neutralize authoritarian tendencies. That means we are discussing people who haven't yet committed "atrocities," so that is not the basis of comparison.

My resource base here is limited to European politics since 1848. So the authoritarian politics I am speaking of is the kind which arose in response primarily to liberalism, but in cases of right wing authoritarianism, also in response to socialism/internationalism. 

Right or left, such regimes are always ILLIBERAL. They take the form of a culture war against LIBERALISM, including those aspects of the free market which create a wealth gap, subordinate the nation to exploitation by foreign capital, and (in the case of right wing authoritarianisms) open borders to trade and the influx of foreign labor. 

RW versions view a national body as divided between "authentic" citizens, mostly rural, and "inauthentic," mostly found in cities, often immigrants, or long time citizens but ethnic minorities, characterized as impurities in the national body, and parasites living off the labor of authentic citizens via liberal social programs. They have a GRIEVANCE because those globalist elites currently in power have been representing international rather than national interests. This makes them (the RW examples) hypernationalist and focused on reducing the effects of internationalism, such as disruption of traditional hierarchies, social boundaries (including gender), and cultural norms.

From this perspective, stricter control of national boundaries (opened by the globalists) and expulsion of foreign impurities becomes a national imperative. 

Democracy may empower minorities and otherwise prevent direct address of national problems, so control of the state becomes a priority. Democractic governance may create obstacles, if the inauthentic are also empowered to vote and are protected by laws which make them "equal" before the law. Separation of church and state may disadvantage authentic citizens' culture and priviledge inauthentic--embodied, for example, in feminism and abortion rights--so greater integration of church and state becomes desirable. 

A charismatic "strong" leader offers a solution, someone of unquestioned authenticity (for the disaffected) who can be trusted to bypass politics-as-usual in the interest of authentic citizens. This often means a fetishization of the leaders "instincts" as something to be trusted over law, data, and "experts" who always get it wrong. The leader's political party then comes to define membership in terms of support for, and trust in, the leader, rather than democratically generated principles or platform.  Such a leader might seem an inveterate liar to outsiders--marking them as "inauthentic"--but his authenticity is not about truth in the details, but in the overall thrust of his agenda. It is a "felt" truth of shared instinct, which can lead to dismissal of reason and public debate as mere globalist subterfuge. 

It becomes a goal of the party leader to contest other sources of authority--primarily the independent press--but also universities and churches and other independent sources/standards of truth and ethical behavior, and to represent these as interlocked, working together with the "globalists" who are invariably international, like "the Jews" or the Bilderberg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations or the EU. 

Another red flag--authoritarian capture of media: when specific news papers, radio and television stations, and more recently social media outlets, propagandize on behalf of the leader, demonize his enemies, and police/enforce party support for the leader. In consequence, the public sphere is inundated with challenges to the abovementioned authorities in order to undermine them, to at the very least render them "equivalentl" in mendacity to the leader and party officials ("both sides do it"). The goal is a political environment in which instinct and identity trump reasoned debate; data, policies and political behavior cannot be sorted by reason, since all "equivalent." So instinct makes the choice. 

Still another--capture of the judiciary. 

The right leaning authoritarianisms tend to be anti-Enlightenment, and can be illuminated with psychological concepts like the authoritarian personality, attracted to "strong" leaders and prefering force to diplomacy at home and abroad.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
These tendencies or political inclinations exist in virtually ALL indusrialized 1st world democracies now, including non-Western Japan. It is wrong to assume that subscription to any ONE or TWO or even THREE of the points above makes one a "fascist" or other dangerous authoritarian E.g., a Catholic nun who opposes abortion, or an old time Jeffersonian who thinks rural life is the backbone of the nation, or the housewife who complains her school taxes go to educating non-citizens. But when one sees a new AMALGAM of such tendencies begin to replace traditional goals and standards in a powerful political party commanding tens of millions of votes--especailly crystallizing around fealty to an "instinctive" and "strong" leader--then we ought to view that development with alarm and begin to "name and compare." 

[Dill]

To further clarify what I mean by authoritarian politcs, I offer the example of a current state whose leader has openly defined his government as "illiberal"--namely Victor Orban of Hungary's Fidesz party.

Wikipedia gives a decent overview of his time in politics, his slide from a liberal centrist party to the authoritarian, illiberal Fidesz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n

Of interest to us here is his changing the Hungarian Constitition in 2011 to reduce the number of parliamentary seats from 386 to 199, affirm the traditional family, and Christianity as the basis of Western Civilization and Hungarian national culture. The power of the judiciary was restricted and electoral reforms favorably to the Fidesz party were instituted so that, by 2014, he could win 133 seats in the 199 in parliament with only 44 percent of the vote.

Orban pushes Christianity and traditional family values in part by an assault on the LGBQT community. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hungary-homosexuality-law-lgbt-vote-b1864103.html

Especially distressing are the conceptions of racial purity behind his denigration of immigrants and strengthening of borders, and his
embrace of the "replacement theory"

He has shut down the countries largest "liberal" newspaper and taken other measures to curb independent press.
https://www.politico.eu/article/hungarian-newspaper-closure-raises-press-freedom-concerns-mediaworks-publisher-nepszabadsag-prime-minister-viktor-orban/

In 2020, the COVID crisis led a parliamentary vote investing Orban with power to rule by decree, including jail terms of up to five years for those who spread "fake news" as Orban (an avid Trump suporter) understands the term.
https://www.dw.com/en/hungary-passes-law-allowing-viktor-orban-to-rule-by-decree/a-52956243

"Fine" some of my readers may be asking, "there is an authoritarian regime in Central Europe now who admires Putin, Erdogan, and our own Trump. What does that have to do with the US? Trump never shut down a newspaper or closed a womens studies program (though maybe he did or tried to do some of those other things). You aren't making any direct links to freedom loving US Republicans."

No. I'm not. I'm going to let my friend Tucker Carlson do that. He has interviewed Orban and has much to share with American conservatives, regarding Orban's positive model, there for the emulation of US "conservatives." 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/07/world/europe/tucker-carlson-hungary.html

For Mr. Carlson, the Hungary trip was an opportunity to put Mr. Orban, whom he admires, on the map for his viewers back home, a conservative audience that may be open to the sort of illiberalism promoted by the Hungarian leader. On Wednesday’s show, Mr. Carlson praised Hungary as a “small country with a lot of lessons for the rest of us.”

Mr. Carlson’s Fox News program espouses some hard-right views, especially on immigration, where he and Mr. Orban share common ground. The host has held up Hungary’s hard-line policy on rejecting asylum seekers as a model for an American immigration system that he believes is too lenient and has weakened the power of native-born citizens, an argument that [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/us/tucker-carlson-adl-replacement-theory.html]Mr. Carlson’s critics say overlaps with white supremacist ideology.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/07/tucker-carlson-hungary-viktor-orban-donald-trump

[bengaloo]

With all the raw data coming out daily, and natural immunity proven to be far more effective than the covid shots, its good we can begin to put topics like this to rest. The vaxxed can at least let up on the unvaxxed who have recovered from covid based on raw scientific data that everyone has access to. They are safer to be around than the vaxxed who haven't recovered from covid at this point.

This is good news. We can stop hating each other and be happy that we are learning more everyday about all of this. Now if we could just get more doctors to actually start treating active cases, we could save many lives and move on from this all.

[Dill]

(09-05-2021, 11:08 AM)bengaloo Wrote: With all the raw data coming out daily, and natural immunity proven to be far more effective than the covid shots, its good we can begin to put topics like this to rest. The vaxxed can at least let up on the unvaxxed who have recovered from covid based on raw scientific data that everyone has access to. They are safer to be around than the vaxxed who haven't recovered from covid at this point.

When was 'natural immunity' proven to be far more effective? And how many people have such immunity? Do you have some links for this?

Also, I wasn't aware that vaccinated people are hard on people who have had COVID.

So far as I know, the big issue is still that there are millions of vaccine skeptics out there who won't get vaccinated, preventing us from reaching herd immunity, and forming a human petri dish in which the virus can keep on mutating stronger and more deadly strains.

(09-05-2021, 11:08 AM)bengaloo Wrote: This is good news. We can stop hating each other and be happy that we are learning more everyday about all of this. Now if we could just get more doctors to actually start treating active cases, we could save many lives and move on from this all.

Remember this thread wasn't really about the vaccine issue. It was about whether Taliban/Nazi comparsons are valid in discussion US politics.

"Make sure you polarize people further and stir up hatred. Remember kids, it is our responsibility, nay our duty, to compare our political opponents to Nazis, Isis and the Taliban."