4 ms·

When a word is too flimsily used against people, it loses its meaning. This is what happened with calling people racist. It got tossed around inappropriately s

by alva 9y ago

When a word is too flimsily used against people, it loses its meaning. This is what happened with calling people racist. It got tossed around inappropriately so much, the public lost their sensitivity to it. People now roll their eyes when someone accuses them so casually of being racist. Therefore we have a new word to level at people, Nazi. The same thing will happen with calling people "Nazi". Initially people will be scared that they will lose social capital if called a Nazi. Eventually, people will have seen enough obviously non-Nazi folk be called Nazi, that the word will again lost meaning and power. Nazi will fall faster than other social weapons, simply because it is so ludicrous. When they level that charge are they really suggesting the person follows the National Socialism doctrine? That they advocate for mass genocide? That they follow the numerous ideas of Nazi-ism? They have a strong position on Anschluss? This is bizarre (and amusing) watching from a European perspective. There is a much more widely held ideology that is closer to what the left perceives the right to hold, but it would Never fly to accuse people of that.. edit: I fully agree with the parent that the term being used in the way it has been is Incredibly insulting to those who suffered under the Nazi regime.

anigbrowl 9y ago
I'm glad you asked! Yes, there are people who advocate for genocide. Here's a recent example of such rhetoric from a well-established blog that I'd prefer not to link to here: Genocide necessarily involves either suppression of fertility or active or passive killing, or some combination of methods. Passive killing might include the refusal to supply aid such as food or medical care, preferring to just let Nature run her course, or refusal to come to the rescue when brown tribes genocide each other. The passive method would cause greater suffering and would not finish the job, as there will always be a remnant population to rebound in time. Clearly, an active genocide using white man methods would be more humane than passively letting Nature or savage tribes to do a much sloppier and less complete job. In the same way that animal lovers cannot adopt and care for every stray, but must accept that many be euthanized or sterilized, so it must be with the lower races of humanity. Having been studying the far right for a good many years now, I'm quite comfortable about my ability to distinguish between anodyne center-right policies and a small but well-organized and funded cadre of honest-to-goodness extremists, thanks. I hope you're not going to come back with some hair-splitting argument about the exact position of any given proponent of genocide in your political calculus.
- alva 9y ago
  I absolutely agree with you that some people on the wildest fringes do advocate genocide. Note that that pro-genocide advocates tick more diversity quotas than the most liberal arts college. Do I paint all of BLM with the same brush as I do with the small numbers of their group who advocate white genocide? Do I cast all Muslims aside because a small % advocate genocide of Kuffar? Both would be unthinkable in right-on politics, and rightly so. If you are not very careful when pushing a certain way to judge things as absolute, you will find yourself having to answer very tricky questions that are contrary to the values you believe you hold. What I was trying to get across in my previous message is that if you really want Nazi to be a powerful, meaningful word, it should be used correctly. Unfortunately a quick look at some publications/social media shows you it not being used that way. It is being levelled against out-groups completely inappropriately and in a way that is counter-productive to the left's cause. Many of the liberal old-guard personalities are called Nazis by thousands online. Whenever someone sees an article or twitter movement accusing their favourite old-guard liberal icon being called "literally a Nazi", people start realising the stupidity and tune out. The same thing happened with "racist". There is a reason it has fallen out of favour in certain circles.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I can't possibly shape everyone's word choices. I'm just pointing out that mine as used here are specific, considered, and backed by evidence..
  - gspetr 9y ago
    > Do I cast all Muslims aside because a small % advocate genocide of Kuffar? I think you did a disservice to the point you were trying to make because with muslims anyone who does not follow Quran to the letter is found lacking. Qur'an (8:39) "Wage war on non-Muslims and kill them until they submit and the only religion is Islam." It is about as genocidal as it gets. I've never heard about anything connected to National Socialism prescribing something so extreme, in as clear and direct way, e.g. there is no "Wage war on non-Nazis and kill them until they submit and the only ideology is Nazism." But muslims get a free pass. You don't hear them saying it that often because of Taqqiya.

by alva 9y ago

anigbrowl 9y ago

I'm glad you asked! Yes, there are people who advocate for genocide. Here's a recent example of such rhetoric from a well-established blog that I'd prefer not to link to here: Genocide necessarily involves either suppression of fertility or active or passive killing, or some combination of methods. Passive killing might include the refusal to supply aid such as food or medical care, preferring to just let Nature run her course, or refusal to come to the rescue when brown tribes genocide each other. The passive method would cause greater suffering and would not finish the job, as there will always be a remnant population to rebound in time. Clearly, an active genocide using white man methods would be more humane than passively letting Nature or savage tribes to do a much sloppier and less complete job. In the same way that animal lovers cannot adopt and care for every stray, but must accept that many be euthanized or sterilized, so it must be with the lower races of humanity. Having been studying the far right for a good many years now, I'm quite comfortable about my ability to distinguish between anodyne center-right policies and a small but well-organized and funded cadre of honest-to-goodness extremists, thanks. I hope you're not going to come back with some hair-splitting argument about the exact position of any given proponent of genocide in your political calculus.

alva 9y ago
I absolutely agree with you that some people on the wildest fringes do advocate genocide. Note that that pro-genocide advocates tick more diversity quotas than the most liberal arts college. Do I paint all of BLM with the same brush as I do with the small numbers of their group who advocate white genocide? Do I cast all Muslims aside because a small % advocate genocide of Kuffar? Both would be unthinkable in right-on politics, and rightly so. If you are not very careful when pushing a certain way to judge things as absolute, you will find yourself having to answer very tricky questions that are contrary to the values you believe you hold. What I was trying to get across in my previous message is that if you really want Nazi to be a powerful, meaningful word, it should be used correctly. Unfortunately a quick look at some publications/social media shows you it not being used that way. It is being levelled against out-groups completely inappropriately and in a way that is counter-productive to the left's cause. Many of the liberal old-guard personalities are called Nazis by thousands online. Whenever someone sees an article or twitter movement accusing their favourite old-guard liberal icon being called "literally a Nazi", people start realising the stupidity and tune out. The same thing happened with "racist". There is a reason it has fallen out of favour in certain circles.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I can't possibly shape everyone's word choices. I'm just pointing out that mine as used here are specific, considered, and backed by evidence..
- gspetr 9y ago
  > Do I cast all Muslims aside because a small % advocate genocide of Kuffar? I think you did a disservice to the point you were trying to make because with muslims anyone who does not follow Quran to the letter is found lacking. Qur'an (8:39) "Wage war on non-Muslims and kill them until they submit and the only religion is Islam." It is about as genocidal as it gets. I've never heard about anything connected to National Socialism prescribing something so extreme, in as clear and direct way, e.g. there is no "Wage war on non-Nazis and kill them until they submit and the only ideology is Nazism." But muslims get a free pass. You don't hear them saying it that often because of Taqqiya.