6 ms·

Republicans of course know that George W. Bush was hitler, McCain was Hitler, Romney was Hitler, and Trump- you know the joke by now. "Call them Nazis" is a pr

Republicans of course know that George W. Bush was hitler, McCain was Hitler, Romney was Hitler, and Trump- you know the joke by now. "Call them Nazis" is a pretty standard tactic in the left wing arsenal. Bush: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/5/20040105-114507-1007r/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/5/20040105-1145... McCain: http://www.mtv.com/news/1593432/madonna-compares-john-mccain-to-hitler-at-tour-opener-campaign-calls-slam-outrageous/ http://www.mtv.com/news/1593432/madonna-compares-john-mccain... Romney: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/247789-romney-campaign-tells-obama-to-rein-in-his-supporters-on-nazi-comments http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/247789-romn... It's kind of a shame that Democrats have trivialized the Holocaust into a political punchline. But you can see the 'concerns' on the left if these 'nazis' get into power. It drives their rationalization for these kind of censorship actions and the tech companies are just taking advantage of an opportunity.

nrb 9y ago
Not sure if you actually think this is only one side doing this, but just substitute "hitler" for "communist" from the right, with the same fears and motivations. There's no excusing either, but let's discuss this with some intellectual honesty.
- inthon4lyfe 9y ago
  "intellectual honesty" in this case being "make sure to shit on the right while you point out the foibles of the left, or i might end up reflecting on how i'm playing a pointless, unwinnable game of 'tit for tat' like the hatfields and mccoys"
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Communists don't get banned from the internet so far- nazis do.
  - enraged_camel 9y ago
    You can absolutely get banned from right-wing forums for being even slightly liberal (aka "communist"). You only have to look at The_Donald to see this in action everyday.
    - soylentcola 9y ago
      Sure, but as the article points out, it's one thing to be banned or blocked from posting on a particular website or other internet-based service. It's another to be (de facto) blocked from posting on any site/service or even creating your own. It's an interesting point because while I have no sympathy for the Stormer folks who were effectively shut down themselves, it certainly provides a good illustration of how losing access to DDoS protection and similar services can all but completely remove your ability to engage in organized, internet-based "speech".
    - daxorid 9y ago
      GP mentioned being banned from the internet, not from a forum. Name a single Communist who got their domain name permanently clientHolded by every Registrar attempted, or their Hosting, DNS, DDoS mitigation services denied by every provider attempted. Reality is that Communists don't face anywhere near as much platform denial or employment insecurity as Fascists do. Not even close, despite the significantly more horrific body count of Communists in the 20th century.
      - enraged_camel 9y ago
        In the West, communists don't have to worry about being banned from the internet because, at least to my knowledge, they don't believe in racial supremacy and support systemic extermination of other races. Unlike, you know, Nazis. It is interesting you bring up the higher body count of Communists in the 20th century. The only reason Nazis didn't get to exterminate more people is because America entered the war and the Allies won as a result. Make no mistake though: if Germany had won, Hitler would have moved on to people of other races. After all, he believed the Aryan race to be far superior to others, including non-German whites.
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    That's what "communists" (for lack of a better word, from AFA syndicalists to traditional Leninist-Marxists to Maoists to whathaveyounotists) don't seem to understand: while they're doing their best to get "nazis" banned from the 'net by all sort of tricks, they're building the framework for their own eventual ban. The divisiveness of their own doctrine more or less ensures that one day they'll all end up on the "oppressor" side and as such can be banned, just like white male homosexuals are now getting banned from some LGBT[a-z0-9] groups because they are supposedly "part of the problem".
bdcravens 9y ago
That poisonous rhetoric was also directed at Obama by the right: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/republicans_comparing_barack_obama_to_hitler_my_favorite_examples_of_the.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
- dclowd9901 9y ago
  I think you mean Osama. /s
  - bdcravens 9y ago
    I forgot the rules of engagement: you're supposed to list his full name, using CAPS LOCK on his middle name
adventured 9y ago
Trying to figure out why that comment is getting downvoted so heavily when it's highlighting an important point and is factually correct. Over the last few decades the mainstream left has routinely called all Presidents on the right, Nazis. It's accepted behavior and practice to outright state that as though it were a fact. The left has gotten so extreme with it, that popular left-biased talk show hosts pull heil Hitler routines on national tv, directed at Trump's Presidency. One need only look at any given protest during the Bush years and the endless parade of Bush is Hitler type signs (and those were the nice signs). The dramatic, almost childish overreaction would be amusing, if so many of the people proclaiming it didn't actually mean it seriously.
- beepboopbeep 9y ago
  Because we're not on reddit. These arguments are facetious.
- otakucode 9y ago
  I don't understand why it gets attributed to the left. Any time any leader starts making authoritarian overtones that comes out. Plenty of people referred to Clinton as Hitler, Obama at Hitler, etc. The thing is, even if one of them were proven to be genetic clones of Hitler, it doesn't really matter. The problem with Hitler wasn't that he was Hitler. It was that he advanced extremely popular views which included fears that tolerance of difference would lead to destruction. He promised a recognition of the fundamental greatness of Germans, and a bright future of healthy, strong, prosperous generations living in peace. Everyone seems to think he came right out of the gate raving like a madman. That's not how it happened. That's not how 'it' EVER happens. When many people say things like 'that sounds like Hitler' or 'he's acting like Hitler', they are taking, usually, an intellectually bankrupt tactic. They wish to take your emotional reaction to hearing the name 'Hitler' and associate it emotionally with the thing being discussed. That's how emotional coercion works. Basic association. If one name and another are perceived close together in time or context, they get associated in the brain. If it happens enough, people see them as nearly indistinguishable. This is one of the litany of reasons why using emotional appeals to win arguments is the most debase, aggressive, disgusting forms of human interaction. But, there are real things to be learned from the Nazi movement. They were very effective at propaganda. They were a good example of cloaking an odious, destructive ethos in good, clean healthy living, science and reason. Many people who like the ideas of good, clean healthy living and who like science and reason do not want to admit those things were used to cloak genocide, but it is critically important that we understand what worked back then, because it absolutely can happen again. We evolved to live as nomadic hunter-gatherers in small tribes on the African savannah. We did not evolve to deal with nuanced reason, complex urban environments, and strictly regulated social and family situations. We can adapt to them, but it takes intentional effort. And it can be undermined by appealing to cognitive flaws that we all share with frightening ease. So when Bush says "you're either with us, or against us" it is absolutely called for to point out that exactly that mindset is radically dangerous, and that it has backed the most savage regimes in history. I would think that would be more of a Stalin style than Hitler, personally, but it doesn't really matter. It's the talk of a dictator, an authoritarian, an enemy of dissent and thus of discussion. It is danger of the highest order for the leader of the free world to have a sentiment like that. And it really doesn't matter what party they're from or whether they're talking about Americans or Nazis when it comes to who "us" is.
otakucode 9y ago
I think it is less a matter of 'this is just what they call those they don't like' and more a matter of 'they recognize the first steps'. A very great many people, possibly even the majority, do not have the slightest clue how Hitler rose to power, how his Nazi party gained prominence, etc. None of the Holocaust documentaries seem to focus on just what was said to all of those good little Germans who got in line and marched people into cattle cars and turned a blind eye to things. THAT is the dangerous part. We know how to deal with military aggressors. We know how to deal with actual monsters AFTER they've gotten caught and revealed themselves. But does the phrase 'mental hygeine' send chills down your spine? And do you think if it was suggested today, or any time since 9/11, it wouldn't be taken up by both those in power and the majority of the public readily and heartily?
- cr0sh 9y ago
  One thing that can't and shouldn't be forgotten or glossed over is the role Christianity, particularly Catholicism, played in all this. Hitler virtually had the Pope's blessing. Hitler many times invoked his and his people's Christianity as rhetoric enabling many or most of the atrocities that occurred. Wehrmacht soldiers wore belt buckles with the phrase "Gott Mit Uns", or "God With Us". There are many, many parallels, as I am sure you are aware, to then as to today's political and social climate here in the United States, and to me, it is frightening and tragic to see my country like this. Here in the United States, it's not Catholicism playing the role; instead it is evangelical Christianity, particularly Dominionism. We can see this at play with Trump, and Trump is to some extent using "the church" for his own purposes, while they in turn fawn over their leader. In the background is of course neo-nazis, white nationalists, and their various silent enablers. There also, of course, was (until recently - but maybe the firing was a smokescreen, and he's still got Trump's ear) Bannon. These are frightening times, and only a fool would deny it.
  - angersock 9y ago
    > We can see this at play with Trump, and Trump is to some extent using "the church" for his own purposes, while they in turn fawn over their leader. This is pretty common in politics. I refer you to the great Reverend Jesse Jackson.
Tannic 9y ago
The problem is not that they are trivializing the holocaust by comparing Republicans to Nazis, but that they are not also conparing Democrats and our globalized mercenary capitalism writ large to Nazism (in fact the number of dead due to post war military intervention really adds up when you closely follow the aftermaths of western intervention projects). All too often those who hyperbolically compare others to Nazis actually do a disservice to valid systemic comparisons.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Rush Limbaugh has been labeling women he disagrees with as 'feminazis' to a huge audience for a good 25 years, but somehow Democrats are to blame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi
enraged_camel 9y ago
>>"Call them Nazis" is a pretty standard tactic in the left wing arsenal. It's not a left-wing thing at all. The term "Nazi" has been culturally ingrained in the United States as a derogatory term to describe anyone who has a strong authoritarian bent and cares about following the rules/law at the expense of everything else. You can see examples of this if you examine the colloquial phrase "grammar nazi", or a more specific humorous example from popular culture, "soup nazi", or a term invented by right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, "feminazi". This everyday usage of the term "Nazi" is different from pointing out that someone is an actual, literal Nazi, based on the fact that they do Nazi salutes and wear swastikas. That is the real problem in the United States today: not that we are a bit too casual in labeling people Nazis, but that denouncing actual Nazism is met with "well what about antifa?!"
beepboopbeep 9y ago
Yes, lets dilute the fascist actions of the current administration with hyperbole from different times and environments. They are clearly one and the same.

nrb 9y ago

Not sure if you actually think this is only one side doing this, but just substitute "hitler" for "communist" from the right, with the same fears and motivations. There's no excusing either, but let's discuss this with some intellectual honesty.

inthon4lyfe 9y ago
"intellectual honesty" in this case being "make sure to shit on the right while you point out the foibles of the left, or i might end up reflecting on how i'm playing a pointless, unwinnable game of 'tit for tat' like the hatfields and mccoys"
creaghpatr 9y ago
Communists don't get banned from the internet so far- nazis do.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  You can absolutely get banned from right-wing forums for being even slightly liberal (aka "communist"). You only have to look at The_Donald to see this in action everyday.
  - soylentcola 9y ago
    Sure, but as the article points out, it's one thing to be banned or blocked from posting on a particular website or other internet-based service. It's another to be (de facto) blocked from posting on any site/service or even creating your own. It's an interesting point because while I have no sympathy for the Stormer folks who were effectively shut down themselves, it certainly provides a good illustration of how losing access to DDoS protection and similar services can all but completely remove your ability to engage in organized, internet-based "speech".
  - daxorid 9y ago
    GP mentioned being banned from the internet, not from a forum. Name a single Communist who got their domain name permanently clientHolded by every Registrar attempted, or their Hosting, DNS, DDoS mitigation services denied by every provider attempted. Reality is that Communists don't face anywhere near as much platform denial or employment insecurity as Fascists do. Not even close, despite the significantly more horrific body count of Communists in the 20th century.
    - enraged_camel 9y ago
      In the West, communists don't have to worry about being banned from the internet because, at least to my knowledge, they don't believe in racial supremacy and support systemic extermination of other races. Unlike, you know, Nazis. It is interesting you bring up the higher body count of Communists in the 20th century. The only reason Nazis didn't get to exterminate more people is because America entered the war and the Allies won as a result. Make no mistake though: if Germany had won, Hitler would have moved on to people of other races. After all, he believed the Aryan race to be far superior to others, including non-German whites.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  That's what "communists" (for lack of a better word, from AFA syndicalists to traditional Leninist-Marxists to Maoists to whathaveyounotists) don't seem to understand: while they're doing their best to get "nazis" banned from the 'net by all sort of tricks, they're building the framework for their own eventual ban. The divisiveness of their own doctrine more or less ensures that one day they'll all end up on the "oppressor" side and as such can be banned, just like white male homosexuals are now getting banned from some LGBT[a-z0-9] groups because they are supposedly "part of the problem".

bdcravens 9y ago

That poisonous rhetoric was also directed at Obama by the right: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/republicans_comparing_barack_obama_to_hitler_my_favorite_examples_of_the.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

dclowd9901 9y ago
I think you mean Osama. /s
- bdcravens 9y ago
  I forgot the rules of engagement: you're supposed to list his full name, using CAPS LOCK on his middle name

adventured 9y ago

Trying to figure out why that comment is getting downvoted so heavily when it's highlighting an important point and is factually correct. Over the last few decades the mainstream left has routinely called all Presidents on the right, Nazis. It's accepted behavior and practice to outright state that as though it were a fact. The left has gotten so extreme with it, that popular left-biased talk show hosts pull heil Hitler routines on national tv, directed at Trump's Presidency. One need only look at any given protest during the Bush years and the endless parade of Bush is Hitler type signs (and those were the nice signs). The dramatic, almost childish overreaction would be amusing, if so many of the people proclaiming it didn't actually mean it seriously.

beepboopbeep 9y ago
Because we're not on reddit. These arguments are facetious.
otakucode 9y ago
I don't understand why it gets attributed to the left. Any time any leader starts making authoritarian overtones that comes out. Plenty of people referred to Clinton as Hitler, Obama at Hitler, etc. The thing is, even if one of them were proven to be genetic clones of Hitler, it doesn't really matter. The problem with Hitler wasn't that he was Hitler. It was that he advanced extremely popular views which included fears that tolerance of difference would lead to destruction. He promised a recognition of the fundamental greatness of Germans, and a bright future of healthy, strong, prosperous generations living in peace. Everyone seems to think he came right out of the gate raving like a madman. That's not how it happened. That's not how 'it' EVER happens. When many people say things like 'that sounds like Hitler' or 'he's acting like Hitler', they are taking, usually, an intellectually bankrupt tactic. They wish to take your emotional reaction to hearing the name 'Hitler' and associate it emotionally with the thing being discussed. That's how emotional coercion works. Basic association. If one name and another are perceived close together in time or context, they get associated in the brain. If it happens enough, people see them as nearly indistinguishable. This is one of the litany of reasons why using emotional appeals to win arguments is the most debase, aggressive, disgusting forms of human interaction. But, there are real things to be learned from the Nazi movement. They were very effective at propaganda. They were a good example of cloaking an odious, destructive ethos in good, clean healthy living, science and reason. Many people who like the ideas of good, clean healthy living and who like science and reason do not want to admit those things were used to cloak genocide, but it is critically important that we understand what worked back then, because it absolutely can happen again. We evolved to live as nomadic hunter-gatherers in small tribes on the African savannah. We did not evolve to deal with nuanced reason, complex urban environments, and strictly regulated social and family situations. We can adapt to them, but it takes intentional effort. And it can be undermined by appealing to cognitive flaws that we all share with frightening ease. So when Bush says "you're either with us, or against us" it is absolutely called for to point out that exactly that mindset is radically dangerous, and that it has backed the most savage regimes in history. I would think that would be more of a Stalin style than Hitler, personally, but it doesn't really matter. It's the talk of a dictator, an authoritarian, an enemy of dissent and thus of discussion. It is danger of the highest order for the leader of the free world to have a sentiment like that. And it really doesn't matter what party they're from or whether they're talking about Americans or Nazis when it comes to who "us" is.

otakucode 9y ago

I think it is less a matter of 'this is just what they call those they don't like' and more a matter of 'they recognize the first steps'. A very great many people, possibly even the majority, do not have the slightest clue how Hitler rose to power, how his Nazi party gained prominence, etc. None of the Holocaust documentaries seem to focus on just what was said to all of those good little Germans who got in line and marched people into cattle cars and turned a blind eye to things. THAT is the dangerous part. We know how to deal with military aggressors. We know how to deal with actual monsters AFTER they've gotten caught and revealed themselves. But does the phrase 'mental hygeine' send chills down your spine? And do you think if it was suggested today, or any time since 9/11, it wouldn't be taken up by both those in power and the majority of the public readily and heartily?

cr0sh 9y ago
One thing that can't and shouldn't be forgotten or glossed over is the role Christianity, particularly Catholicism, played in all this. Hitler virtually had the Pope's blessing. Hitler many times invoked his and his people's Christianity as rhetoric enabling many or most of the atrocities that occurred. Wehrmacht soldiers wore belt buckles with the phrase "Gott Mit Uns", or "God With Us". There are many, many parallels, as I am sure you are aware, to then as to today's political and social climate here in the United States, and to me, it is frightening and tragic to see my country like this. Here in the United States, it's not Catholicism playing the role; instead it is evangelical Christianity, particularly Dominionism. We can see this at play with Trump, and Trump is to some extent using "the church" for his own purposes, while they in turn fawn over their leader. In the background is of course neo-nazis, white nationalists, and their various silent enablers. There also, of course, was (until recently - but maybe the firing was a smokescreen, and he's still got Trump's ear) Bannon. These are frightening times, and only a fool would deny it.
- angersock 9y ago
  > We can see this at play with Trump, and Trump is to some extent using "the church" for his own purposes, while they in turn fawn over their leader. This is pretty common in politics. I refer you to the great Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Tannic 9y ago

The problem is not that they are trivializing the holocaust by comparing Republicans to Nazis, but that they are not also conparing Democrats and our globalized mercenary capitalism writ large to Nazism (in fact the number of dead due to post war military intervention really adds up when you closely follow the aftermaths of western intervention projects). All too often those who hyperbolically compare others to Nazis actually do a disservice to valid systemic comparisons.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Rush Limbaugh has been labeling women he disagrees with as 'feminazis' to a huge audience for a good 25 years, but somehow Democrats are to blame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi

enraged_camel 9y ago

>>"Call them Nazis" is a pretty standard tactic in the left wing arsenal. It's not a left-wing thing at all. The term "Nazi" has been culturally ingrained in the United States as a derogatory term to describe anyone who has a strong authoritarian bent and cares about following the rules/law at the expense of everything else. You can see examples of this if you examine the colloquial phrase "grammar nazi", or a more specific humorous example from popular culture, "soup nazi", or a term invented by right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, "feminazi". This everyday usage of the term "Nazi" is different from pointing out that someone is an actual, literal Nazi, based on the fact that they do Nazi salutes and wear swastikas. That is the real problem in the United States today: not that we are a bit too casual in labeling people Nazis, but that denouncing actual Nazism is met with "well what about antifa?!"

beepboopbeep 9y ago

Yes, lets dilute the fascist actions of the current administration with hyperbole from different times and environments. They are clearly one and the same.