3 ms·
well, 'communists' aren't a specific political group that are tied to a particular time and place. a 'communist' is broadly one who supports 'communism', often
by abiox 9y ago
well, 'communists' aren't a specific political group that are tied to a particular time and place. a 'communist' is broadly one who supports 'communism', often as described by marx.
is there a nonzero number of people who wholly subscribe to the nazi party's politcal platform, and want that specific party to be reborn? i suppose that's likely.
however, the word 'nazi' is used to describe a vast swath of people who have little in common with them. reagan, bush sr and bush jr were nazis. jewish political commentator ben shapiro is a nazi. it's all somewhat absurd.
all calling someone a nazi - at least those that don't label themselves as such - does is curb thought, agitate emotions and rationalize violence (rather poorly, i might add).
- Avshalom 9y ago>>is there a nonzero number of people who wholly subscribe to the nazi party's politcal platform, and want that specific party to be reborn? i suppose that's likely Did you fucking miss the crowd in Charlottesville carrying swastika flags chanting "jews will not replace us"? Did you miss the infamous ACLU defends Nazis case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... ? Did you miss the headlines here on HN about the Daily Stormer? Stormfront? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism You know the people running around proclaiming themselves Nazis? This isn't a "likely" this is an "actually" and it's been an actually for as long as the word has existed.
- abiox 9y agothis doesn't address the argument. people who say it's okay to 'punch nazis' are the same people who hit people with bike locks, assault people, destroy property and torture people. all you have to do is label a person you dislike a 'nazi' and it's a thoughtless greenlight for righteous bloodshed and alienation.
- topmonk 9y agoHe never claimed he was addressing the argument. He just showed where you were incorrect, and you were.
- abiox 9y agoi said there was a nonzero number of people who might identify as literal nazis.
- topmonk 9y agoYou wrote: >is there a nonzero number of people who wholly subscribe to the nazi party's politcal platform, and want that specific party to be reborn? i suppose that's likely That's about as truthful as, "Did Hitler kill Jews? i suppose that's likely."
- abiox 9y agoi don't know what you mean by 'truthful'. it's not wrong, and it's simply a nod to possibility, as that wasn't even the argument. this is just a waste of time on a tangent so someone feels like they had some kind of point. further, your comparison doesn't seem very apt. you're talking about a historical event. compared to applying labels to people today who haven't necessarily identified as those labels, as a way to rationalize and endorse violence.
- topmonk 9y ago> i don't know what you mean by 'truthful'. it's not wrong, and it's simply a nod to possibility, as that wasn't even the argument. Yes, it is wrong. Saying something is "likely" to occur, is the same as saying there is some doubt. There isn't. >this is just a waste of time on a tangent so someone feels like they had some kind of point. Then why are you adamant about it? Do you have to "win" every argument? The poster was right, you could have said so. > further, your comparison doesn't seem very apt. you're talking about a historical event. compared to applying labels to people today who haven't necessarily identified as those labels, as a way to rationalize and endorse violence. I was just trying to quickly show why what you wrote wasn't truthful via an example. Instead it seems I had to spell it out.