3 ms·
It seems like calling it a collection of dog whistles is directly addressed by this paragraph: "The trouble is that Nazis are human beings, and they have many
by cpitman 6y ago
It seems like calling it a collection of dog whistles is directly addressed by this paragraph:
"The trouble is that Nazis are human beings, and they have many benign thoughts along with their antisemitism. So I might avoid repeating some ordinary, unthreatening statement uttered by someone with a Nazi reputation, lest you think that I sound like a Nazi. Soon only actual Nazis and a few weirdos who don’t care what other people think are willing to repeat these unthreatening statements — which now appear rather threatening. In this regime of self-censorship, even arguments defending academic freedom (which is not a traditional Nazi commitment!) or aesthetic judgment (a commitment shared by many people, including a few Nazis) can look like signs of crypto-Nazism. This increases the costs of honest discussion."
- sickofparadox 6y agoDog Whistle (Politics): The use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. [Wikipedia] To what group is this directed? What about this speaks to the "Crypto-fascists" the above commenter mentions? Is it simply the word Nazi? I have read through this a few times and I'm having a difficult time finding the angle in which this could be a nod and a wink to a skinhead.
- cpitman 6y agoCalling it dog-whistles instead of calling out specific issues with the argument implies that the problem isn't what he is saying, but that he is saying things that sound like things said by other people. IE, calling it crypto-fascist dog whistles is saying "I think he is a fascist because he says things I think fascists say, but isn't actually coming out and saying fascist things". Which, in the end, means that no one can say things that fascists might also say, without sounding like a fascist.
- sickofparadox 6y agoI understand and completely agree. I suppose my comment would have better been directed at the original commenter, as their take was so alien to my reading of the text.
- marshmallow_12 6y agoBut why discuss Nazis if they are not strictly necessary for the article? It rubs me the wrong way that some people seem to delight in the intellectual brinksmanship of philosophising about what we can keep from Nazis and what not. It's normally useless and foolish speculation that just serves to delegitimze the threat of nazism. Please just forget about the Nazis. Never forget what they did, but don't rationalise them. It's just plain insensitive. Thank you.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- marshmallow_12 6y agoI'm not sure what part of my comment could possibly be argued against with a straight face. Someone thinks there's something fundementally correct in Nazism? Or maybe whataboutism is more correct then logic.