5 ms·

> But aren't neo Nazi's fringe and rarer than wokies? Depends on your definition. They may be rare if you only include self-identified Nazis. However, if you e

by rnd0 5y ago

> But aren't neo Nazi's fringe and rarer than wokies? Depends on your definition. They may be rare if you only include self-identified Nazis. However, if you expand that to include members of the Far Right and general White Surpemacists then they're not only not fringe but they become as mainstream as Hannity, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and all of the Q-anon grifters. White supremacists -as in people who believe most of the same thing as actual literal nazis, are by no means rare these days. But if you mean people traipsing around in black SS uniforms then sure yeah those guys are rare, sure.

hnbad 5y ago
In online arguments I've seen people use definitions ranging all the way from "members of the National Socialist Worker's Party of 1930s and 1940s Germany" to "literally anyone talking in a loud voice" but the most practical distinction between run of the mill fascists and nazis I've seen is that nazis are fascists who also believe in the Jewish conspiracy - which describes a lot more people than most people unaware of far-right memes would probably think. Of course that leaves the question of how you define fascism, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  I'd loosely define 'fascism' as 'rule through sheer power by the deserving, over those who don't deserve power or self-rule'. The basic concept is, not everybody deserves to rule. Some people deserve to rule, and others have to BE ruled against their wishes, forever. Maximum observed 'forever' seems to be under a decade, once the full fascism kicks in and is unavoidable. I don't believe fascism is sustainable, and what we see as 'woke' is a typical reaction to these attempts at rule. (Yes, I'm suggesting that power structures lean more towards fascism than they used to, and that this creates 'woke' as a reaction to this pressure) I'd loosely define 'Nazi' as 'fascist with specific focus on seizing power through propaganda, media, and politics, particularly with use of anything that's new media'. In the 30s and 40s, of course, this was radio. There had always been massed political rallies (though the use of epic film propaganda was also new, as there'd be no Riefenstahl without the existence of film) but there hadn't been broadcast radio. Generalized, 'Nazi' means fascism plus modern media, and I'd be comfortable focusing that down a little to specify the media's used to rally 'the people' against enemies, specifically internal enemies in an ill-defined way. Rallying people against 'woke' through coordinated use of social media is EXACTLY Nazi, in technique.
concordDance 5y ago
> White supremacists -as in people who believe most of the same thing as actual literal nazis, are by no means rare these days The conflation of white supremacism and naziism is pretty much entirely political maneuvering. They believe very different things about the state, forms of government, gay people, culture, land use and many other things. Not to mention that only a small number of people termed white supremacists actually are (it conflates believing in racial differences (which are often not just white>everything) with believing in racial segregation with believing that the "white" ethnic group will form a better society),
- foldr 5y ago
  Pretty scary that believing in racial segregation is no longer a fringe belief. In any case, you can’t tell me with a straight face that white people who believe in segregation, in the US, envision a society where there is no power imbalance between ethnic groups. These people want white people to be in charge, which is what white supremacy means in practice.
  - concordDance 5y ago
    Depends on the people. Some would just want the USA split into a few smaller countries. Also, it's still pretty fringe.
    - foldr 5y ago
      >Some would just want the USA split into a few smaller countries. "Just" strikes me as an inappropriate adverb to use in this context. You are talking about splitting up the US into racially segregated states. Even in a bizarre hypothetical where this was somehow done with the best of intentions (lol), the amount of chaos and human suffering it would cause is almost impossible to imagine. This sort of utterly insane belief should not be "pretty fringe". It should be virtually non-existent, in a reasonably sane and healthy society. It's a real sea change in our culture that racial segregation is now openly considered or even advocated on relatively mainstream forums such as HN. That some of the people in question might not meet some overly pedantic definition of 'white supremacist' is hardly any consolation. The far right has never taken its own ideology seriously – it's all a means to an end. They tie sympathetic intellectuals up in knots trying to parse and categorize the finer gradations of racist nonsense, and then do whatever they hell they want once they're in power.

by rnd0 5y ago

hnbad 5y ago

In online arguments I've seen people use definitions ranging all the way from "members of the National Socialist Worker's Party of 1930s and 1940s Germany" to "literally anyone talking in a loud voice" but the most practical distinction between run of the mill fascists and nazis I've seen is that nazis are fascists who also believe in the Jewish conspiracy - which describes a lot more people than most people unaware of far-right memes would probably think. Of course that leaves the question of how you define fascism, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Applejinx 5y ago
I'd loosely define 'fascism' as 'rule through sheer power by the deserving, over those who don't deserve power or self-rule'. The basic concept is, not everybody deserves to rule. Some people deserve to rule, and others have to BE ruled against their wishes, forever. Maximum observed 'forever' seems to be under a decade, once the full fascism kicks in and is unavoidable. I don't believe fascism is sustainable, and what we see as 'woke' is a typical reaction to these attempts at rule. (Yes, I'm suggesting that power structures lean more towards fascism than they used to, and that this creates 'woke' as a reaction to this pressure) I'd loosely define 'Nazi' as 'fascist with specific focus on seizing power through propaganda, media, and politics, particularly with use of anything that's new media'. In the 30s and 40s, of course, this was radio. There had always been massed political rallies (though the use of epic film propaganda was also new, as there'd be no Riefenstahl without the existence of film) but there hadn't been broadcast radio. Generalized, 'Nazi' means fascism plus modern media, and I'd be comfortable focusing that down a little to specify the media's used to rally 'the people' against enemies, specifically internal enemies in an ill-defined way. Rallying people against 'woke' through coordinated use of social media is EXACTLY Nazi, in technique.

concordDance 5y ago

> White supremacists -as in people who believe most of the same thing as actual literal nazis, are by no means rare these days The conflation of white supremacism and naziism is pretty much entirely political maneuvering. They believe very different things about the state, forms of government, gay people, culture, land use and many other things. Not to mention that only a small number of people termed white supremacists actually are (it conflates believing in racial differences (which are often not just white>everything) with believing in racial segregation with believing that the "white" ethnic group will form a better society),

foldr 5y ago
Pretty scary that believing in racial segregation is no longer a fringe belief. In any case, you can’t tell me with a straight face that white people who believe in segregation, in the US, envision a society where there is no power imbalance between ethnic groups. These people want white people to be in charge, which is what white supremacy means in practice.
- concordDance 5y ago
  Depends on the people. Some would just want the USA split into a few smaller countries. Also, it's still pretty fringe.
  - foldr 5y ago
    >Some would just want the USA split into a few smaller countries. "Just" strikes me as an inappropriate adverb to use in this context. You are talking about splitting up the US into racially segregated states. Even in a bizarre hypothetical where this was somehow done with the best of intentions (lol), the amount of chaos and human suffering it would cause is almost impossible to imagine. This sort of utterly insane belief should not be "pretty fringe". It should be virtually non-existent, in a reasonably sane and healthy society. It's a real sea change in our culture that racial segregation is now openly considered or even advocated on relatively mainstream forums such as HN. That some of the people in question might not meet some overly pedantic definition of 'white supremacist' is hardly any consolation. The far right has never taken its own ideology seriously – it's all a means to an end. They tie sympathetic intellectuals up in knots trying to parse and categorize the finer gradations of racist nonsense, and then do whatever they hell they want once they're in power.