7 ms·

Yonatan Zunger – People seem to think “Nazi” is meant as a slur or term of abuse (2017)

37 points by d0mine 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
draw_down 4y ago
[dead]
joemazerino 4y ago
[flagged]
- myrryr 4y ago
  You can have a modern one though. The article doesn't talk about communism because it doesn't have to. It isn't talking about how it happened historically, it is talking about it's ideology, which is independent of its history. (4) Nazism conceives of the world as a struggle between races. (5) That's not "race" in the 20c US "black/ white" sense; Jews, Slavs, Britons, and so on are all "races," too. (6) And Nazis believe that races have certain characteristics, which are passed on through the blood; and that they are bound to some land. (7) There are a few other articles of Nazi belief: for example, that acting ("the will") is better than thinking (a sign of weaker races). (8) And that the strength of a race is most strongly exemplified through the untrammeled Will of its leaders. It doesn't need to talk about communism because it is independent of it.
- toiletfuneral 4y ago
- Jordrok 4y ago
  What is the point of shifting the focus here? Are you trying to justify Nazism?
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  >You can't have historical discussions of Fascism/National Socialism without first discussing Communism. This is the most baffling whataboutism topic to me (because of how common it is, and how obviously fallacious it is). There are, of course, plenty of cases where you can reasonably have a conversation about fascism or communism without the prerequisite of examining its relationship to the other. You may criticize people for omitting such context in cases where its absence is conspicuous, and you probably should, since I think that's the more realistic goal people who put forward this provocative fallacy are usually trying to get to.
- thisiscorrect 4y ago
  This is typical of Americans' understanding of the events leading up to the Second World War. It seems that a lot of the wartime propaganda still holds sway, reducing many to view this part of history as having an almost cartoon-like simplicity. For example, what Zunger labels point 05.17 "[When the Nazis came to power in Germany], They held angry public rallies which often included violence." This is true. But there's a lie of omission here. These sorts of intense street demonstrations were incredibly common in Weimar Germany (and before that, even), with a lot of street clashing between left-wind and right-wing groups, including paramilitaries. These didn't begin when the Nazis came to power and are not indicative of Nazism per se. Filtering one's view of history through that bias misses many important points that one could apply to the world today. Nazism was an ideology tied to its particular time and place in history. Redefining it to mean "socialism for members of the nation. And they decide who's in and who's out." is wrongheaded. This definition would seem to apply to any modern nation with social welfare programs and citizenship requirements tied to nationality like Israel or the PRC. Are these countries practicing Nazism or is this definition wrong? There are some important lessons to learn from that period though. For example: power vacuums get filled quickly. Governments that are derelict in their duty to keep order get challenged by upstart "governments." It's right to ask if one's government is turning a blind eye to "angry public rallies which often included violence" and get worried if that's happening. Sadly I think this has been happening in the USA.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I also found the point about Nazis keeping quiet to be odd and ahistorical.
  - binbashthefash 4y ago
    We have literal, open and proud Nazis who wear swastikas, text their mom Hitler pics, and drive their cars into crowds. The concern is warranted. https://mobile.twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/1069911860307206144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1069913857597026306%7Ctwgr%5Eb40fa0f2237cf7faa6e210efb0bc4377ff5fb747%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwtop.com%2Fvirginia%2F2018%2F12%2Fprosecutors-seek-to-use-hitler-image-texted-to-mother-in-james-alex-fields-murder-trial%2F https://mobile.twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/10699118603...
- nnvvhh 4y ago
  Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with communism AS AN IDEOLOGY, though. So why discuss it? It could have been any group based on the logic of your comment.
  - joemazerino 4y ago
    Yonatan rightly categorizes Nazism as an ideology centered around race. Unfortunately, he then veers off to finger-pointing modern day political discourse as a means to justify "punching Nazis". My previous comment was aimed at the crowd that thinks " punching Nazis" is a zero-sum game of villain and hero. It has more nuance, and should be understood in a previous historical context.
wtfiswrongwithu 4y ago
[flagged]
bm3719 4y ago
> There are a few other articles of Nazi belief: for example, that acting ("the will") is better than thinking (a sign of weaker races). Perhaps this explains the otherwise strange title of the film "Triumph of the Will". Interesting info here, if these points are true. However, initiating political violence by punching people seems counterproductive. Punching is an act carried out at an individual level, so unless you need to engage in self-defense against a specific individual who is actively physically attacking you, you're the aggressor.
- bravo22 4y ago
  I don't know if the statement in the article is true. The belief wasn't that acting is better than thinking but that "will" is better than hope, that they would win in their struggle for world domination because they were more determined. Turns out, others were more determined than they were.
rvieira 4y ago
I think Umberto Eco distilled much better the characterics of "Ur-Fascism". https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list...
- myrryr 4y ago
  I think both are good, Ur-Fascism is a larger read, when Yonatan also gives a good summary, and a more - this is a root thing, and it expands out like this. Both are good, both are worth reading for sure.
aaron695 4y ago
Why is this not flagged. Yonatan Zunger also talked about people punching James Damore's in the face in another article - "a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face" He's a bad person. Or was in (2017) And this is just rambling Tweets from (2017) Why is this being dug up?
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  The article says "it [punching Nazis] doesn't solve anything".
- ratsmack 4y ago
  Why do we have to flag it instead of eloquently and politely discussing it?
throw10920 4y ago
> "Punching Nazis" is a way to signal to them that their ideology is not welcome in the public sphere, to keep them quiet and afraid. Oh, I see. This isn't really about Nazi's. This is about coming up with a label for your political opponents in order to justify violently attacking them and subverting due process.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  You elided the next sentence: "But it doesn't solve anything." which completely inverts the meaning of the sentence you quoted.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    You elided a sentence right before: "Punching Nazis is a minor control mechanism: it silences the danger without amplifying its speech." ...which legitimizes the use of violence against "Nazi's" for whatever value you assign to that. Your quoted fragment just disclaims the effectiveness, while the article still clearly supports the idea.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      The article is saying that there are more effective ways of combatting Nazi-ism than violence. That is an argument against violence.
      - Ancapistani 4y ago
        I got the complete opposite from the article. The very next sentence is: > Historically, there has been exactly one solution for Nazis. It did not come cheap. I read that as “punching Nazis isn’t enough on its own, you must kill them until they can no longer act effectively against you, then outlaw their ideology.”
      - illuminerdy 4y ago
        ""Nazi" is not a slur, and it should not be used for anyone who does not advocate those ideas. But it should be used for those who do. And for those: no peace, no sympathy, no quarter, and no mercy." Yeah...I don't think we read the same article.
intimidated 4y ago
Yonatan, Yonatan. He's the world's most effective Nazi recruiter. I wish he'd stop. Here, and elsewhere, he openly calls for violence against "Nazis". That's a label he has habitually misapplied to a variety of people who explicitly denounce any violence (clearly, in contrast to Yonatan) and dehumanization (clearly, in contrast to Yonatan). What a beautiful combination! 1. By abusing the term "Nazi" to broadly apply to people who are not, he creates a group of people sympathetic toward other folks who are called Nazis AND antagonistic towards people who sling the term 2. By openly calling for violence (why is he allowed to do this?), he creates a sense of urgency and panic in those people: "We MUST band together to stop these deranged antifascists before they have the chance to give us irreversible brain damage for existing in public. Who exactly are they?"
- binbashthefash 4y ago
  He very clearly defined who he was referring to.
  - intimidated 4y ago
    His Twitter thread was written to justify public violence against this man: https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer
    - binbashthefash 4y ago
      And Richard Spencer is a Nazi https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=IKICKcMU3MU https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=IKICKcMU3MU
      - intimidated 4y ago
        I'm getting a 502 Bad Gateway. Could you share the transcript?
        binbashthefash 4y ago
seba_dos1 4y ago
People also seem to think almost like actual WWII nazis were some kind of unimaginable monsters that invaded humanity and made it commit unforgivable atrocities. Especially pop-culture likes to portray them as aliens on moon or time-traveling kung-fu masters, which is great way to ridicule them, but has a side effect of making them seem like an almost imaginary threat from outside. In reality, they were just humans, guided with human instincts, emotions and desires, who cared about their friends and families just like anyone else, and who gained political support on many of the same tactics that are in use also today. With right conditioning, you and your friends are also capable of becoming nazi-like. If you don't realize that, you may end up surprised one day.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

37 points by d0mine 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

draw_down 4y ago

[dead]

joemazerino 4y ago

[flagged]

myrryr 4y ago
You can have a modern one though. The article doesn't talk about communism because it doesn't have to. It isn't talking about how it happened historically, it is talking about it's ideology, which is independent of its history. (4) Nazism conceives of the world as a struggle between races. (5) That's not "race" in the 20c US "black/ white" sense; Jews, Slavs, Britons, and so on are all "races," too. (6) And Nazis believe that races have certain characteristics, which are passed on through the blood; and that they are bound to some land. (7) There are a few other articles of Nazi belief: for example, that acting ("the will") is better than thinking (a sign of weaker races). (8) And that the strength of a race is most strongly exemplified through the untrammeled Will of its leaders. It doesn't need to talk about communism because it is independent of it.
toiletfuneral 4y ago
Jordrok 4y ago
What is the point of shifting the focus here? Are you trying to justify Nazism?
happytoexplain 4y ago
>You can't have historical discussions of Fascism/National Socialism without first discussing Communism. This is the most baffling whataboutism topic to me (because of how common it is, and how obviously fallacious it is). There are, of course, plenty of cases where you can reasonably have a conversation about fascism or communism without the prerequisite of examining its relationship to the other. You may criticize people for omitting such context in cases where its absence is conspicuous, and you probably should, since I think that's the more realistic goal people who put forward this provocative fallacy are usually trying to get to.
thisiscorrect 4y ago
This is typical of Americans' understanding of the events leading up to the Second World War. It seems that a lot of the wartime propaganda still holds sway, reducing many to view this part of history as having an almost cartoon-like simplicity. For example, what Zunger labels point 05.17 "[When the Nazis came to power in Germany], They held angry public rallies which often included violence." This is true. But there's a lie of omission here. These sorts of intense street demonstrations were incredibly common in Weimar Germany (and before that, even), with a lot of street clashing between left-wind and right-wing groups, including paramilitaries. These didn't begin when the Nazis came to power and are not indicative of Nazism per se. Filtering one's view of history through that bias misses many important points that one could apply to the world today. Nazism was an ideology tied to its particular time and place in history. Redefining it to mean "socialism for members of the nation. And they decide who's in and who's out." is wrongheaded. This definition would seem to apply to any modern nation with social welfare programs and citizenship requirements tied to nationality like Israel or the PRC. Are these countries practicing Nazism or is this definition wrong? There are some important lessons to learn from that period though. For example: power vacuums get filled quickly. Governments that are derelict in their duty to keep order get challenged by upstart "governments." It's right to ask if one's government is turning a blind eye to "angry public rallies which often included violence" and get worried if that's happening. Sadly I think this has been happening in the USA.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I also found the point about Nazis keeping quiet to be odd and ahistorical.
- binbashthefash 4y ago
  We have literal, open and proud Nazis who wear swastikas, text their mom Hitler pics, and drive their cars into crowds. The concern is warranted. https://mobile.twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/1069911860307206144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1069913857597026306%7Ctwgr%5Eb40fa0f2237cf7faa6e210efb0bc4377ff5fb747%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwtop.com%2Fvirginia%2F2018%2F12%2Fprosecutors-seek-to-use-hitler-image-texted-to-mother-in-james-alex-fields-murder-trial%2F https://mobile.twitter.com/AugensteinWTOP/status/10699118603...
nnvvhh 4y ago
Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with communism AS AN IDEOLOGY, though. So why discuss it? It could have been any group based on the logic of your comment.
- joemazerino 4y ago
  Yonatan rightly categorizes Nazism as an ideology centered around race. Unfortunately, he then veers off to finger-pointing modern day political discourse as a means to justify "punching Nazis". My previous comment was aimed at the crowd that thinks " punching Nazis" is a zero-sum game of villain and hero. It has more nuance, and should be understood in a previous historical context.

wtfiswrongwithu 4y ago

[flagged]

bm3719 4y ago

> There are a few other articles of Nazi belief: for example, that acting ("the will") is better than thinking (a sign of weaker races). Perhaps this explains the otherwise strange title of the film "Triumph of the Will". Interesting info here, if these points are true. However, initiating political violence by punching people seems counterproductive. Punching is an act carried out at an individual level, so unless you need to engage in self-defense against a specific individual who is actively physically attacking you, you're the aggressor.

bravo22 4y ago
I don't know if the statement in the article is true. The belief wasn't that acting is better than thinking but that "will" is better than hope, that they would win in their struggle for world domination because they were more determined. Turns out, others were more determined than they were.

rvieira 4y ago

I think Umberto Eco distilled much better the characterics of "Ur-Fascism". https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list...

myrryr 4y ago
I think both are good, Ur-Fascism is a larger read, when Yonatan also gives a good summary, and a more - this is a root thing, and it expands out like this. Both are good, both are worth reading for sure.

aaron695 4y ago

Why is this not flagged. Yonatan Zunger also talked about people punching James Damore's in the face in another article - "a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face" He's a bad person. Or was in (2017) And this is just rambling Tweets from (2017) Why is this being dug up?

bryanlarsen 4y ago
The article says "it [punching Nazis] doesn't solve anything".
ratsmack 4y ago
Why do we have to flag it instead of eloquently and politely discussing it?

throw10920 4y ago

> "Punching Nazis" is a way to signal to them that their ideology is not welcome in the public sphere, to keep them quiet and afraid. Oh, I see. This isn't really about Nazi's. This is about coming up with a label for your political opponents in order to justify violently attacking them and subverting due process.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
You elided the next sentence: "But it doesn't solve anything." which completely inverts the meaning of the sentence you quoted.
- throw10920 4y ago
  You elided a sentence right before: "Punching Nazis is a minor control mechanism: it silences the danger without amplifying its speech." ...which legitimizes the use of violence against "Nazi's" for whatever value you assign to that. Your quoted fragment just disclaims the effectiveness, while the article still clearly supports the idea.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    The article is saying that there are more effective ways of combatting Nazi-ism than violence. That is an argument against violence.
    - Ancapistani 4y ago
      I got the complete opposite from the article. The very next sentence is: > Historically, there has been exactly one solution for Nazis. It did not come cheap. I read that as “punching Nazis isn’t enough on its own, you must kill them until they can no longer act effectively against you, then outlaw their ideology.”
    - illuminerdy 4y ago
      ""Nazi" is not a slur, and it should not be used for anyone who does not advocate those ideas. But it should be used for those who do. And for those: no peace, no sympathy, no quarter, and no mercy." Yeah...I don't think we read the same article.

intimidated 4y ago

Yonatan, Yonatan. He's the world's most effective Nazi recruiter. I wish he'd stop. Here, and elsewhere, he openly calls for violence against "Nazis". That's a label he has habitually misapplied to a variety of people who explicitly denounce any violence (clearly, in contrast to Yonatan) and dehumanization (clearly, in contrast to Yonatan). What a beautiful combination! 1. By abusing the term "Nazi" to broadly apply to people who are not, he creates a group of people sympathetic toward other folks who are called Nazis AND antagonistic towards people who sling the term 2. By openly calling for violence (why is he allowed to do this?), he creates a sense of urgency and panic in those people: "We MUST band together to stop these deranged antifascists before they have the chance to give us irreversible brain damage for existing in public. Who exactly are they?"

binbashthefash 4y ago
He very clearly defined who he was referring to.
- intimidated 4y ago
  His Twitter thread was written to justify public violence against this man: https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer
  - binbashthefash 4y ago
    And Richard Spencer is a Nazi https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=IKICKcMU3MU https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=IKICKcMU3MU
    - intimidated 4y ago
      I'm getting a 502 Bad Gateway. Could you share the transcript?
      - binbashthefash 4y ago

seba_dos1 4y ago

People also seem to think almost like actual WWII nazis were some kind of unimaginable monsters that invaded humanity and made it commit unforgivable atrocities. Especially pop-culture likes to portray them as aliens on moon or time-traveling kung-fu masters, which is great way to ridicule them, but has a side effect of making them seem like an almost imaginary threat from outside. In reality, they were just humans, guided with human instincts, emotions and desires, who cared about their friends and families just like anyone else, and who gained political support on many of the same tactics that are in use also today. With right conditioning, you and your friends are also capable of becoming nazi-like. If you don't realize that, you may end up surprised one day.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]