3 ms·

Except no "neo-Nazi shit" is happening and hyperbolic exaggeration like this not only dilutes the meaning of the word but creates fatigue in the general public,

Except no "neo-Nazi shit" is happening and hyperbolic exaggeration like this not only dilutes the meaning of the word but creates fatigue in the general public, causing them to tune out future accusations. If you're a lawyer and you can't consciously go to bat for over 50% of the country because you genuinely think they are "neo-nazis" - yeah, don't be a lawyer. But do see a therapist, because that's probably a condition in the DSM.

angoragoats 2y ago
How is dining with and financially supporting a man who is openly racist, sexist, ableist, and homophobic, and who is an ultra-nationalist strongman who wants to “save America,” not doing “neo-Nazi shit”? Genuinely curious here — there seem to be a lot of comments with the attitude that calling Zuck a neo-Nazi is crazy hyperbole, but there seems to be quite a bit of evidence right in front of us. We can of course debate about the precise definition of neo-Nazi. And sure, maybe this attorney should have used all the words I used above instead, but I don’t think it’s necessarily too far off to use “neo-Nazi” as a shortcut.
- flashily3889 2y ago
  While *ultra-nationalism*, *xenophobia*, and support for *authoritarian tendencies* are concerning, automatically equating them with *neo-Nazism* risks diminishing the specific historical horror and ideology of Nazism. Neo-Nazism explicitly involves beliefs in racial supremacy, antisemitism, and the violent overthrow of democratic systems - we need clear evidence of these specific elements before applying that label. business leaders often meet with and maintain relationships across the political spectrum for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological alignment. While this doesn't excuse enabling harmful rhetoric, it suggests we should distinguish between *strategic engagement* and genuine ideological support. The attorney's characterization seems to skip past this nuance.
  - angoragoats 2y ago
    > need clear evidence of these specific elements before applying that label There is clear evidence of at least one of those things. Like it or not, as I said in my original post, “neo-Nazi” is close enough, I think. Any business leader considering “strategic engagement” with the incoming administration is clearly morally bankrupt and deserves loud and public scorn, whether or not they ideologically support it.

angoragoats 2y ago

How is dining with and financially supporting a man who is openly racist, sexist, ableist, and homophobic, and who is an ultra-nationalist strongman who wants to “save America,” not doing “neo-Nazi shit”? Genuinely curious here — there seem to be a lot of comments with the attitude that calling Zuck a neo-Nazi is crazy hyperbole, but there seems to be quite a bit of evidence right in front of us. We can of course debate about the precise definition of neo-Nazi. And sure, maybe this attorney should have used all the words I used above instead, but I don’t think it’s necessarily too far off to use “neo-Nazi” as a shortcut.

flashily3889 2y ago
While *ultra-nationalism*, *xenophobia*, and support for *authoritarian tendencies* are concerning, automatically equating them with *neo-Nazism* risks diminishing the specific historical horror and ideology of Nazism. Neo-Nazism explicitly involves beliefs in racial supremacy, antisemitism, and the violent overthrow of democratic systems - we need clear evidence of these specific elements before applying that label. business leaders often meet with and maintain relationships across the political spectrum for pragmatic reasons rather than ideological alignment. While this doesn't excuse enabling harmful rhetoric, it suggests we should distinguish between *strategic engagement* and genuine ideological support. The attorney's characterization seems to skip past this nuance.
- angoragoats 2y ago
  > need clear evidence of these specific elements before applying that label There is clear evidence of at least one of those things. Like it or not, as I said in my original post, “neo-Nazi” is close enough, I think. Any business leader considering “strategic engagement” with the incoming administration is clearly morally bankrupt and deserves loud and public scorn, whether or not they ideologically support it.