← Back to context

Comment by shandor

9 years ago

That's not the problem. The problem is that for many, the years and years of calling your run-of-the-mill Republicans and whatnot "nazis" has diluted the term, just like GP mentioned.

So, now, when people try to get others to understand that the Nazis we now have are almost exactly the same we had in Germany way back then, people don't really make that connection (even if they say they do) on emotional level. Instead, they associate the self-professed Neo-Nazis with the "nazi Republicans" and the not-really-a-nazi-alt-righters that have been cried at in the 2000's.

Source: many acquaintances who are clearly very, very confused on the matter.

One would think the literal swastikas would clear that up. These people aren't being terribly subliminal anymore.

  • One would think that, for the people calling Republicans "nazis" in the 2000's, the absence of swastikas and Nazi Hails should have cleared things up. But they did it anyway.

    People are not simple creatures, and things like crying the wolf actually do confuse us pretty easily.

    • So you're actually agreeing that someone waving a swastika and calling for the extermination of jews can be considered a Nazi, yet you choose not to do it, just to spite those lefties that annoyed you in the 2000s?

      And, specifically, they annoyed you with their use of slightly-hyperbolic rhetoric, used to underline their contention that the Republican strategy of racial division and incitement of culture wars may create fertile ground for a resurgence of staples of the fascist ideologies? And that, if we continue down this path, America may some day start electing strongmen playing on feelings such as xenophobia?

      2 replies →

    • Welp, I guess there is no use calling people who self-identify as Nazis or say Nazis were right about race and sexuality by any name at all anymore.

      Shut it down, "alt-left." Shut it all down. Someone was not precise and we can't use words anymore.

      2 replies →