tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Define they.
Nazi sympathizers (and Nazis).
Define they.
Where is the straw? I remember back in the day that people did compare Bush to Hitler (they also compared Bush Sr to Hitler and Regan to Hitler). It has become SOP to call any Republican Hitler. And now that we have a real Hitler in power it is too late. The boy who cried Hitler will now be ignored. (Hey now I get the moral of the story the boy who cried wolf!)
Where is the straw? I remember back in the day that people did compare Bush to Hitler (they also compared Bush Sr to Hitler and Regan to Hitler). It has become SOP to call any Republican Hitler. And now that we have a real Hitler in power it is too late. The boy who cried Hitler will now be ignored. (Hey now I get the moral of the story the boy who cried wolf!)
To be fair, plenty of people compared Obama to Hitler, too.
You misunderstand. I'm not characterising your argument. I'm telling you what its effect is, and how convenient it is for you. That's not what a strawman is.
Nazi sympathizers (and Nazis).
No you didn't. Trump = Hitler is not the same thing as...What straw? Bush = Hitler was a real idea, disseminated seriously by progressives for years. Your insistence that this time, with Trump, it's really for real, is also a real thing. I just quoted you doing it.
The effect of denying that nazis are capable of being a serious threat
has the effect of enabling nazis to commit terrorist attacks and recruit disaffected white males? Okay, I'm willing to buy that that's valid
You clearly haven't read the linked article.
Also, I'm wondering how close this thread is to our first serious claim that "in a way, Trump is worse than Hitler".
In a way, he is. His hair is way worse.
...is irrelevant because no one here said that.
(Nazis are a radical ultra-nationalist workers movement that is strongly anti-monarchy and anti-clerical, neo-reactionaries are traditionalists that are pro-monarchy and pro-church, but hey what the hell)
Google translation:So seien von den 17 Millionen NS-Wählern ungefähr 7,4 Millionen von den bürgerlich-protestantischen, 2,5 Millionen von den sozialistischen Parteien und 6 Millionen von den Nichtwählern gekommen. Besonders anfällig waren protestantische Milieus und Beamte. Einigermaßen resistent gegen die Nazis waren nur das katholische Milieu und das der sozialistischen Arbeiterschaft. Allerdings hätten auch 40 Prozent der Arbeiter die Nazis gewählt, freilich kaum sozialistisch organisierte. http://www.swp.de/ulm/nachrichten/politik/das-politische-buch_-wer-waehlte-hitler_-9320562.html
Thus, of the 17 million Nazi voters, about 7.4 million came from the bourgeois-Protestant, 2.5 million from the socialist parties and 6 million from the non-voters. Particularly vulnerable were Protestant milieus and civil servants. Somewhat resistant to the Nazis were only the Catholic milieu and that of the socialist workers. However, even 40 percent of the workers had chosen the Nazis, admittedly hardly organized socialist.
Google translation:Lediglich eine Mehrheit des „alten“ Mittelstands, also der (protestantischen) Geschäftsleute, Handwerker und Bauern votierte für die Nazis. Zusammen machte der Anteil des „alten“ und „neuen“ Mittelstands an den NSDAP-Wählern gleichwohl rund sechzig Prozent aus; doch bis zu vierzig Prozent von ihnen kamen aus Arbeiterhaushalten, wobei diese Zählung neben den zumeist gewerkschaftlich organisierten Industriearbeitern, die nur in einem geringeren Maße NSDAP wählten, die große Zahl von Landarbeitern einschloß. http://www.zeit.de/1992/13/die-erste-deutsche-volkspartei/seite-2
Only a majority of the "old" middle class, ie the (Protestant) businessmen, artisans and peasants voted for the Nazis. Nonetheless, the share of the "old" and "new" middle classes in the NSDAP constituents accounted for around sixty percent; but as many as forty percent of them came from working-class households, and this census, in addition to the mostly unionized industrial workers, who only to a lesser extent chose NSDAP, included the large number of farm laborers.
Define your definition of nazi.
Define your definition of nazi.
IndeedWikipedia distinguishes between Nazis, the original Nazis in Germany, the contemporary followers of A. Hitler, and Neo-Nazis, post-WW2 Nazis, and in particular those in the USA. Same ideology, which is what defines Nazis, and when we have mentioned Nazis in this thread, the reference has mainly been to Neo-Nazis, obviously, but there is no reason to distinguish between the two unless we are talking history.
Calling them Nazis seems fine to me, too.
Xjx388 is the one who prefers to think of German Nazis in the early 20th century and American Nazis in the early 21st as two entirely different species. I'm not sure what sadhatter's point is.
That's the reason why I felt it necessary to stress that Nazis and Neo-Nazis are basically the same thing: "Same ideology, which is what defines Nazis."
In the German election, May 1928 the Party achieved just 12 seats (2.6% of the vote) in the Reichstag.
Wikipedia
German newspapers wrote that, without doubt, the Hitler-led government would try to fight its political enemies (the left-wing parties), but that it would be impossible to establish a dictatorship in Germany because there was "a barrier, over which violence cannot proceed" and because of the German nation being proud of "the freedom of speech and thought". Theodor Wolff of Frankfurter Zeitung wrote:
It is a hopeless misjudgement to think that one could force a dictatorial regime upon the German nation. [...] The diversity of the German people calls for democracy.
— Theodor Wolff in Frankfurter Zeitung, Jan 1933
Wikipedia
All of which is to say that the lines drawn by politicians may end up different from the lines you would like them to draw.
And it marks a significant victory for Republicans who vowed to roll back the efforts of the prior administration, despite a recent survey showing that 83 percent of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — opposed the plan.
Washington Post
At least one poster in this thread expressed genuine concern for their wellbeing after the election last year... and expressed genuine fear that they would be accosted in SEATTLE because suddenly one of the most LGBTQ -friendly areas in the entire country was going to lose its mind and start beating gay/trans people in the streets.
If conservatives get called "reactionaries", I'm thinking this particular flavor of liberal should get called "overreactionaries".
You said you agreed with Trump. Trump bases his decisions on border policies on his wild racism. Thus, if you agree with Trump, you're a racist. Maybe you should say "I want border control", and I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with you.
That's silly. One can agree with another person's plan or proposal without agreeing with their motivations.
In seattle?
Methinks you are oversimplifying the situation just a tad. The tech-bro culture, the insular nature of the neighborhood, gentrification . . . there are a lot of factors involved. To simply say, "it's all these racist Midwesterners coming in," is a gross oversimplification.
Where is the straw? I remember back in the day that people did compare Bush to Hitler (they also compared Bush Sr to Hitler and Regan to Hitler). It has become SOP to call any Republican Hitler. And now that we have a real Hitler in power it is too late. The boy who cried Hitler will now be ignored. (Hey now I get the moral of the story the boy who cried wolf!)
I was semi joking when I compared Trump to Hitler. I don't really think he is Hitlerly or Hitler like.
Because you're carrying water for them.
What straw? Bush = Hitler was a real idea, disseminated seriously by progressives for years. Your insistence that this time, with Trump, it's really for real, is also a real thing. I just quoted you doing it.
The question is, after decades of "conservatives are Nazis" coming from progressives, what do you have left to say, now? Where can you seriously go, regarding Trump, when you've already got "Bush = Hitler"?
Mostly the LaRouche kooks.
In his first 18 months on Fox News, from early 2009 through the middle of this year, he and his guests invoked Hitler 147 times. Nazis, an additional 202 times. Fascism or fascists, 193 times. The Holocaust got 76 mentions, and Joseph Goebbels got 24.
Indeed, Glen Beck is a very good example.
From ponderingturtle's link:
Exactly Trump isn't Hitler, he is just a nazi-fanboy. Something real americans understand and accept.
Did nazis often allow their opponents to speak out against them? Cause it kind of seems you are free to make speech that is against the government.
Almost like there is a premise that is protecting you from government retribution.
2003: Steel beams can't melt jet fuel
2009: Obama is a secret Muslim
2017: Trump is a secret Nazi
He was the Number 1 television pundit at the time as well.
Easy there, straw supplies run low this time of year, what with harvest long past, and then there's all the manger scenes.2003: Steel beams can't melt jet fuel
2009: Obama is a secret Muslim
2017: Trump is a secret Nazi
2003: Steel beams can't melt jet fuel
2009: Obama is a secret Muslim
2017: Trump is a secret Nazi
The question was about where you would draw the line. You seem to know where politicians would draw the line. You seem to know where lots of other people would draw the line.No, they are different from the lines that a vast majority of the voters would like them to draw:
The question was also asked of dann if vile bigots who aren't nazis merit receiving the nazi treatment, whereby their public appearances are disrupted. It appears that addressing uncomfortable questions isn't his strong suit.The question was about where you would draw the line. You seem to know where politicians would draw the line. You seem to know where lots of other people would draw the line.
Do you know where you would draw the line? Do you know what policy you would advocate?