The Nazis were fascists that looked to create a 1000 year reich and believed the destiny was to birth the master race. Trump et al are not doing this which means they are a different kind of fascist than Nazis. That doesn’t make it better much like being shot with a .308 instead of a .44 caliber round isn’t “better” it just makes it a different kind of harm.
"Ok? How does that change my statement that they are a different kind of fascist? Keep in mind my point is entirely focused on the ideology part of the political ideology whereas you are talking about a salute. How does an arm motion change the policy goals which aren’t the same as what Nazis support? What policy goal can you derive from an arm motion to begin with?
They are still evil they are just a different kind of evil. Not all fascists are nazis. The fact that one guy did a nazi salute twice doesn’t change project 2025 into something that Nazis would support."
The nazi’s did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.
So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.
I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category
As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]'s
National Socialist German Workers’ Party were [nazi]'s
The American Republican Party are subjectively showing enough similarities (both in type and progression) that they get the provisional label of [nazi] as it’s the closest existing definition.
Might turn out that they don’t quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.
Even if they were just a direct descendent ( taxonomically ) rather than a sibling of the original nazi party there would still be an argument to claim they were nazi’s
Like :
animal -> mammal -> cat
nazi -> nazi party -> republican
Come back in a few years and you’ll probably get your definitive answer either way.
You don’t have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.
Ok? How does that change my statement that they are a different kind of fascist? Keep in mind my point is entirely focused on the ideology part of the political ideology whereas you are talking about a salute. How does an arm motion change the policy goals which aren’t the same as what Nazis support? What policy goal can you derive from an arm motion to begin with?
They are still evil they are just a different kind of evil. Not all fascists are nazis. The fact that one guy did a nazi salute twice doesn’t change project 2025,
That’s an extremely narrow point that isn’t worth bothering with, because nobody is confused about what you mean when you call them “nazis”.
Also it’s not one guy doing a zeig heil, it’s become a trend amongst them now. They have invited the comparison openly, and anybody getting all pissy about “you just call everything you don’t like nazi” is just a crybully who’s deliberately wasting your time. At this point anybody turned off of your cause by your use of the word “nazi” isn’t your ally in the first place.
Like sure they’re not exactly the same as the NSDAP, but the category still applies, and it’s not worth anybody’s time splitting hairs over the exact nature of the type of fascism they have, because “nazi” does the job and again, nobody is confused by it, because the original nazis are all resting in piss.
Do you have any argument as to why this matters, in any way, at all?
Do you have any argument as to why this matters, in any way, at all?
the majority of the population doesn’t identify this as being nazism. If you are looking to get more people backing your cause you cannot alienate them by appearing to be reactionary or uneducated.
So your argument rests not on truth but on populism.
Even if you’re right in your wholly unsubstantiated claim, the way to get more people on your side is by persuading them, not by capitulating to their ill-informed beliefs. Giving in to their bullshit is how you join their side.
Who are you targeting with that message? Because what’s going on with the current US admin is straight out of the nazi playbook.
It feels like you are trying to get validation for your position.
But if you saw where this was going and said it too early, this perspective means you’re responsible for people not taking you seriously now!
The Nazis were fascists that looked to create a 1000 year reich and believed the destiny was to birth the master race. Trump et al are not doing this which means they are a different kind of fascist than Nazis. That doesn’t make it better much like being shot with a .308 instead of a .44 caliber round isn’t “better” it just makes it a different kind of harm.
I’d say that the nazi salute on live tv sealed the deal.
If it looks like a Nazi and squeak like a Nazi, it’s a fucking Nazi.
From my reply to another
"Ok? How does that change my statement that they are a different kind of fascist? Keep in mind my point is entirely focused on the ideology part of the political ideology whereas you are talking about a salute. How does an arm motion change the policy goals which aren’t the same as what Nazis support? What policy goal can you derive from an arm motion to begin with?
They are still evil they are just a different kind of evil. Not all fascists are nazis. The fact that one guy did a nazi salute twice doesn’t change project 2025 into something that Nazis would support."
Taxonomy.
The nazi’s did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.
So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.
I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category
As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]'s
Might turn out that they don’t quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.
Even if they were just a direct descendent ( taxonomically ) rather than a sibling of the original nazi party there would still be an argument to claim they were nazi’s
Like :
Come back in a few years and you’ll probably get your definitive answer either way.
You don’t have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.
They are literally zeig-heiling.
Ok? How does that change my statement that they are a different kind of fascist? Keep in mind my point is entirely focused on the ideology part of the political ideology whereas you are talking about a salute. How does an arm motion change the policy goals which aren’t the same as what Nazis support? What policy goal can you derive from an arm motion to begin with?
They are still evil they are just a different kind of evil. Not all fascists are nazis. The fact that one guy did a nazi salute twice doesn’t change project 2025,
That’s an extremely narrow point that isn’t worth bothering with, because nobody is confused about what you mean when you call them “nazis”.
Also it’s not one guy doing a zeig heil, it’s become a trend amongst them now. They have invited the comparison openly, and anybody getting all pissy about “you just call everything you don’t like nazi” is just a crybully who’s deliberately wasting your time. At this point anybody turned off of your cause by your use of the word “nazi” isn’t your ally in the first place.
Like sure they’re not exactly the same as the NSDAP, but the category still applies, and it’s not worth anybody’s time splitting hairs over the exact nature of the type of fascism they have, because “nazi” does the job and again, nobody is confused by it, because the original nazis are all resting in piss.
Do you have any argument as to why this matters, in any way, at all?
the majority of the population doesn’t identify this as being nazism. If you are looking to get more people backing your cause you cannot alienate them by appearing to be reactionary or uneducated.
So your argument rests not on truth but on populism.
Even if you’re right in your wholly unsubstantiated claim, the way to get more people on your side is by persuading them, not by capitulating to their ill-informed beliefs. Giving in to their bullshit is how you join their side.
I would love to know what your media diet is.
That’s a big claim for no citation.