The Liberal obsession with Nazis. It's not good for you.

I strongly disagree with this one point. I agree with your post overall though.

No, Oralloy. You don't agree with me at all. I addressed this post to liberals, but the point is non-partisan. Conservatives do this too which is why I tried to include points from both sides. If you take all of the "liberal" examples and ignore the conservative ones... you missed the point entirely.

I would say the same thing to you, don't call someone a "Nazi" unless they are actually a Nazi. Do you think I need to make another post for conservatives?

It's a strange career that the German term 'Nazi' has undergone in the USA.

Qua definitionem, "Nazi" is a member or supporter of the NSDAP, the defunct "National Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschland".
(Members of the SPD [the Socialdemocratic Party of Germany] were/are called "Sozi".]

Since this party doesn't exist since 1945, anyone going along with there ideas would be a "neo-Nazi".

It's not that strange Walter, that's how words work. As they get shifted around from language to language the meanings change to meet the needs of the new culture. You would probably not recognize a Kindergarten in the US, or a frankfurter.

... and Swiss chees and bratwurst ...

However, the casual use of "Nazi" seems for me (and most other German-speaking persons besides neo-Nazis/right-wing extremists) a disrespect for the victims of the Nazi-period.

Yes, exactly. That is the point I am making with this thread.

Well, thanks for clarifying.

I obviously got the wrong idea by those two quotes

Yes, I probably should have said "Neo-nazis". I am an American... the distinction might not be as clear for some of us. I would go back and make this edit if I could.

I'm pretty sure that I understand your point and agree with it.

It's a good point. Why would I not agree with it?



I generally abide by that rule.

Of course, if someone is disguising their hate by directing their lies and slander at Israel instead of at Jews, I still consider them anti-Semitic. And if they are vile enough I'll consider them Nazis.



You can if you like. I'll probably still agree with it though.

The only thing here I'll probably argue about is whether the people who attack Israel are Nazis. I firmly believe that these people really are Nazis, and that their focus on Israel is just a crude deception to try to avoid the condemnation that they would rightfully receive if they directed their hate at Jews.

I can see the merits in distinguishing "1940s Nazis who actually massacred millions of innocents" from "modern examples who share the beliefs but have little power to harm people".

However the view in America generally is that if someone espouses all the beliefs of an ideology, they are adherents of that ideology.

Oralloy,

1. You can't be in agreement with someone who doesn't agree with you. I don't agree with you.

2. You are trying to make up a definition for 'Nazi', when there is already a very specific definition for the word. The Nazis had a very specific world view, and the Neo-Nazis don't hide this.

3. Your definition of Nazi seems to include Jewish people (who oppose the settlements). It is a little silly, if not offensive, that under your definition, there are Nazi rabbis.

4) You are doing what the liberals are doing... taking a very strong label and trying to change it so you can draw a new line to tar as many of your political opponents as possible. It is bogus when liberals do this. It is bogus when you do it.

I choose to agree with your overall point. I think it is a very good point.

My disagreement is limited solely to the question of whether people who condemn Israel are rightfully considered Nazis.



I feel that my use of the word Nazi fits that specific existing definition.



I call such people "Self Hating Jews". They often get very angry at me when I call them this to their face.

I do not anger them intentionally, but I do not care that my comments anger them. I am appalled at their horrible false accusations against their fellow Jews and I make no apologies for defending the innocent.



I do not believe that I am doing that. I believe that people who horribly slander Israel legitimately fall under the real definition of Nazi.

I appreciate that you are illustrating my point Oralloy; anyone can call anyone else a Nazi. That doesn't make it right.

The people you are calling "Nazis" include Jews who literally survived the actual Nazi concentration camps. Hopefully you will think very carefully about this and maybe reconsider.

I believe that I am denouncing actual Nazis.

Or, if we are to use Walter's terminology, I believe that I am denouncing actual neo-Nazis.



I believe that my use of the term is factually correct.



I've already thought carefully about it. I am comfortable denouncing these people as Self Hating Jews. I am entirely right to do so.

Well Oralloy, I disagree with you and I find your position on this topic quite offensive (all of my family was in the US prior to WW1). I can understand why Jews who either survived the actual Nazis themselves, or had family members who died in concentrations would be espcially upset with you.

I've thought about your point a bit longer, and I'll try to use the term neo-Nazi from now on. (Although I'm only human so it is possible for me to slip up and forget.)

Why is it offensive to denounce neo-Nazis when they try to disguise their hate by directing it at "Israel" instead of at "Jews"?

I feel that neo-Nazism is something that should always be denounced and condemned, even when it is veiled in a flimsy disguise.

I do support neo-Nazis' right to Free Speech, but I'm also going to be using my own right of Free Speech to tell them exactly why their ideas are horrible and just plain bad.

Why trying to destroy "diversity" in our society?

Some dudes argue that homosexuality, lesbianism, and other abnormal sexual behaviors should be eradicated from our society, but I think they have the right to exist... however, they can't have preferences or privileges.

This is to say, if a dude decides to be a gal, then he must be a female at his own risk. No one is obligated to give him "privileges" as using the same bathroom of women because this dude is not a woman, he pretends to be a woman, but he is a man.

Also, no one is obligated to call him with a female name, because he was born male and his name is a male's name... unless he changes his name, but even so, you can call him with his real name at birth, there is no crime by doing so.

Then, even if he had cosmetic surgery to appear as a woman, he must go to men's rooms, because it is not about the physical appearance but about what he really is, and he is a man.

As you can see, the rights of every person when is about "feelings and beliefs" must be respected but never giving them preferences or privileges.

Otherwise, well, schools must provide bathrooms for Jehovah Witness, bathrooms for atheists, bathrooms for Catholics, etc, because they also have different beliefs.

Schools don't make bathrooms for white and black people anymore, because such was wrong, the color of skin is not a belief, it is a composition of the body with certain characteristics which differ one race from another.

But such a different composition of the body is not found in men who believe they are women. The body composition of the body of these men is the same of men who are normal, this is to say, who believe and feel about themselves in accord to their real gender.

__________________________________________

Notice that the introduction from above is to show that even when there is a diversity full of conflicts, because no evidence backs up the idea that homosexuals, lesbians, etc are "born that way" -no lab test, no chromosome, no gene, no nothing- our society tolerates such members and are included without problem as part of it.

The same as well, besides of belief and feelings, there are ideals.

Some people are Republican because they like to be conservatives and choose for maintaining the inherited society which is the one that caused so much progress and wealthy thru two hundred years.

Other people decide to be Democrat, because they want a different kind of society where diversity with conflict must be tolerated.

Then, we have the independent, who will jump from one to the other side of the political agendas.

No one, so far, says that the Republican or Democrat tendencies must be " denounced or monitored, or etc."

Lets go further.

There is a part of society who likes rock music, other part likes soul music, others like classical music.

Again, no one says that the preference of the other person must be denounced, monitored, etc.

Lets go more further

There is a part of society that prefers to follow the doctrines of a foreign leader, lest say Fidel Castro or Hitler.

Here, by some unknown reason, some dudes think that they must denounce, monitor, etc the followers of those ideals.

In this case, some dudes want to crash freedom of expression, just because they disagree with these followers of the ideals from foreign leaders.

So, if one decided to admire Napoleon Bonaparte over George Washington, according to these dudes, this individual should be observed, denounced, monitored, etc.

Why no denouncing homosexuals, protestants, classic music lovers as well?

What is wrong with these dudes to focus in people with ideals like that they are better than others?

They feel that way. Why not? Maybe it's true... maybe not.

But, they have the same rights that every American to feel, think, and tell their ideals, they thoughts, their admiration for a certain social or political system.

The Americans who have decided to identify themselves as "Nazis" has the whole right to express themselves in our society.

The same way religious people tolerate homosexuals and lesbians by no demonstrating aggression against them, the same as well liberals must go back to school and learn tolerance, learn discipline, learn that the liberal agenda is not the leader one in our society but just one of the several ideals, beliefs, feelings which are found in our society.

I could stand face to face with the mother of the woman who lost her life in Charlottesville because the car of a white supremacist hit her, and even when the mother said that her daughter just wanted a better society and was against hatred, I will tell her:

"Woman, your daughter made the wrong choice. The white supremacists had the city permit to march in the streets... and your daughter was one of the instigators with her presence to be against a march with a permit.

The group in which your daughter was, it had not a permit and was illegally interrupting a march of people who legally had the right for their parade.

Don't blame 100% the white supremacists for the death of your daughter, your daughter went over there looking for trouble... she got what she was looking for."

If this young woman waited for a permit, and had a march legally later on in the streets of Charlottesville, making slogans against white supremacists, then this young woman was doing the right thing.

For many people is easy to attack others just because others don't think, believe, feel, idealize like them, and in many cases without a single reason but just to be against others.

As long as the so called Nazis in America don't have a political party casing disturbs in our society, as long as they are not kicking people in the streets because others are of a different color of skin, then, my opinion is to let them be.

They are part of our society and this is what "diversity" is about.

Well said