politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Hardly. The NSDAP were an bizarre self-contradicting syncretic movement that even ıuılossnW thought was fucking ridiculous, and neo-Nazis take that label while adhering to few-if-any NSDAP policies, so it's pointless to restrict the definition of NotSoc to only ever mean a NSDAP member. Were Strasserists NutSacs? Were the copycat fascist movements in other countries NotSoc? And most importantly - why does it even matter if they are or aren't? Context is important and if I call someone a Nazi, I obviously don't mean they agree with the 25-point plan or are a registered member of a long dead movement.
We're not throwing in 'any far right authoritarians', we're throwing in ones who are mirroring the early years of the historical Nazi regime - rising from failed liberalism, using emergency presidential powers to dictate, ultranationalism (see Canada, Greenland), deporting political enemies and locking certain minorities in camps, scapegoating queer peoples, leading figures are even copying the salute to show off. Why bother nitpicking when the comparison is perfectly appropriate? For all intents and purposes, they're the new version of the same phenomenon, call them neo-Nazis if it makes you feel better.
Oh, it should be long dead, but it's not. There is a significant amount of people that legitimately think "Hitler was right". Those you're referencing aren't all Nazis (though some certainly seem to be, or at least are heavily inspired by) they're fascists.
Using the word "Nazi" instead of "fascist" limits the useful historical comparisons that you can draw from and can have a blinding effect on making important comparisons. I do disagree with Stormdahl about 'just calling them MAGA' but I do agree with them that MAGA =/= Nazi just because it's an explicitly fascist movement.
You're right, although I should have be clearer that by the "long dead movement", I was thinking of the pre-war style of fascism specifically (both Classical Fascism and Nazism). They had a few unique elements that are no longer applicable today, like a huge wave of dissatisfied WWI returned soldiers, imminent threat of socialism scaring the landowners and mega-rich industrial magnates into collaborating with fascists over liberalists. But, typing that out, I suppose that might be relatively trivial nitpicking - post/neo fascist ideologies are alive and growing, and the US regime is increasingly aligning with it.
I completely agree. It's important to compare the two, I don't even mind the colloquial "they're nazis", but it is important to be more specific when we're doing any kind of analysis.
Sure, call them whatever. I’m over it.