I’m not familiar with Gab.
Has there been a Nazi since 1945? The term is nothing but a slur now.
It was written from a right wing perspective. I’m sure you can figure it out.
If you mean abortion then it is not a proper comparison. Nazis murdered women, children, babies, men, the elderly, the handicapped, homosexuals, communists, resistance members, socialists, liberals, Jews, Catholics, Rom, Slavs, Poles, Russians, etc. This is a fact that only weirdos and the mentally ill deny.
The idea that abortion is murder or that a fetus is a human being is a matter of opinion. So comparing an opinion to a fact is not the best comparison.
Eichmann was captured in Argentina by the Mossad (I mean, private Israeli citizens) and brought to trial in Israel and hung in 1962. Josef Mengele died in 1979.
But I get your point and the original Nazis did not invent much of their ideology, especially when it comes to Jews or other supposedly inferior peoples. That thinking still exists today. What is different is the historical setting that allowed the Nazis to seize power. It would be very hard, I wouldn’t say impossible, for the combination of historical forces that arose in Germany after WW1 to be duplicated here. It’s the same with real fascism. We will most likely never find ourselves in the same conditions as Italy between 1860 or so and post WW1.
The Russians and everyone else that many people refer to as “Russians” murderers tens of millions of people, millions upon millions of Latvians, Ukrainians, ordinary Russians, Italians, Poles, and Germans and others that were hanged, starved, raped, machine gunned, tortured, imprisoned and worked to death, some because they were 20 minutes late to work (not a joke). But we don’t see people running around using the term Soviet as an insult or fearing for their well being because someone publically called them that. The words racist and Nazi are played out, lost their meaning, and should have a working over, I believe. We can also throw “socialist” in there too.
Not according to science, but I digress.
That isn’t what the quote was at all. The quote very clearly condemned the Nazis. It even called them losers. Did you miss that part? The point is that the motives were different even if they physically end up doing the same thing. And you need to recognize that even though the action is the same motivations are different so they aren’t morally equivalent.
Oh really what moral facts was Cuomo discussing? Morality of motives and moral relevance of motive in an evil action is entirely a subjective argument. It is not a fact that Nazis are evil or worse than antifa in belief. That isn’t how facts work.
That would be wrong. Science does not define what a human being is. It can only determine if a life corresponds to that definition.
I was referring to your comparison.
Well, that may be true but, for an American Nazis should be thought of as worse. What is a fact is that what the Nazis did is not remotely the same as what Antifa has done or believes should be done. That’s how facts work.
I don’t know about racist, especially if you use the wider definition that includes ethnicity, but calling everyone a Nazi, unless it’s in jest like the Soup Nazi, diminishes what the Nazis did and stood for. It’s rather insulting to those who suffered. Racist is overused, and more often bigot would be the better choice, but unlike the Nazis, racism still exists.
Actually, a fetus is scientifically both a human and a being. Besides the fact that your view is factually wrong, it also doesn’t work even if it were valid. If Human Being is contentiously defined by opinion, and not being a human being according to where you subjectively draw the line enables the killing of said life, you just made the same argument the Nazis did. They just defined Jews as outside of actual human beings. So even if yours was a factually valid point of view, it wouldn’t invalidate the comparison.
You referred to both. You said my quote was invalid because it didn’t rely on facts, unlike Coumo’s. Your criticism of my quote would require the same not to be true of Coumo’s.
What is also a fact is that Antifa hurts a lot more people than Nazis do.
Racism isn’t over used so much as selectively used based on bias. It has also been grossly watered down in attempts to re-define it based on axiomatic, dogmatic worldviews to suit that particular biased narrative. You can’t use it when a white person compares a black person to a monkey, but not when a gang of blacks beats up a white person while shouting racist epithets. It only serves to diminish the meaning.
Do you or anyone have a solution for racism?
So far no one does consider it literally is nothing more than a sentiment, a feeling, a view.
Someone mistreating another while motivated by such a sentiment is a different story altogether.
There are millions of people with such a sentiment who have harmed no one! They’re simply ethnocentric or have a dim view on others. In fact, I’ve known some so-called racist people who’ve treated people of other races far more beneficially and respectfully than those who say they’re free of such a sentiment.
Tribalism is built into humans. You don’t trust “different” people because before language different tribes would kill you and take your stuff.
Luckily the dictionary does.
I ask you again Dr. Semantics, what is the genus and species of a fetus?
This is all sorts of wrong. If a fetus is a human being then the issue of whether or not abortion is murder would be settled. Comparing a zygote to a Jewish person in order to compare a Nazi to someone getting an abortion is rather insulting. And nazis considered Jews to be human beings, just not on the same level as Aryans. Untermensch is translated as subhuman but that does not accurately describe what it means in German.
And that number pales in comparison to the number of people Nazis have hurt and how many they would like to hurt.
Summer camp in the inner city. Though that might make it worse.
I would ask, does that make it a human being? The problem is, you are operating under the assumption that I agree with the definition of human being which may or may not be true. I am simply stating that what or who a human being is, is based on a definition that people come up with and which the law agrees with. That is the definition I use when discussing things outside of my personal views.
If we lived somewhere where the law stated a zygote is a human being then that would be the definition I would go with.
I don’t agree. And the reason I do not agree is that if you remove speech from every platform hence censoring the man, it does become a 1st amendment issue. There are no other options than these public platforms. When AT&T was a monopoly, if they denied you a phone when they were the only ones providing a phone, you have no phone. If you de-platform somebody from every available platform, it’s a silencing.
They can create their own platform. Should publishers publish every book they are given?