The Nazis over-generalising Jews was secondary as a simple means to an end of removing a faction that disagrees with Nazis. The correct way to say it was that, to gain and maintain power, the conservatives scapegoated Jews, socialists, and dissidents, to help generate hatred and genocidal tendencies to ultimately overthrow democracy and remove threats to capitalist power. Jews, socialists, and dissidents in general were framed using any random words that sounded good and then killed off. Conservative values are based on using power in any way to achieve their goal; If you think that their contradictory, scapegoating, culture wars make no sense, its because you aren’t looking at it simply enough. they lie and get what they want each step of the way.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you trust the conservative lies about what a communism and socialism is.
I’m talking about it from a ideology point of view. The truth is that the hatred did most likely lead them into their opinions and may be the real reason they adopted these viewpoints. However, from the standpoint of “Why are Nazi’s wrong?” it is this biggest issue with their ideology. As to “Conservative values are based on using power in any way to achieve their goal; If you think that their contradictory, scapegoating, culture wars make no sense, its because you aren’t looking at it simply enough. they lie and get what they want each step of the way.”. Again we are talking about them from an ideology standpoint, the reason they claim to do what they do. To argue them on a different basis, I believe, is a bad faith argument. The only thing I believe I can do is, debate them at what they say and hold them to what they say. Because there may be republicans that hold there beliefs honestly and it would be unjust for me to label them as Nazis.
As to “conservative lies” about communism and socialism, I do not know what you are specifically talking about (The only conservative speaker I have listened to was Ben Shapiro. I didn’t listen to much of him as it seems he is only interested in parroting the opinions of his constituents in a way that sounds smart rather than thinking for himself). I know that both capitalism and socialism have both failed under certain circumstances (biggest examples are modern america and the USSR), and both had pros and cons. I see from an ethics viewpoint that socialism has a better grounding. I believe in unions and workers standing up for themselves. However government involvement has had a history of failures and a socialist system is something that would need to be implemented very careful or may be impossible. I will note that I have not been able to find many sources that honestly cover the topic in good faith (IE anything other than CAPITALISM SUCKS or SOCIALISM SUCKS!) that I have a very weak ground to stand on when talking about the topic. Because of this, I still see my opinions as developing in this area.
I think i misunderstood you. I assumed you were acting in bad faith. Your grammar is making this a bit more difficult(mine eyes doth protest).
I’m trying to argue in good faith but will admit i assumed you weren’t from previous experiences and half-assed things.
The Nazi ideology to me, is the same as the conservative ideology, and both are simply reduced to tribalism/totalitarianism. Nazi/conservative values are just the truth of ANYTHING for the sake of gaining and maintaining power for the self first, then the tribe(as a means for more self power). The rest is a cover.
If you would like to single out anything we can swap to discussing that so i can show you what i mean. Originally i was talking about you going into minutia about generalising Jews, but the dislike for them was always just fabricated. Generalising or not makes no real difference, same with labeling your enemies as some simple thing you don like to delegitimise them. It’s standard conservative practice to use words in reduced good/bad form. For example, when a conservative talks, they can use socialist, communist, liberal, fascist to describe the same person in the same conversation. The conservative means “I don’t like you” but calls you a name, not realising they have no idea what it means, and you may know it properly and be annoyed with its misuse.
My final point was based around the standard opinions being the conservative lies. How you mentioned soviets as an example of socialism is a standard misunderstanding. They got co-opted the same way Nazis originally did. Both had some socialists attracted and in both cases they seemed to have been purged in favour of the totalitarians.
I’m going out for an hour and wanted to reply, but felt this reply should be deleted as it’s pretty meh. I sent the reply either way thinking you’d prefer one, sorry for the mess.
As for my grammar: Sometimes I have trouble putting my thoughts on paper. I half blame it on being “noschooled” where I was given a lot less writing assignments (I will note that it wasn’t all bad, as I channeled all that time into programming and computers. Thus making me better in my field than my peers. I think it has pros and cons, I plan to better explain my thoughts in a later comment). I also heavily use autocomplete. However I’m normally a better writer if I give myself time to review my work (I have gone through and made multiple edits on my comments). The other half I blame on me rushing to explain my ideas. I’m not used to the forum format and I was rushing myself before the post became irrelevant. I plan to take more time in the future when commenting on forums regardless of whether my comment becomes irrelevant. As I now see that harm it causes, and how I appear to others.
As to Nazis using their ideology as a cover. It is fully plausible and I do not have any retorts to that statement.
I have a habit of avoiding good/bad words such as Nazi/Woke/Socalist/Etc unless I can prove your arguments line up. I find that most people will shutdown around these words. Most republicans I speak with will ignore everything you have to say, if they hear a phrase like “Republicans are Nazis”. It’s also why it is so hard to talk with them.
A lot of the reason why they see opposing viewpoints automatically in a negative light, I believe is due to them only ever hearing the “Republicans are Nazis” part. I have never heard the reasoning why, people thought this (outside of REPUBLICAN BAD!). I (and I assume many republicans, as I never hear them talking about this point. Family or on the internet) will ever hear anything like what you have explained to me on the matter.
I still think it is wise to not address republicans as Nazis, as this often rings as a generalization that causes the conversation to be unproductive. I still think it is best to address their beliefs on their own merit; as I believe the best way to expose an idiot, is to explain how they are an idiot in a calm manner. Only describing the nature of Nazism and how it effects their voter base, emphasizing that not all republicans are necessarily Nazis. However, I have both learned from your comment and realized how I was not following my own beliefs in fear of being ignored. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me.
Quick note: I’m tired right now (12:30am atm) and I just wanted to update the conversation as to not leave it at that. I will go over this post and fix any issues and expand on it tomorrow when I am properly rested.
As for my grammar: Sometimes I have trouble putting my thoughts on paper. I half blame it on being “noschooled” where I was given a lot less writing assignments (I will note that it wasn’t all bad, as I channeled all that time into programming and computers. Thus making me better in my field than my peers. I think it has pros and cons, I plan to better explain my thoughts in a later comment). I also heavily use autocomplete. However I’m normally a better writer if I give myself time to review my work (I have gone through and made multiple edits on my comments). The other half I blame on me rushing to explain my ideas. I’m not used to the forum format and I was rushing myself before the post became irrelevant. I plan to take more time in the future when commenting on forums regardless of whether my comment becomes irrelevant. As I now see that harm it causes, and how I appear to others.
Thanks for the effort, It’s hard to put text down how we want, which is why I wanted to delete my last comment and rewrite it later haha. I was a bit the same and am learning as I go too. :) As long as you have paragraphs and the ideas come out how you want them then I’m happy.
As to Nazis using their ideology as a cover. It is fully plausible and I do not have any retorts to that statement.
I used to hear people from your POV before, and thought they were exaggerating, but the more I thought about it, the more I will noticed it’s not hyperbolic.
I have a habit of avoiding good/bad words such as Nazi/Woke/Socalist/Etc unless I can prove your arguments line up. I find that most people will shutdown around these words. Most republicans I speak with will ignore everything you have to say, if they hear a phrase like “Republicans are Nazis”. It’s also why it is so hard to talk with them.
I completely agree. I’ve had some scary experiences, easily breaking through conservatives defences, if I just use neutral language. The downside is that skilled people can make fast progress if they explain and agree on terminology, which on the internet is probably best avoided most of the time.
I still think it is wise to not address republicans as Nazis, as this often rings as a generalization that causes the conversation to be unproductive. I still think it is best to address their beliefs on their own merit; as I believe the best way to expose an idiot, is to explain how they are an idiot in a calm manner. Only describing the nature of Nazism and how it effects their voter base, emphasizing that not all republicans are necessarily Nazis. However, I have both learned from your comment and realized how I was not following my own beliefs in fear of being ignored. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me.
You are wiser than I am lol. I know it leads to nothing of value, but feel it needs to be associated as hard as we can, as most of their actions are based on conformity and Pavlovian conditioning(they do the inverse to an enemy I guess. I should stop).
The problem with the latter half of your paragraph, is that most conservatives don’t really believe what they say. They conform to their tribal values. It’s partly due to them having a bad foundation, leading to any thoughts ending in cognitive dissonance, then frustration, then anger, then either changing subjects or abuse.
Underneath the average conservative is an insecure, submissive, desperate for attention person that needs a better tribe to defect to, and the best way to win one, is to invite them to a friendly group of anti-conservatives. Some stealth might be required.
Conservatives tend to learn through direct actions, not rational discussion, so talking with them is only beneficial when dealing with an audience unless you know specific tactics.
Nighty night, thanks for the chat.
note: Most of what I say, such as “conservatives” is meant to be a generalisation and not an absolute thing for all. Sometimes I will clear it up and sometimes not. Sometimes I don’t even know I did it. I try to use “-ism” terminology to talk about the actual ideology.
The following is my more fleshed out thoughts on the manner.
To better explain my ideas on the matter, I think it is best if I explain my trajectory from generic conservative to were I am now. So please bare with me. I know I’m giving you my whole life’s story, but I think it is important to show what I mean.
My first political ideology that I ever adopted was freedom of speech and the value of free thought. This was before I new what republicans, democrats, socialists, capitalists, etc. My reasoning was that we, as humans, are fundamentally imperfect. My general assumption is that I most likely hold at least one incorrect belief, and my constant goal is to find this belief and correct myself. This means I want to talk with others I disagree with and I want to understand why they believe what they believe. I want to challange my own beliefs. And even if I believe others are wrong, understanding their beliefs helps me to better understand my own beliefs; as I will better understand the pitfalls and weak points in my own beliefs.
The first introduction I had with politics was when my parents recommended to me Ben Shapiro. At first I agreed with a lot of his beliefs and I had found him generally reasonable. There was one section of politics that I disagreed with him however. Particularly his approach to transgender politics. I didn’t agree or disagree with him on many of his policies, as I know very little about the physiology at play and I pushed that in my “to be researched” set of opinions. However what I was able to pick a bone with, was his general attitude towards transgender people. He didn’t just say that many topics relating to transgender people where nuanced and needed to be taken with care, he seemed to assume that any pro transgender law was an attack on cis people (this is not what he outright says, but I think it is a serviceable description for the purposes of this discussion). It only got worse when he actually conversed with transgender people in debate. His outright refusal to even refer to them by their pronouns, and sometimes emphasis on not calling by their pronouns, was confusing to me. I noticed that he never really explained this outside of that It would be implicitly agreeing with them.
It was that lack of an honest discussion that really bugged me. This allowed me to notice that this was a pattern with Ben Shapiro. He would rant about what he dislikes, and only ever provide surface level discussion. Becoming my first experience with modern republican culture.
However, I still often agreed with his points and I still held my same beliefs. Never the less, I did eventually find people who would go further into detail on their beliefs.
Overtime I noticed though, how they would complain about being labeled bigots and nazis (without ever being given a justification. Or only ever seeing the clips of people who don’t know what those words mean). The problem was that they were doing the same thing back, using words like woke or liberals. Leading me to become someone who agreed politically with them, but I hated the way they went about things. My main focus of discussion with them was to encourage them to talk in a more productive manner and to avoid just using woke and liberal as a way to write someone off.
The turning point for me had to be one trip I had with my Dad. We went to a “prepper” camp, ie we played with ham radios, did some metal working, and camped out in the woods (it was a lot of fun). Towards the end, there was going to be a republican speaker who I had heard good things about and was already considering voting for. Most of his speech was one that I could agree with at the time. Even if our beliefs didn’t line up 1:1 and it was going well. Than he said one line “I want more of our children to be praying in school”. I took some offense to this as I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state but I assumed it was likely just a slip of the tongue in an otherwise solid speech. He was accepting questions after the speech, so I thought I would ask him to clarify.
What followed was one of the most eerie situations I have ever experienced. I asked him something along the lines of “I remember you noted, that you wanted more children to be praying in school. I just wanted to clarify as to whether you meant that you don’t want christian children feeling shame about praying in school.”. I forget his exact words but it was something along the lines of “I think you’re a misguided liberal and I hope you see the error of your way”, which is a bit of a shell shock for someone who very much a republican supporter. Before I could say anything else, or had a chance to explain to him that this was a small detail and that we were mostly aligned politically, I was assured away with two women (I assume were part of his campaign team) who interrogated me. Eventually they realized that I was someone that agreed with them and they backed off.
Past this point, I became acutely aware that most republicans were not interested in thoughtful discussion. They wanted their dopamine and then take off.
As to why many of my opinions have changed, I credit this both to my attempt to be open minded and the fact that all of this happened more when I was still just getting my ideological footing (so to speak).
The reason I disagree with you is because I have met similar people who voted democrat, and I have met republicans who hold themselves to a higher standard than this. I attribute labeling and finger pointing to both sides and the darker sides of general human nature. At this time, I recognize the danger that there are Nazis in republican ranks. However I don’t think it is as black and white as that.
Republicans see a similar danger among-st democrats. As a lot of the media they see and share involves BLM riots burning houses, or crazy laws that would destroy what they hold dear. And even if I dis-agree with many republican points and beliefs. I see why they think the way they do. And it would be hard to argue with them given the current state of media, were nothing can just be the facts. It has to be a pro republican or a pro democrat spin. It’s one of the main reasons I have trouble getting a solid foothold on my beliefs of socialism versus capitalism.
Ultimately I know people who earnestly hold these beliefs and have been one at one time. I know that the version of me who was disgusted with the current state of how republicans act, while agreeing with their policies. And I know how earlier me would be disgusted at the idea of Nazis and believe my best course of action was to hunt Nazis out of my own party. That’s why I want to be specific about how we address them. Because calling them Nazis, when they earnestly understand and hate the ideology, only paints you as someone who refuses to understand them. Rather than someone who wants to partner with them to make the world a better place.
P.S. I feel the last line may come across as somewhat judgmental, I only word it that way because I feel it best describes my feeling. I still am open to being corrected, and would be glad if you have more to add.
Calling the NAZIs conservatives doesn’t quite fit the history of Germany. Conservative is an ideology that depends on time and place. For example conservatives in Russia are pro-communism.
In the case of the NAZIs they were progressive nationalist socialists advocating for a “third way" that was not liberalism or communism, which is why they campaigned hard as anti-marxists and anti-capitalists. Anti-semitistm was of course a major part of this as well and part of the reason Jewish conspiracy theories seem to simultaneously be associated with both marxism and capitalism.
The key overlap between Fascism, Nazism , and conservatism is that they are all exactly the correct definition on recent conservatism which is best described by the following quote from Frank Wilhoit:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Conservative values in the modern sense is taking power, while saying whatever the hell helps you take power. It applies perfectly to Nazis and Fascists historically.
If you zoom in on Nazi actions, you see clearly they have the same style as modern conservatives. I hope you don’t misunderstand, I’m not calling Nazis conservatives, I’m calling conservatives NAZIS; And by that I mean the way they use power. ANYTHING to gain and maintain power, the rest is an illusion.
In the case of the NAZIs they were progressive nationalist socialists advocating for a “third way" that was not liberalism or communism, which is why they campaigned hard as anti-marxists and anti-capitalists. Anti-semitistm was of course a major part of this as well and part of the reason Jewish conspiracy theories seem to simultaneously be associated with both marxism and capitalism.
Nazis acted as standard capitalists. They busted unions, they worked alongside corporations without really controlling them in a bad way for them etc. We have tons of jokes about old Nazi companies like Hugo boss that just mysteriously got overlooked and thrived for some time after WW2. They never lost their identity or profits, they gained a lot. It’s the people that lost, as always. Fascist(as we call it today) actions are really just capitalist democracies, that throw away the illusion of democracy, more specifically, they can no longer maintain the illusion - see conservatism.
As for Russians, I’ve been saying this a lot but… I don’t speak Russian, I don’t speak Mandarin, Haven’t visited them, I haven’t done the levels of research needed for me to have an opinion on this matter. There is also a wall of massive propaganda making it 10x harder to validate information. When people talk about modern Russia or China they are talking out their asses and the conversation devolves into shit-flinging. So I shut it down in my very first response. It’s a start of a bad-faith conversation at least 90% of the time. I’m not saying you would be in the 90%, just that I’m opting out of that part of the convo.
The Nazis over-generalising Jews was secondary as a simple means to an end of removing a faction that disagrees with Nazis. The correct way to say it was that, to gain and maintain power, the conservatives scapegoated Jews, socialists, and dissidents, to help generate hatred and genocidal tendencies to ultimately overthrow democracy and remove threats to capitalist power. Jews, socialists, and dissidents in general were framed using any random words that sounded good and then killed off. Conservative values are based on using power in any way to achieve their goal; If you think that their contradictory, scapegoating, culture wars make no sense, its because you aren’t looking at it simply enough. they lie and get what they want each step of the way.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you trust the conservative lies about what a communism and socialism is.
Wikipedia has a correct definition - Communism - Socialism
I’m talking about it from a ideology point of view. The truth is that the hatred did most likely lead them into their opinions and may be the real reason they adopted these viewpoints. However, from the standpoint of “Why are Nazi’s wrong?” it is this biggest issue with their ideology. As to “Conservative values are based on using power in any way to achieve their goal; If you think that their contradictory, scapegoating, culture wars make no sense, its because you aren’t looking at it simply enough. they lie and get what they want each step of the way.”. Again we are talking about them from an ideology standpoint, the reason they claim to do what they do. To argue them on a different basis, I believe, is a bad faith argument. The only thing I believe I can do is, debate them at what they say and hold them to what they say. Because there may be republicans that hold there beliefs honestly and it would be unjust for me to label them as Nazis. As to “conservative lies” about communism and socialism, I do not know what you are specifically talking about (The only conservative speaker I have listened to was Ben Shapiro. I didn’t listen to much of him as it seems he is only interested in parroting the opinions of his constituents in a way that sounds smart rather than thinking for himself). I know that both capitalism and socialism have both failed under certain circumstances (biggest examples are modern america and the USSR), and both had pros and cons. I see from an ethics viewpoint that socialism has a better grounding. I believe in unions and workers standing up for themselves. However government involvement has had a history of failures and a socialist system is something that would need to be implemented very careful or may be impossible. I will note that I have not been able to find many sources that honestly cover the topic in good faith (IE anything other than CAPITALISM SUCKS or SOCIALISM SUCKS!) that I have a very weak ground to stand on when talking about the topic. Because of this, I still see my opinions as developing in this area.
I think i misunderstood you. I assumed you were acting in bad faith. Your grammar is making this a bit more difficult(mine eyes doth protest).
I’m trying to argue in good faith but will admit i assumed you weren’t from previous experiences and half-assed things.
The Nazi ideology to me, is the same as the conservative ideology, and both are simply reduced to tribalism/totalitarianism. Nazi/conservative values are just the truth of ANYTHING for the sake of gaining and maintaining power for the self first, then the tribe(as a means for more self power). The rest is a cover.
If you would like to single out anything we can swap to discussing that so i can show you what i mean. Originally i was talking about you going into minutia about generalising Jews, but the dislike for them was always just fabricated. Generalising or not makes no real difference, same with labeling your enemies as some simple thing you don like to delegitimise them. It’s standard conservative practice to use words in reduced good/bad form. For example, when a conservative talks, they can use socialist, communist, liberal, fascist to describe the same person in the same conversation. The conservative means “I don’t like you” but calls you a name, not realising they have no idea what it means, and you may know it properly and be annoyed with its misuse.
My final point was based around the standard opinions being the conservative lies. How you mentioned soviets as an example of socialism is a standard misunderstanding. They got co-opted the same way Nazis originally did. Both had some socialists attracted and in both cases they seemed to have been purged in favour of the totalitarians.
I’m going out for an hour and wanted to reply, but felt this reply should be deleted as it’s pretty meh. I sent the reply either way thinking you’d prefer one, sorry for the mess.
Thank you for the reply.
As for my grammar: Sometimes I have trouble putting my thoughts on paper. I half blame it on being “noschooled” where I was given a lot less writing assignments (I will note that it wasn’t all bad, as I channeled all that time into programming and computers. Thus making me better in my field than my peers. I think it has pros and cons, I plan to better explain my thoughts in a later comment). I also heavily use autocomplete. However I’m normally a better writer if I give myself time to review my work (I have gone through and made multiple edits on my comments). The other half I blame on me rushing to explain my ideas. I’m not used to the forum format and I was rushing myself before the post became irrelevant. I plan to take more time in the future when commenting on forums regardless of whether my comment becomes irrelevant. As I now see that harm it causes, and how I appear to others.
As to Nazis using their ideology as a cover. It is fully plausible and I do not have any retorts to that statement.
I have a habit of avoiding good/bad words such as Nazi/Woke/Socalist/Etc unless I can prove your arguments line up. I find that most people will shutdown around these words. Most republicans I speak with will ignore everything you have to say, if they hear a phrase like “Republicans are Nazis”. It’s also why it is so hard to talk with them.
A lot of the reason why they see opposing viewpoints automatically in a negative light, I believe is due to them only ever hearing the “Republicans are Nazis” part. I have never heard the reasoning why, people thought this (outside of REPUBLICAN BAD!). I (and I assume many republicans, as I never hear them talking about this point. Family or on the internet) will ever hear anything like what you have explained to me on the matter.
I still think it is wise to not address republicans as Nazis, as this often rings as a generalization that causes the conversation to be unproductive. I still think it is best to address their beliefs on their own merit; as I believe the best way to expose an idiot, is to explain how they are an idiot in a calm manner. Only describing the nature of Nazism and how it effects their voter base, emphasizing that not all republicans are necessarily Nazis. However, I have both learned from your comment and realized how I was not following my own beliefs in fear of being ignored. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me.
Quick note: I’m tired right now (12:30am atm) and I just wanted to update the conversation as to not leave it at that. I will go over this post and fix any issues and expand on it tomorrow when I am properly rested.
Thanks for the effort, It’s hard to put text down how we want, which is why I wanted to delete my last comment and rewrite it later haha. I was a bit the same and am learning as I go too. :) As long as you have paragraphs and the ideas come out how you want them then I’m happy.
I used to hear people from your POV before, and thought they were exaggerating, but the more I thought about it, the more I will noticed it’s not hyperbolic.
I completely agree. I’ve had some scary experiences, easily breaking through conservatives defences, if I just use neutral language. The downside is that skilled people can make fast progress if they explain and agree on terminology, which on the internet is probably best avoided most of the time.
You are wiser than I am lol. I know it leads to nothing of value, but feel it needs to be associated as hard as we can, as most of their actions are based on conformity and Pavlovian conditioning(they do the inverse to an enemy I guess. I should stop).
The problem with the latter half of your paragraph, is that most conservatives don’t really believe what they say. They conform to their tribal values. It’s partly due to them having a bad foundation, leading to any thoughts ending in cognitive dissonance, then frustration, then anger, then either changing subjects or abuse.
Underneath the average conservative is an insecure, submissive, desperate for attention person that needs a better tribe to defect to, and the best way to win one, is to invite them to a friendly group of anti-conservatives. Some stealth might be required.
Conservatives tend to learn through direct actions, not rational discussion, so talking with them is only beneficial when dealing with an audience unless you know specific tactics.
Nighty night, thanks for the chat.
note: Most of what I say, such as “conservatives” is meant to be a generalisation and not an absolute thing for all. Sometimes I will clear it up and sometimes not. Sometimes I don’t even know I did it. I try to use “-ism” terminology to talk about the actual ideology.
The following is my more fleshed out thoughts on the manner.
To better explain my ideas on the matter, I think it is best if I explain my trajectory from generic conservative to were I am now. So please bare with me. I know I’m giving you my whole life’s story, but I think it is important to show what I mean.
My first political ideology that I ever adopted was freedom of speech and the value of free thought. This was before I new what republicans, democrats, socialists, capitalists, etc. My reasoning was that we, as humans, are fundamentally imperfect. My general assumption is that I most likely hold at least one incorrect belief, and my constant goal is to find this belief and correct myself. This means I want to talk with others I disagree with and I want to understand why they believe what they believe. I want to challange my own beliefs. And even if I believe others are wrong, understanding their beliefs helps me to better understand my own beliefs; as I will better understand the pitfalls and weak points in my own beliefs.
The first introduction I had with politics was when my parents recommended to me Ben Shapiro. At first I agreed with a lot of his beliefs and I had found him generally reasonable. There was one section of politics that I disagreed with him however. Particularly his approach to transgender politics. I didn’t agree or disagree with him on many of his policies, as I know very little about the physiology at play and I pushed that in my “to be researched” set of opinions. However what I was able to pick a bone with, was his general attitude towards transgender people. He didn’t just say that many topics relating to transgender people where nuanced and needed to be taken with care, he seemed to assume that any pro transgender law was an attack on cis people (this is not what he outright says, but I think it is a serviceable description for the purposes of this discussion). It only got worse when he actually conversed with transgender people in debate. His outright refusal to even refer to them by their pronouns, and sometimes emphasis on not calling by their pronouns, was confusing to me. I noticed that he never really explained this outside of that It would be implicitly agreeing with them.
It was that lack of an honest discussion that really bugged me. This allowed me to notice that this was a pattern with Ben Shapiro. He would rant about what he dislikes, and only ever provide surface level discussion. Becoming my first experience with modern republican culture.
However, I still often agreed with his points and I still held my same beliefs. Never the less, I did eventually find people who would go further into detail on their beliefs.
Overtime I noticed though, how they would complain about being labeled bigots and nazis (without ever being given a justification. Or only ever seeing the clips of people who don’t know what those words mean). The problem was that they were doing the same thing back, using words like woke or liberals. Leading me to become someone who agreed politically with them, but I hated the way they went about things. My main focus of discussion with them was to encourage them to talk in a more productive manner and to avoid just using woke and liberal as a way to write someone off.
The turning point for me had to be one trip I had with my Dad. We went to a “prepper” camp, ie we played with ham radios, did some metal working, and camped out in the woods (it was a lot of fun). Towards the end, there was going to be a republican speaker who I had heard good things about and was already considering voting for. Most of his speech was one that I could agree with at the time. Even if our beliefs didn’t line up 1:1 and it was going well. Than he said one line “I want more of our children to be praying in school”. I took some offense to this as I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state but I assumed it was likely just a slip of the tongue in an otherwise solid speech. He was accepting questions after the speech, so I thought I would ask him to clarify.
What followed was one of the most eerie situations I have ever experienced. I asked him something along the lines of “I remember you noted, that you wanted more children to be praying in school. I just wanted to clarify as to whether you meant that you don’t want christian children feeling shame about praying in school.”. I forget his exact words but it was something along the lines of “I think you’re a misguided liberal and I hope you see the error of your way”, which is a bit of a shell shock for someone who very much a republican supporter. Before I could say anything else, or had a chance to explain to him that this was a small detail and that we were mostly aligned politically, I was assured away with two women (I assume were part of his campaign team) who interrogated me. Eventually they realized that I was someone that agreed with them and they backed off.
Past this point, I became acutely aware that most republicans were not interested in thoughtful discussion. They wanted their dopamine and then take off.
As to why many of my opinions have changed, I credit this both to my attempt to be open minded and the fact that all of this happened more when I was still just getting my ideological footing (so to speak).
The reason I disagree with you is because I have met similar people who voted democrat, and I have met republicans who hold themselves to a higher standard than this. I attribute labeling and finger pointing to both sides and the darker sides of general human nature. At this time, I recognize the danger that there are Nazis in republican ranks. However I don’t think it is as black and white as that.
Republicans see a similar danger among-st democrats. As a lot of the media they see and share involves BLM riots burning houses, or crazy laws that would destroy what they hold dear. And even if I dis-agree with many republican points and beliefs. I see why they think the way they do. And it would be hard to argue with them given the current state of media, were nothing can just be the facts. It has to be a pro republican or a pro democrat spin. It’s one of the main reasons I have trouble getting a solid foothold on my beliefs of socialism versus capitalism.
Ultimately I know people who earnestly hold these beliefs and have been one at one time. I know that the version of me who was disgusted with the current state of how republicans act, while agreeing with their policies. And I know how earlier me would be disgusted at the idea of Nazis and believe my best course of action was to hunt Nazis out of my own party. That’s why I want to be specific about how we address them. Because calling them Nazis, when they earnestly understand and hate the ideology, only paints you as someone who refuses to understand them. Rather than someone who wants to partner with them to make the world a better place.
P.S. I feel the last line may come across as somewhat judgmental, I only word it that way because I feel it best describes my feeling. I still am open to being corrected, and would be glad if you have more to add.
Calling the NAZIs conservatives doesn’t quite fit the history of Germany. Conservative is an ideology that depends on time and place. For example conservatives in Russia are pro-communism.
In the case of the NAZIs they were progressive nationalist socialists advocating for a “third way" that was not liberalism or communism, which is why they campaigned hard as anti-marxists and anti-capitalists. Anti-semitistm was of course a major part of this as well and part of the reason Jewish conspiracy theories seem to simultaneously be associated with both marxism and capitalism.
The key overlap between Fascism, Nazism , and conservatism is that they are all exactly the correct definition on recent conservatism which is best described by the following quote from Frank Wilhoit:
Conservative values in the modern sense is
taking power, while saying whatever the hell helps you take power. It applies perfectly to Nazis and Fascists historically.If you zoom in on Nazi actions, you see clearly they have the same style as modern conservatives. I hope you don’t misunderstand, I’m not calling Nazis conservatives, I’m calling conservatives NAZIS; And by that I mean the way they use power. ANYTHING to gain and maintain power, the rest is an illusion.
Nazis acted as standard capitalists. They busted unions, they worked alongside corporations without really controlling them in a bad way for them etc. We have tons of jokes about old Nazi companies like Hugo boss that just mysteriously got overlooked and thrived for some time after WW2. They never lost their identity or profits, they gained a lot. It’s the people that lost, as always. Fascist(as we call it today) actions are really just capitalist democracies, that throw away the illusion of democracy, more specifically, they can no longer maintain the illusion - see conservatism.
As for Russians, I’ve been saying this a lot but… I don’t speak Russian, I don’t speak Mandarin, Haven’t visited them, I haven’t done the levels of research needed for me to have an opinion on this matter. There is also a wall of massive propaganda making it 10x harder to validate information. When people talk about modern Russia or China they are talking out their asses and the conversation devolves into shit-flinging. So I shut it down in my very first response. It’s a start of a bad-faith conversation at least 90% of the time. I’m not saying you would be in the 90%, just that I’m opting out of that part of the convo.
I don’t really know how to respond to this other than to say your worldview is firmly grounded in ideology.