Why are they quoting Markus "Notch" Persson on their description?

[Telaso]

They might want to remove that at some point because he made Minecraft afterall...

[「๖Vɪɴʏʟ」]

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Yes, actually they were social democrats. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte which translates into English as the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Firstly, I'd like to refer you to the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Secondly, the reason for the NSDAP not actually being socialist, although some proposed policies being shared with other socialist parties, is that as a ruling party under Hitler they were not.

Talking points and quotes don't actually matter more than the actions and implemented policies of the party.

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

English speakers shortened the first word into the pejorative term that was used during WWII and is used out of context today

Out of context, how?

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Some texts then go on to describe them as a far right party.

This is because as a working party under Hitler, they were.
I dont think many people would call white supremacy, genocide, and racist propagnada anything else.

If nothing else, the fact that the extreme right identifies with, and agree with them should quite clearly tell you that their policies and ideals fit into the far right.

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

I grew up hearing about it from a source that would know. The woman that lived next door to us when I was a teenager was a German Jew that still had the numbers tattooed on her forearm. She's still alive. 98 years old and living in a retirement home now.

I would like to mention she would have been 10 at the time of Hitlers appointment.

I am in no way trying to disrespect her, but rather wanting to make it clear for you that it is not very likely for a 10 year old to know about the workings and ideas of a political party, or it's consequences on the wider working population.

Also as a side note, referring to the NSDAP as "Social democratic" is not putting you on a good foundation lmfao

[Hurkyl]

İlk olarak 「๖Vɪɴʏʟ」 tarafından gönderildi:

This is because as a working party under Hitler, they were.
I dont think many people would call white supremacy, genocide, and racist propagnada anything else.

That's more because people think about tropes and memes rather than what those words actually mean. When they hear "white supremacy" they think about, say, roving gangs of skinheads rather than, say, believing other races are less capable of functioning in society and it's the job of white people to be their custodian.

(I still don't know what's "right-wing" about skinheads -- AFAICT the only commonality they seem to have with anyone on the 'right' is an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of thing, but that's beside the point)

There's actually a meme I've seen about this. Basically, you ask a 'right' winger "Do you think there's a lot of racism in society?" and they answer no. Then you bring up a pop description of left-wing identity politics, and then ask them again "Do you still think there's not a lot racism in society? Not even from the left-wing?" and their answer will change to "I guess there is."

[「๖Vɪɴʏʟ」]

İlk olarak Hurkyl tarafından gönderildi:

(I still don't know what's "right-wing" about skinheads -- AFAICT the only commonality they seem to have with anyone on the 'right' is an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of thing, but that's beside the point)

I have never actually heard of Skinheads before now, reading up on them for a little I think the reason is that White power skinheads likely show up more often in places like the news, so when you hear about skinheads it's more likely to be the racist neo-nazis, instead of the more general Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice

[Gladonos]

İlk olarak Lyra tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

So fighting hate by using hate is sanctioned if the hate is from the "prgressive" side? That doesn't sound very progressive to me. It sounds like a certain country in the 1930s making excuses for their bad behavior that everyone bought until it was too late. Its people that fail to read history that need to grow up. The reason that history repeats is because people fail to learn from past mistakes.

Immediately going to "actually you're really just nazis," huh? Don't know what I expected, really. There isn't really a middle ground between people who think LGBTQ+ people, people of specific ethnicities, etc. are inherently bad, "degenerate," immoral, etc. and people who think they're fine and have the right to exist. The point of view that they're fine is not one I would consider hateful, and the point of view that some people are inherently "degenerate" and as such are a negative for society is one I would consider hateful. Nazi ideology was based around the elimination of such "degenerate" elements. Inclusivity is based around the acceptance of those without an ideology of hatred. Note how one of these is against people for who they are, and one of these is against people for their ideologies about other people.

False Dilemma, Motte and Bailey and gaslighting.

Motte & Bailey: because you are not merely arguing that people should be equal. The bailey is that there are "social structures of oppressive power" with many disgusting implications. But you are hiding behind the motte because it's much easier to say "I believe in equality!"

False Dilemma: There are way more choices then just equality loving liberals vs racist fascists. < And those 2 choices are not even in the majority lol.

Gaslighting: "We are just fighting for equality! You are crazy!"

Of coarse you are gonna accuse me "of making assumptions about you" but I guarantee you believe all the stuff I am accusing you of believing.

[Hedning]

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Well that's a completely false statement. Give me the quote where I used the word you claim I used.

I quoted it initially, to make sure you would not be confused as to what I was referencing, but if you already forgot here it is again:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Oddly enough this is a defense that is only acceptable for one side to use.

Completely deluded. No one believes it is only acceptable for one side except you.

And again I noticed you said "word", because you are a dishonest prick who wants to use semantic tricks you squirm your way out of defending your position. I know what you are doing.

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

If you look you will also see that I was not replying to you. You are using your own biases to read meanings into things that are not there.

You were not quoting me, so what? You referenced "depression and feelings of isolation", exactly my words. And again who was your hypocrisy accusation directed towards if not "my side"? It doesn't really matter anyway, but how about you clarify which "side" you were talking about? Do you dare being honest? If it was not directed towards "my side" that's good, the accusation is still stupid and based on nothing.

You're squirming so much. Why do you have to be so dishonest? If you have a position why can't you defend it honestly?

[Hedning]

As for the Nazi discussion just look at "unite the right". It's not like the Nazis vote for center-left like Angela Merkel or Bernie Sanders. They vote for right wing extremists like Trump and Marine Le Pen.

It is true that Hitler had some socialist rhetoric, how is that relevant today? If we're looking at the people today who attracts fascists it is maga republicans and the right in general. I don't understand how this is even a discussion.

[knighttemplar1960]

İlk olarak 「๖Vɪɴʏʟ」 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

English speakers shortened the first word into the pejorative term that was used during WWII and is used out of context today

Out of context, how?

Today's left in the USA uses it as an insult against anyone that disagrees with them on any subject in an effort to shut down discussion.

İlk olarak 「๖Vɪɴʏʟ」 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Some texts then go on to describe them as a far right party.

This is because as a working party under Hitler, they were.
I don't think many people would call white supremacy, genocide, and racist propagnada anything else.

If nothing else, the fact that the extreme right identifies with, and agree with them should quite clearly tell you that their policies and ideals fit into the far right.

They didn't start out that way. They started out as a party that had elements of what is considered modern left and modern right wing and slid to the far right when they seized power.

Also right and left have "switched places" in the USA. The party of white supremacy was the Democrats. Andrew Jackson formed the party on the platforms of slavery and manifest destiny. They engaged in genocide against the indigenous peoples and used racist propaganda against both the native population and black slaves (and some Irish). That didn't change until the 1960s and the behavior is still present in many boomer Democrats and their adult children. Its the reason that Dixiecrats are called Dixiecrats and not Dixiecans. They were Democrats.

There are also far fewer people that identify as far right than far left. Proud boys, Michigan militia, skin heads, and other groups of that type number in the hundreds but BLM and antifa number in the tens of thousands and there is no difference in their tactics, only on which side of the political divide they are on.

İlk olarak 「๖Vɪɴʏʟ」 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

I grew up hearing about it from a source that would know. The woman that lived next door to us when I was a teenager was a German Jew that still had the numbers tattooed on her forearm. She's still alive. 98 years old and living in a retirement home now.

I would like to mention she would have been 10 at the time of Hitlers appointment.

I am in no way trying to disrespect her, but rather wanting to make it clear for you that it is not very likely for a 10 year old to know about the workings and ideas of a political party, or it's consequences on the wider working population.

10 years old at the time and in a camp at age 18. She was quite beautiful as a teen which is why she survived. (You can imagine the details and I'm sure that your imagination isn't even the tip of the iceberg). She may have started with a 10 year old's perspective but she lived through it as an adult. I'm certainly not in a position to argue details with her.

[knighttemplar1960]

İlk olarak Hedning tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Well that's a completely false statement. Give me the quote where I used the word you claim I used.

I quoted it initially, to make sure you would not be confused as to what I was referencing, but if you already forgot here it is again:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Oddly enough this is a defense that is only acceptable for one side to use.

Completely deluded. No one believes it is only acceptable for one side except you.

And again I noticed you said "word", because you are a dishonest prick who wants to use semantic tricks you squirm your way out of defending your position. I know what you are doing.

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

If you look you will also see that I was not replying to you. You are using your own biases to read meanings into things that are not there.

You were not quoting me, so what? You referenced "depression and feelings of isolation", exactly my words. And again who was your hypocrisy accusation directed towards if not "my side"? It doesn't really matter anyway, but how about you clarify which "side" you were talking about? Do you dare being honest? If it was not directed towards "my side" that's good, the accusation is still stupid and based on nothing.

You're squirming so much. Why do you have to be so dishonest? If you have a position why can't you defend it honestly?

I didn't reply to you. I replied to PunCrathod who had quoted you, who also used the words "depression and feelings of isolation" which are serious issues that shouldn't be made light of. Two of my grandchildren suffer from those things and are fine when on their medication but stop taking it when they "feel better" and slide back down again. I also didn't use the word you ascribed to me. That came from your own biases and prejudices. You saw what you wanted to see, not what I actually said.

I've also not insulted or name called you with words like delusional, dishonest, or prick. That offensive behavior is all on you. For some reason you seem to believe that it is acceptable when you do it but not when anyone else does (even though no one has done that to you.) Hypocrisy and double standard were words you assigned to me from the conclusions you jumped to, not words that I used.

[「๖Vɪɴʏʟ」]

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

[they] slid to the far right when they seized power.

By "working party under Hitler" I meant as a political party functioning and implementing laws during the time Hitler was in power, so this part could just be shrotened to "I agree"

However now I am just incredibly confused on how you can both say that they were far right, and also claim they were socialists, and social democrats.

If you're attempting to seperate the pre-Hitler comming to power NSDAP from what they actually did, and what everyone in the entire world means when they talk about the NSDAP, then I fear you're being slightly disingenuous in your claims.

Whenever the Nazis, Nazi-party, or NSDAP is being talked about, it is referring to the rule under Hitler, and in all fairness, whatever they claimed before comming into power is quite frankly irrelevant.

Claiming/explaining the NSDAP was actually socialist before Hitler came into power, at best does nothing, and at worst spreads confusion and misinformation.

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

10 years old at the time and in a camp at age 18. She was quite beautiful as a teen which is why she survived. (You can imagine the details and I'm sure that your imagination isn't even the tip of the iceberg).

Gross.

[Quillithe]

İlk olarak Hurkyl tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak 「๖Vɪɴʏʟ」 tarafından gönderildi:

This is because as a working party under Hitler, they were.
I dont think many people would call white supremacy, genocide, and racist propagnada anything else.

That's more because people think about tropes and memes rather than what those words actually mean. When they hear "white supremacy" they think about, say, roving gangs of skinheads rather than, say, believing other races are less capable of functioning in society and it's the job of white people to be their custodian.

(I still don't know what's "right-wing" about skinheads -- AFAICT the only commonality they seem to have with anyone on the 'right' is an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of thing, but that's beside the point)

There's actually a meme I've seen about this. Basically, you ask a 'right' winger "Do you think there's a lot of racism in society?" and they answer no. Then you bring up a pop description of left-wing identity politics, and then ask them again "Do you still think there's not a lot racism in society? Not even from the left-wing?" and their answer will change to "I guess there is."

This is kinda my point from earlier - people dismiss the extremes of 'their side' and seize upon the extremes of the other 'side'. I'm not sure if this post makes any point besides that showing that you're entirely biased.

[Hurkyl]

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Also right and left have "switched places" in the USA.

It really depends on what axis you're measuring, I think.

On this topic, my best assessment, FWIW, is that the left is identitarian and the right is individualist. What happened is not that the sides "switched places", but instead the dominant factions of the left changed (to put it crudely, from white oppressor to white savior), and both factions perceive the right as being aligned with the other guy.

[Quillithe]

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

They didn't start out that way. They started out as a party that had elements of what is considered modern left and modern right wing and slid to the far right when they seized power.

Also right and left have "switched places" in the USA. The party of white supremacy was the Democrats. Andrew Jackson formed the party on the platforms of slavery and manifest destiny. They engaged in genocide against the indigenous peoples and used racist propaganda against both the native population and black slaves (and some Irish). That didn't change until the 1960s and the behavior is still present in many boomer Democrats and their adult children. Its the reason that Dixiecrats are called Dixiecrats and not Dixiecans. They were Democrats.

There are also far fewer people that identify as far right than far left. Proud boys, Michigan militia, skin heads, and other groups of that type number in the hundreds but BLM and antifa number in the tens of thousands and there is no difference in their tactics, only on which side of the political divide they are on.

Honestly under Hitler I don't think they had much alignment one way or another - once he took total control I don't think he had a very strong opinion economically - he was interested in an authoritarian, nationalist, anti-Semitic party and that could go either way. In fact to say it slid to the far right almost makes it sound like it touched the middle at some point - which it didn't really.

Second paragraph is kinda true - the old Southern Strategy. Although it's a bit messier - the shift somewhat began because of FDR and there was already a bit of a difference between northern and southern democrats.


As to the final paragraph...ehhhh. The first set of groups you list "Proud boys, Michigan militia, skin heads, and other groups of that type number" are explicit active organizations. In comparison most people think of antifa and BLM as ideological. I'd be a bit more skeptical that there are actually tens of thousands of people who belong to antifa and BLM as actual organizations. Honestly I strongly doubt most people who support BLM as a movement would really support the actual BLM organization - they're rather distinct.

As to there being far less people that identify as far-right than far-left, I think that many of the far-right identify as simply right at the moment since they don't have as strong of a more central position to identify themselves by opposition to as the far-left.

[Quillithe]

İlk olarak Hurkyl tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Also right and left have "switched places" in the USA.

It really depends on what axis you're measuring, I think.

On this topic, my best assessment, FWIW, is that the left is identitarian and the right is individualist. What happened is not that the sides "switched places", but instead the dominant factions of the left changed (to put it crudely, from white oppressor to white savior), and both factions perceive the right as being aligned with the other guy.

No, the Republicans knowingly used racial polarization for political gain in response to the Civil Rights act.

I'm not sure what to say if you really think the left used to be 'identitarian' as 'white oppressor'. Both parties use group identity as a way to draw votes - it's not necessarily good, but it's a political reality and to pretend otherwise is silly.

[Hurkyl]

İlk olarak Quillithe tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Hurkyl tarafından gönderildi:

It really depends on what axis you're measuring, I think.

On this topic, my best assessment, FWIW, is that the left is identitarian and the right is individualist. What happened is not that the sides "switched places", but instead the dominant factions of the left changed (to put it crudely, from white oppressor to white savior), and both factions perceive the right as being aligned with the other guy.

No, the Republicans knowingly used racial polarization for political gain in response to the Civil Rights act.

I'm not sure what to say if you really think the left used to be 'identitarian' as 'white oppressor'. Both parties use group identity as a way to draw votes - it's not necessarily good, but it's a political reality and to pretend otherwise is silly.

Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding what people mean by the "switched places" argument, but I'm not sure what else they could mean. I'm taking for granted the historical description of Democrats being race focused, and meshing it with my own lifetime experience with... the Democrats and the social justice left being race focused and right instead being opposed to discrimination.

And I'm taking the historical description of the Democrats for granted. I've never investigated it myself, but it seems plausible enough since it's not just the 'right' saying it, but the 'left' seems to accept it (so they can make the "switched places" argument). Although, I suppose, both 'sides' agreeing isn't too reliable.

Certainly on this axis identitarianism is left and individualism is right, wherever the two main parties may fall. I understand there used to be a lot of overlap between the two parties in the past, though.

[knighttemplar1960]

İlk olarak Hurkyl tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak knighttemplar1960 tarafından gönderildi:

Also right and left have "switched places" in the USA.

It really depends on what axis you're measuring, I think.

On this topic, my best assessment, FWIW, is that the left is identitarian and the right is individualist. What happened is not that the sides "switched places", but instead the dominant factions of the left changed (to put it crudely, from white oppressor to white savior), and both factions perceive the right as being aligned with the other guy.

The left is composed of disparate factions that are often in conflict with each other. Jewish, Catholic, Islamic, and atheist factions in competition. Feminist, Islamic and LGBTQ factions competing with each other. Race hustlers and white apologists competing for who is the more virtuous. Groups that want to expand the constitution to cover things its not intended to cover and groups that want to eliminate the parts that they don't like that were specifically put in place to prevent that very thing from happening. The vast majority of them living in high population density areas and never having set foot on any thing more outdoors than a park and living in polluted places that they themselves polluted. Are either very poor or very wealthy.

Conservatives tend to have much more things in common. Most of them are Protestant. value the rule of law, are fiscally, socially, and environmentally conservative, are middle class and have nuclear families and live in rural and suburban areas in daily contact with the environment or relying on it for their income (farmers). They tend to think along similar lines and not go to extremes on one end or the other. They are much more interested in competence than gender or skin color. They are much more likely to run small businesses and value hard work than rely on the stock market or welfare.

The independents are in the middle and make up that largest part of the population and have views somewhere in the middle of the right or left.

That's all over simplified but mostly accurate.