Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette indlæg
Exactly, the point is precisely about whataboutism. It's completely arbitrary to call someone a Nazi just because they're anti-LGBT when anti-LGBT sentiment has existed for thousands of years and in a multitude of forms. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all more anti-LGBT than the Nazis, so why do we not call all homophobes Jews or Christians? Because those are specific ideologies, just like Nazism is a specific ideology and doesn't apply to everyone, including Republicans. Stop devaluing language and being intellectually dishonest.
Yes, that is the point. You keep acting like what Republicans are doing is somehow uniquely shared with the Nazis when it's not. It's done by literally every authoritarian government and so again, you are just being intellectually dishonest and lazy.
And both those things apply to every Abrahamic religon and most nation states throughout history. Your picking of Nazis to focus on is pure intellectual dishonesty meant to slander the Republican party. I hate the Republican party, too, but I don't use such slimy and intellectually dishonest tactics to criticize them. I can do that without calling them NaZiS.
There is no significant Christian ethnonationalism in the US at this point and the 2025 document proves it as they want more Black people in Africa to become Christians.
Trans people are not an ethnicity and so that is not what they are being discriminated on. They are being discriminated against based on their sexual identity. That has nothing to do with "ethno".
And Republicans are strongly against this as they are strongly anti-abortion. They even criticize the Nazis on this and call abortion eugenic. You're arguing against yourself.
That's not true to a degree. The Nazis encouraged young people into things like summer camps in the hopes they would have sex and produce more babies for the Reich. There were also individuals who wanted polygamy to be instated.
Which again, is nowhere near exclusive to the Nazis and is far more characteristic of Judaism, Christianity and Islam than it is National Socialism.
I know.
This is completely false and you need to educate yourself. Here is a decent video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qUMnPhR_Hk
Which completely conflicts with the gun worshiping Republican party and their economic interests as they want everyone in this country to be armed, regardless of color.
It's not. When you look at Nazi economics in comparison to Republican economics, Nazi economics is far more controlled and centralized.
There is no "ethno nationalism". Stop making ♥♥♥♥ up. The Republican party is a hardline civic nationalist party with a significant colored base that continues to grow. JD Vance is even directly quoted as saying that Republicans need to do more to continue to grow the POC segment.
And Chinese have banned lots of things. I guess they're Nazis, too. Anyone that bans anything is a Nazi.
Which is relatively far away from National Socialism. The Nazis had that level of corruption and greed, but they also moderated it with a decent level of welfare. Honestly, economically speaking, it's more insulting to be compared to a Republican than a Nazi since Nazis actually took better care of their people.
It is a cohesive ideology and nothing you've said has remotely disproven that. National Socialism is a syncretic ideology, meaning that it combines features from different points along the political compass into a whole.
So, please, stop being intellectually dishonest and devaluing language. Calling everyone that's remotely authoritarian a Nazi because they also have a significant White portion is not only stupid, but implicitly racist.
I want to reinforce your fears
https://www.jta.org/archive/bewildering-contradictions-in-nazi-utterances-hitler-calls-for-subservience-to-government-while-goe
Let's not forget the Jewish question itself being a huge contradiction in their idealogy and actions. The enemy is both weak and strong is a common piece of their propaganda.
Whataboutism is literally a logical fallacy and you're claiming you doing it is a good thing. This is what I don't get. You call me intellectually dishonest. But you then go onto ignore that one point like this is used as one of many to establish the broader narrative.
Literally, by your own logic no one can be a nazis because any piece of evidence brought has to be dismissed if it alone does not prove Nazism. The nazis were nationalists and nationalism is an important piece of the puzzle? Well, you can't use that as one of eighth of your total evidence to establish they were nazis, because other people were nationalists too. They locked people up in camps. Well, you can't use that as the second of eighth piece of evidence because the US/Japan also had concentration camps in WW2. They believed in an antisemetic conspiracy theory? Well, you can't use that as the third of eighth piece evidence to establish them being nazis because most people were antisemitic back then.
It's almost as if a bunch of these things put together is why they're a nazi. This is actually you being intellectually dishonest while projecting it onto me. The whole point of my argument is they are doing a bunch of policies the nazis did or have done that are similar. That is why them being authoritarian is important and them wanting to strip minorities of their rights is important.
I don't really see the point of arguing "is this person/group a nazi" with you any further if your logic is nazis can't be nazis because you can't use multiple pieces of evidence/behaviour to prove your point.
Look at the date, it's 1933. That was the year Hitler came to power. Of course there will be inconsistency in policy with a party composed of very domineering members in its infancy. You do understand that parties are composed of individuals, correct? And that not all individuals are in agreement with one another, but that there is still a cohesive big picture. For example, there are a few Republicans that actually do buy into climate change. That doesn't invalidate the general conservative program of their party. Look at the big picture. The big picture that both Hitler and Goering are still anti-Jewish.
You're not well versed in the real world and how it works. The Nazis were opportunists on many issues, the Jews being one of them. If it benefited them in some contexts to portray them as influential, they would do that. If it benefited them in some contexts to portray them as cowardly, they would do that. There's a consistent and cohesive anti-Jewish program, regardless of contextual details. Look at the big picture.
Yes, it's very obvious you don't get it. I am pointing out to you how arbitrary it is to call Republicans Nazis based on the LGBT subject when Nazis aren't even among the most homophobic of groups. Do you get what I'm saying? it's purely arbitrary to use that word and has no meaning within the context. The probable reason you call Republicans Nazis is because you're displaying an unconscious level of anti-White racism in that all authoritarian White people are reduced to and are no more than Nazis.
I'm not ignoring any of your points. You think I'm using whataboutism for the sake of it, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is to demonstrate to you why it's completely arbitrary to call Republicans Nazis based on the LGBT subject.
Yes, which is the correct train of thought. Every militant Muslim organization is anti-Jewish. Does that make them Nazis? No, because despite sharing one trait, they still have different ideologies. Black Nationalists like Malcom X were anti-Jewish. Does that make Malcolm X a Nazi? No, because he's a Black Nationalist with his own cultural beliefs that differ from Hitler's. We have words and descriptors for a reason. The purpose is to use them to describe things that are different. You are adamant about shoehorning the Republican into the "Nazi" label despite it being wholly inaccurate because you perceive the Republican party as relating to Whiteness.
And I've literally proven to you, piece by piece how they're not. Different culture, different economics, different racial makeup, nearly everything is different, yet you keep pretending they're similar.
No, Soren, when I've sat here and shown you in detail how many things are different and you keep pretending they're not, that is you again being intellectually dishonest, which you have been through this entire discussion. I've proven that the National Socialist program is substantially different from the Republican program, but you just will not accept literal facts that are being laid in front of you. That's cognitive dissonance.
No, they are not. You are outright lying at this point..
Which is not at all exclusive to the Nazis. The only reason you keep wanting to paint Republicans as Nazis is because you associate the Republicans with Whiteness, despite the reality being that Republicans are now relatively diverse.
You're not arguing; you're being dishonest, which you've been the entire time. I've literally shown you piece after piece of differences that disprove an overall similarity between Republicans and Nazis and you just flat out refuse to accept them.
Sounds like prejudice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCKkWMbmXU
That's why there is not problem seen.
Assuredly not all furries.
Let's go one at a time. What protective laws?
You're the one claiming you already know all of this. You're the one basing your beliefs on this. You're the one starting a thread on this. You should actually know what it says. So it's a very simple question, and not an unreasonable request to ask you to elaborate on which protective law they're trying to get rid of.
You haven't read any of this for yourself. You're repeating what you've heard someone else say about it, that much is clear now.
Also, I never made any such claim.