Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

susinpgh OP t1_j85t1iu wrote

Reply to comment by NotTRYINGtobeLame in Voting Rights Victory in Pennsylvania by susinpgh

This is a really narrow take on the use of the term Nazi. Many of the actions of the current GOP bear a striking resemblance to the policies of fascism. There is a very good reason that this comparison; fascism is invariably oppressive.

Yes, it is unfortunate that conservatives are being painted with a broad brush. But they are also not disavowing the extreme far right adherents to repressive ideologies. The Republican party needs to distance itself from these extremists if they want to maintain any credibility.

31

IamSauerKraut t1_j86a1yd wrote

>it is unfortunate that conservatives are being painted with a broad brush

It is unfortunate that some folks are calling all republicans things such as nazis. Some of the republicans, however, very much act like nazis (excluding, of course, the butchering of Jews, Catholics, Poles, Ukranians, Russian soldiers, etc.), and some support the behaviors and acts of self-identified nazis. Perhaps if they would stop their micro-wars against certain segments of our population and against the whole concept of democracy.

4

decrementsf t1_j89jvwz wrote

> This is a really narrow take on the use of the term Nazi. Many of the actions of the current GOP bear a striking resemblance to the policies of fascism.

You know this take is wrong.

The East German Stasi labeled your neighbors fascist to justify use of state power to oppress the people. It is always the same.

The frame is wrong. Democrats get the same label when they speak out of turn about policy they disagree with. Meanwhile policy is indistinguishable from the worst roll-up of power that took place under Bush-Cheney.

There's a fascist in the room. It's the one holding the power to send law enforcement to your door, close your bank and social media accounts, and have Gawker-tier Inquisition harass your neighbors and friends while calling you the Nazi. Your family and friends and neighbors are good people. The ones who will stand next to you when misfortune strikes. Stand in the way to protect you from that same inquisition.

The correct frame is top-down authoritarianism vs whether the taxpaying public get a voice. The bounds of that conflict overlap all partisan orientations.

0

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j85vk4r wrote

I appreciate the reasonable reply - it seems to be a diamond in the rough here.

Let's say, arguendo at least, I understand why "the Left" wants to label "the Right" (or at least some on the right) as fascists or Nazis. I try my best to understand the opposing argument as best I can before I dig in my heels on my own, and I can see at least some of what the Left feels is oppressive.

Can you try to cross the aisle and do the same for me? Here's some of what the Right is seeing, I think, when they say, as I've unfortunately heard, the Left are the New Nazis. There have been multiple pro-gun court rulings. There was the Heller decision and now the Bruen decision, both substantially supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms. Yet, despite the Bruen decision, has NY opened the way to legal concealed carry? Not as well as they'd have you believe. And other states have heavy restrictions on gun owners and gun ownership. Some cities have even more strict laws within their own confines. But while legal gun owners have continued to accept jumping through hoops to obtain legal firearms, criminals continue to ignore the ATF and obtain illegal weapons anyway. The Right essentially sees this as allowing criminals to be perpetually armed while restricting access to "law-abiding citizens." Meanwhile, we hear plenty about abortion and the "right" to abortion. There's no explicit grant of a right to obtain an abortion, yet I'd argue such an individual right falls to the People under the 10th Amendment. I believe Roe relied on the woman's 14th Amendment right to privacy.... itself a right that exists by interpretation of the court, not by explicit grant (remember that RBG herself didn't like Roe's reasoning, though I don't remember her specific grounds). All of this is to say, we argue all of this because there's no explicit grant of the right. But there is an explicit grant in the 2nd Amendment. And there really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history lol King George III had sent the redcoats to gather weapons, ammo and gunpowder from the colonists and that's how we got Lexington and Concord.

And guns are just the easiest example to thing of off the top of my head. I'll leave you with that for the moment. As far as disavowing, I've always sort of disagreed on how much a person is, themselves, incriminated by their failure to "disavow" someone else loudly enough to satisfy their opposition. FWIW, I think the smartest GOP have moved on from Trump, yet there's just enough of both sides still giving him attention to make it worth it for him.

−7

steelceasar t1_j861gg2 wrote

None of what you wrote addresses why the right is compared to fascists. The right wing is compared to fascists because of their broad distain for the democratic process, there unrelenting focus on maintaining cultural hegemony, by targeting this fake border crisis (what has changed since Biden took over, what policies or actions?). The glorification of Christian nationalism as a substitute for anything related to intellectualism (IE public education, college education, and "liberalism". And continuous reliance upon strong populist, authoritarian politicians like Trump and Desantis. I could go on, as there are still many authoritarian actions and perspectives that you can point to.

​

Also you don't have a very nuanced understanding of history if you think that the revolution boiled down to King George III trying to take everyone's guns. It is funny that you think that though, it certainly illustrates how your warped obsession with the 2nd amendment and firearms dictates how you view history and politics.

12

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86bkmv wrote

Ohh my lord. I love when you guys take what I said word for word and act like it's in a vacuum, or even better put words in my mouth. I am not saying "the revolution boiled down to" a gun grab. My lord. I said the very specific battles of Lexington and Concord, the "shot heard round the world" and all that? Look up why the redcoats were marching on those towns. Did I say "the revolution?" I mentioned specific things. Please do not straw man me - where you make an argument that is easier for you to attack and "win" over. Thank you.

−5

steelceasar t1_j86f5n0 wrote

"And there really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history lol King George III had sent the redcoats to gather weapons, ammo and gunpowder from the colonists and that's how we got Lexington and Concord."

You wrote the above. So you are in fact arguing that you did not mean what you said? I don't need to construct a straw man argument, because either you have no idea what you are talking about, or your written communication skills are so underdeveloped that you are incapable of articulating it.

3

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86ixwq wrote

Yes, I did write the above and I stand by it, but you have to take into consideration the entire block, not just cherry pick which parts you'd like to reply to.

In that entire reply, I was making several points that add up to my overall argument:

  1. Democrat-run legislatures are trying everything they can to avoid simple compliance with the SCOTUS Bruen decision.

  2. Gun owners see increasing regulatory hoops to jump through in acquiring firearms legally whilst criminals continue to ignore the laws to acquire their illegal weaponry... illegally.

  3. The Constitution deals with "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." You can argue about to whom the right is granted if you don't like the Heller decision. But it does explicitly refer to a "right" and it grants it by saying "it shall not be infringed" (logically, it has to have been granted and exist as a right if it can be protected from infringement, right?).

  4. a) There is no explicit mention of a "right" to abortion in the document, and so if that right does exist, it exists within something else that is explicit - i.e. the right to abortion exists in the penumbra, as SCOTUS has said. b) When gun owners are seeing their explicit right being infringed while Democrats demand their non-explicit right be upheld, it makes them feel just as angry as when women feel their rights are being infringed.

"And"

  1. a) There really isn't a single time in history a government was taking gun rights from their people and the government turned out on the "right" side of history, for example b) King George was on the wrong side of history when, for example he started the American Revolution by sending troops to confiscate arms from the colonists.

AND SO.... all of that was to support my ORIGINAL argument, which is simply that the accusation of Nazi affiliation is being bandied about unnecessarily and ad nauseum. I was not attempting to boil down the entire revolution or even just the whole "taxation without representation" thing into my own gun rights argument. My bit at the end of that whole block about King George was merely one example to support the argument that governments restricting or taking firearms rights aren't ever "in the right," which itself was to support the larger argument at hand (about the over-use of "Nazi," to be perfectly clear. I'd hate to leave any bit of ambiguity for you to cling to.)

My communication skills have served me thus fine so far in life. I used to be a pre-law student. I was in my 7th undergrad semester before ditching the field for IT. I did crap tons of writing to get to that 7th semester, my friend, so if some guy on Reddit wants to critique my writing.... I have to critique your reading skills.

−1

IamSauerKraut t1_j876kd3 wrote

>Democrat-run legislatures are trying everything they can to avoid simple compliance with the SCOTUS Bruen decision.

The case which is the topic of this thread has nothing to do with a Democrat-run legislature. Indeed, the Petitioner in the action is a Republican-run committee in the Republican-majority PA State Senate. It seems as if you are attempting to hijack the thread. Or, perhaps your communication skills are not all that great.

1

steelceasar t1_j86le19 wrote

I can see why you would abandon the liberal arts, reality and history have a little too much nuance for you to engage with adequately I guess.

0

NotTRYINGtobeLame t1_j86oln3 wrote

If you have nothing to reply with except ad hom attacks, just save your time and effort.

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j8767i7 wrote

>There have been multiple pro-gun court rulings.

Which have very little do - even as analogies - with the ruling in this specific kerfuffle between 2 branches of government in which the 3rd branch is reluctant to engage.

2

Timewasted11222 t1_j85v294 wrote

Tell that to Biden who is the close friend of an extremist.

−21

steelceasar t1_j86036o wrote

And who would that be?

7

Timewasted11222 t1_j866iuv wrote

And also said he didn’t want black students going to school with white kids. But let me guess he’s changed.

−11

IamSauerKraut t1_j86a5wt wrote

Byrd has long been dead. And he changed his tune long before that.

9

yeags86 t1_j87ag3e wrote

Just because you can’t change your shitty opinions doesn’t mean others can’t.

4

Timewasted11222 t1_j8665az wrote

Robert Byrd . Look it up

−12

yeags86 t1_j87hez9 wrote

Nick Fuentes. Look him up.

4

Timewasted11222 t1_j88fo4k wrote

I know yeah the white supremist who’s actually Hispanic. Yeah makes as much sense as the democrat party. Nice try but but cnn calling him a supremist doesn’t mean it actually is

0

Timewasted11222 t1_j88ftza wrote

Or is it because he’s a proud American and to you clowns that means your a white nationalist

1