You cannot debate with people who want to eradicate you, oppress you, harm you, or think you are not quite human. You can debate with people about bridge building.
Bravo for this, Jim. Precisely the piece we need now. Online “debate” has so devalued language that we forget how REAL Fascists work. Substack is wagering the lives of all of its writers--and indeed, their own lives too--that they will be able to “control” Nazi ideology. The same mistake people made in the Weimar Republic.
Am I guilty of debasing the coinage? Do I say fascist too often? Maybe. The word is oddly polarizing. If I use it when speaking, I begin to lose people. They accuse me of lecturing them. It’s a “bad” word, not because it connotes a bad ideology and worse people, but because people who use it are always agitated and in the-Sky-is-falling! mode of talking down to their listeners. Use of the word fascist causes eyes to glaze over. My fellow citizens don’t have the faintest idea what I’m referring to when I use the word fascist. But this is a country where great swathes of people couldn’t pick Adolf Hitler out of a line up, and kinda sorta think he was maybe king of Germany once - a long time ago?
And that, is a problem in the “... condemned-to-repeat-it” mode. If there is one area of preparing the ground for the “cause” the Repukes have excelled at, it was destroying this nation’s public education system- once a marvel of the world- and making the American citizen one of the least educated people in the room. But I digress.
I try not to use the word “Nazi” unless referring to Nazis. And I try not to make any (all too apparent) references to the Nazi seizure of power because I’m lecturing (again) and no one understands the comparison anyway. But I agree with Mr. Gerber, those slope headed, knuckle dragging morons settle their differences with brutality. You can’t let them have a seat at the table. They are not interested in any ideas but their own. They aren’t there to do anything helpful, constructive, reasonable. They are there to push the table over, and beat everyone to death with the table legs.
What is Nazism based on? It’s based on a division of the entire world into Us vs them. As the Nazis see it, this dichotomy is racial in nature. Mankind is an animal species that divides into racial types. Some races are superior to others. The superior races should not care very much about the inferior races, because they are perforce “inferior” and therefore, undeserving of the territory they call home or the resources they may have that are necessary for their survival.
The superior race or races cannot allow these inferior races to thwart its evolution, or impinge upon its desires and goals. Inferior races -the Nazis referred to them as “untermenschen” or subhuman, can and should, no must be exterminated by the superior race(s) because as I mentioned earlier, mankind is an animal, and it is locked in an eternal struggle to survive with all of the different “races” as competitors for land and resources necessary for survival. From the Nazi perspective it is a biological imperative for only one race to come out on top - and that must be the master race. Laws to prevent murder, mass killing, genocide, religious concepts of morality, ideas about human rights, civil rights, inalienable rights, these are all concepts and ideas put forth by racially inferior human beings to impede and retard the natural evolution of the master race; which in the world of Nazism, is almost worse than the death of the master race - a slow, purposeful weighing down and sapping of the energy, the creative genius and the will to dominate, that is the natural state of the ubermenschen - Supermen.
Now, this is all well known, and I apologize for the lengthy lecture. The superiority of the Caucasian race is the core belief of Nazism. Everything is based on race and racial purity. Whether you are racially akin to the master race, or rather far removed from it, is the sole determinant of your place in Nazi hierarchy of whether you live or die. As we know Europe was divided into 3 zones (A, B and C). Those who lived in Zones A and B were deemed worthy of life - provided they weren’t Jews - those in zone C were slated for extermination.
Now, insofar as I know, none of this has changed. The Nazis are still supreme racists. Everything is still racially based. They still want to kill every Jew they can lay their hands on, because for whatever reason, Adolf Hitler really hated the Jews and thought they were responsible for everything wrong in the world. And, we can add to the Nazi short list of those slated for the “final solution” every brown and black person that draws breath on the planet and their descendants - so what’s that, about 7/8ths of humanity?
Like I said, the Nazis haven’t changed. They aren’t interested in updating their message. The message comes directly from Adolf Hitler himself and it is inviolate. It can’t be altered by the present circumstances, and it won’t be. Nazism calls for the extermination, by any and all means possible, for the extermination of every Jew on the planet, and every other racially inferior type, save for the few left to provide slave labor to the master race.
The Nazi message remains the same. Death. Lawlessness. The application of racial discrimination in every aspect of life. No more rights. No more morality. No pity or mercy. Death on an industrial scale.
You talk about our response to this as though we’re engaged in a PR or marketing scrimmage with a competing product. We don’t have to engage in any such thing. I mean, I’m all for quick comebacks, and pithy arguments that remorselessly drive nails into the coffin of Nazism once and for all, and if you have any, please share them. Nazism is a toxin, a failed ideology that still won’t die. And it cannot and should not ever be given a place at the table, or granted the legitimacy of any kind of recognition or status as a”competing argument”. We all know what the Nazi position on any given issue is, and it is abhorrent, vicious, and wrong. Your response indicates to me, that you feel like a reasonable approach to Nazism is to let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. You’re wrong. And nothing you can say will change my mind.
I think you meant to say: “educating people in general”? What, exactly, are you trying to say here? “Understanding that is crucial, otherwise you're beating a dead horse.” Understanding what? Understanding that competition is a process? Okay, it’s a process of a kind. But what’s at play here? A competition between Nazism and other political ideologies? Or are you suggesting a competition between my inherent and legal right to free speech against the adherents of a toxic, loathsome political ideology that has already shown itself to be inimical to human life and happiness?
What dead horse are you inferring here? I realize you’re not suggesting a real dead horse, it’s just a euphemism, but what, exactly, is this dead horse? Can you define your terms? Can you explain what it is you’re trying to say?
There's an aspect ignored by this: counter-speech against Nazism isn't just toward those who espouse it; you're educating people in geral. Competition is a type of process. Understanding that is crucial, otherwise you're beating a dead horse.
Hello Nell, this will be my last response regarding this. Sorry for the late reply, I didn't get the notification and only checked the thread now due to my curiosity.
"You talk about our response to this as though we're engaged in a PR or marketing scrimmage with a competing product."
Models are a tool of analysis. Our responses aren't genuinely illustrative of PR or a marketing scrimmage, but I use the framework of a market to see what implications would entail from that. I find it personally to be clarifying. You presumably would object, which I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"We don't have to engage in any such thing."
Unfortunately, we do. Those truly concerned about threats of Nazism have to actively counter against them. I strongly agree with you in how dangerous Nazism is. That position amplifies my belief of the need to continuously attacking Nazi arguments and of better educating people.
"And it cannot and should not ever be given a place at the table, or granted the legitimacy of any kind of recognition or status as a 'competiting argument'."
I'm not sorry for characterizing it as a competing argument, in that I don't see it as necessarily implying an ethical issue in attributing it as competing with other ideas. We must see it as a competing idea, not due to its legitimacy as a good argument (don't interpret it as that lol), but as that entails the greater need, of again, refining and innovating arguments against it.
"feel like a reasonable approach to Nazism is to let it compete in the marketplace of ideas."
We aren't who decide what is competed in the market. Let me clarify that. We don't own the table. We may try to control parts of the table to regulate speech, but it's still in the marketplace of ideas, competing nonetheless. My approach understands that. It is far better to have proponents of Nazism on a public platform such as Substack, rather than some fringe or niche network, to show how weak and dangerous their viewpoints are. The whole controversy, in fact, reinforces my view that misguided, dangerous content such as Nazism tends to create a flow of counter-speech that can combat those dangerous ideas. If you agree with that, then the existence or presence of Nazism serves as an indicator toward other individuals, within this type of 'marketplace' to find the gaps that current arguments against Nazism aren't effectively able to cover. Perhaps seeing it as an indicator serves as another argument to why I don't find censorship or removal of their content particularly effective but rather counterproductive. People forget history. I feel like certain comments of yours assumes that, even if you were to say you don't. Thank you for the discussion.
You cannot debate with people who want to eradicate you, oppress you, harm you, or think you are not quite human. You can debate with people about bridge building.
Bravo for this, Jim. Precisely the piece we need now. Online “debate” has so devalued language that we forget how REAL Fascists work. Substack is wagering the lives of all of its writers--and indeed, their own lives too--that they will be able to “control” Nazi ideology. The same mistake people made in the Weimar Republic.
Joe, again. You can special plead this forever and the fact remains: you still lost. Nothing you could say to me will change that.
Am I guilty of debasing the coinage? Do I say fascist too often? Maybe. The word is oddly polarizing. If I use it when speaking, I begin to lose people. They accuse me of lecturing them. It’s a “bad” word, not because it connotes a bad ideology and worse people, but because people who use it are always agitated and in the-Sky-is-falling! mode of talking down to their listeners. Use of the word fascist causes eyes to glaze over. My fellow citizens don’t have the faintest idea what I’m referring to when I use the word fascist. But this is a country where great swathes of people couldn’t pick Adolf Hitler out of a line up, and kinda sorta think he was maybe king of Germany once - a long time ago?
And that, is a problem in the “... condemned-to-repeat-it” mode. If there is one area of preparing the ground for the “cause” the Repukes have excelled at, it was destroying this nation’s public education system- once a marvel of the world- and making the American citizen one of the least educated people in the room. But I digress.
I try not to use the word “Nazi” unless referring to Nazis. And I try not to make any (all too apparent) references to the Nazi seizure of power because I’m lecturing (again) and no one understands the comparison anyway. But I agree with Mr. Gerber, those slope headed, knuckle dragging morons settle their differences with brutality. You can’t let them have a seat at the table. They are not interested in any ideas but their own. They aren’t there to do anything helpful, constructive, reasonable. They are there to push the table over, and beat everyone to death with the table legs.
What is Nazism based on? It’s based on a division of the entire world into Us vs them. As the Nazis see it, this dichotomy is racial in nature. Mankind is an animal species that divides into racial types. Some races are superior to others. The superior races should not care very much about the inferior races, because they are perforce “inferior” and therefore, undeserving of the territory they call home or the resources they may have that are necessary for their survival.
The superior race or races cannot allow these inferior races to thwart its evolution, or impinge upon its desires and goals. Inferior races -the Nazis referred to them as “untermenschen” or subhuman, can and should, no must be exterminated by the superior race(s) because as I mentioned earlier, mankind is an animal, and it is locked in an eternal struggle to survive with all of the different “races” as competitors for land and resources necessary for survival. From the Nazi perspective it is a biological imperative for only one race to come out on top - and that must be the master race. Laws to prevent murder, mass killing, genocide, religious concepts of morality, ideas about human rights, civil rights, inalienable rights, these are all concepts and ideas put forth by racially inferior human beings to impede and retard the natural evolution of the master race; which in the world of Nazism, is almost worse than the death of the master race - a slow, purposeful weighing down and sapping of the energy, the creative genius and the will to dominate, that is the natural state of the ubermenschen - Supermen.
Now, this is all well known, and I apologize for the lengthy lecture. The superiority of the Caucasian race is the core belief of Nazism. Everything is based on race and racial purity. Whether you are racially akin to the master race, or rather far removed from it, is the sole determinant of your place in Nazi hierarchy of whether you live or die. As we know Europe was divided into 3 zones (A, B and C). Those who lived in Zones A and B were deemed worthy of life - provided they weren’t Jews - those in zone C were slated for extermination.
Now, insofar as I know, none of this has changed. The Nazis are still supreme racists. Everything is still racially based. They still want to kill every Jew they can lay their hands on, because for whatever reason, Adolf Hitler really hated the Jews and thought they were responsible for everything wrong in the world. And, we can add to the Nazi short list of those slated for the “final solution” every brown and black person that draws breath on the planet and their descendants - so what’s that, about 7/8ths of humanity?
Like I said, the Nazis haven’t changed. They aren’t interested in updating their message. The message comes directly from Adolf Hitler himself and it is inviolate. It can’t be altered by the present circumstances, and it won’t be. Nazism calls for the extermination, by any and all means possible, for the extermination of every Jew on the planet, and every other racially inferior type, save for the few left to provide slave labor to the master race.
The Nazi message remains the same. Death. Lawlessness. The application of racial discrimination in every aspect of life. No more rights. No more morality. No pity or mercy. Death on an industrial scale.
You talk about our response to this as though we’re engaged in a PR or marketing scrimmage with a competing product. We don’t have to engage in any such thing. I mean, I’m all for quick comebacks, and pithy arguments that remorselessly drive nails into the coffin of Nazism once and for all, and if you have any, please share them. Nazism is a toxin, a failed ideology that still won’t die. And it cannot and should not ever be given a place at the table, or granted the legitimacy of any kind of recognition or status as a”competing argument”. We all know what the Nazi position on any given issue is, and it is abhorrent, vicious, and wrong. Your response indicates to me, that you feel like a reasonable approach to Nazism is to let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. You’re wrong. And nothing you can say will change my mind.
No such thing as a “non violent Nazi.”
I think you meant to say: “educating people in general”? What, exactly, are you trying to say here? “Understanding that is crucial, otherwise you're beating a dead horse.” Understanding what? Understanding that competition is a process? Okay, it’s a process of a kind. But what’s at play here? A competition between Nazism and other political ideologies? Or are you suggesting a competition between my inherent and legal right to free speech against the adherents of a toxic, loathsome political ideology that has already shown itself to be inimical to human life and happiness?
What dead horse are you inferring here? I realize you’re not suggesting a real dead horse, it’s just a euphemism, but what, exactly, is this dead horse? Can you define your terms? Can you explain what it is you’re trying to say?
There's an aspect ignored by this: counter-speech against Nazism isn't just toward those who espouse it; you're educating people in geral. Competition is a type of process. Understanding that is crucial, otherwise you're beating a dead horse.
And in this country we have Nazis too. Like the Hair Füror and his deplorable SS swat team.
Hello Nell, this will be my last response regarding this. Sorry for the late reply, I didn't get the notification and only checked the thread now due to my curiosity.
"You talk about our response to this as though we're engaged in a PR or marketing scrimmage with a competing product."
Models are a tool of analysis. Our responses aren't genuinely illustrative of PR or a marketing scrimmage, but I use the framework of a market to see what implications would entail from that. I find it personally to be clarifying. You presumably would object, which I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
"We don't have to engage in any such thing."
Unfortunately, we do. Those truly concerned about threats of Nazism have to actively counter against them. I strongly agree with you in how dangerous Nazism is. That position amplifies my belief of the need to continuously attacking Nazi arguments and of better educating people.
"And it cannot and should not ever be given a place at the table, or granted the legitimacy of any kind of recognition or status as a 'competiting argument'."
I'm not sorry for characterizing it as a competing argument, in that I don't see it as necessarily implying an ethical issue in attributing it as competing with other ideas. We must see it as a competing idea, not due to its legitimacy as a good argument (don't interpret it as that lol), but as that entails the greater need, of again, refining and innovating arguments against it.
"feel like a reasonable approach to Nazism is to let it compete in the marketplace of ideas."
We aren't who decide what is competed in the market. Let me clarify that. We don't own the table. We may try to control parts of the table to regulate speech, but it's still in the marketplace of ideas, competing nonetheless. My approach understands that. It is far better to have proponents of Nazism on a public platform such as Substack, rather than some fringe or niche network, to show how weak and dangerous their viewpoints are. The whole controversy, in fact, reinforces my view that misguided, dangerous content such as Nazism tends to create a flow of counter-speech that can combat those dangerous ideas. If you agree with that, then the existence or presence of Nazism serves as an indicator toward other individuals, within this type of 'marketplace' to find the gaps that current arguments against Nazism aren't effectively able to cover. Perhaps seeing it as an indicator serves as another argument to why I don't find censorship or removal of their content particularly effective but rather counterproductive. People forget history. I feel like certain comments of yours assumes that, even if you were to say you don't. Thank you for the discussion.