Are there? I mean, I see lots of false equivalence arguments and (possibly fair, possibly not) criticisms of political violence from left-leaning groups.

But surely no one is arguing "Nazis aren't bad" on HN?

> But surely no one is arguing "Nazis aren't bad" on HN?

If your first instinct is to minimise the Nazis (historical or new) by way of comparison to [anything else], then yeah, I would say they're arguing exactly that.

>I see lots of false equivalence arguments and (possibly fair, possibly not)

If they are fair then it's just equivalence, not false equivalence. I feel like this has become the new vogue term thrown around since Charlottesville happened, and it's seeing a lot of misuse. Most people don't even bother to explain why the equivalence is false, thus attempting to shut down the conversation in the manner of the fallacy fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

>> I see lots of false equivalence arguments and (possibly fair, possibly not) criticisms of political violence from left-leaning groups

> If they are fair then it's just equivalence, not false equivalence.

I think you are misparsing my statement. The "and" separates two sub-statements:

1) I see lots of false equivalence arguments,

and, additionally

2) I see lots of (possibly fair, possibly not) criticisms of political violence from left-leaning groups

What is true and fair is that Obama failed to condemn numerous left-wing violent acts and so far Trump has condemned all of the ones that the media attributes to the right, and the left for that matter but that's probably a negative to many posters here.

They’re not saying “Nazis aren’t bad”, they’re saying “these guys with swastikas and Nazi symbols holding guns and shouting Nazi slogans are actually political moderates and true Americans”.

> But surely no one is arguing "Nazis aren't bad" on HN?

Not so openly. Plenty of dog whistles, though.