We've banned this account. Please don't create accounts to post like this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25518129 or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25523345. We're trying for something other than that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The author is literally using nazi germany as an example of intellectual diversity.

Did you not read the article? In the very first paragraph he lists all the different brands of socialists that existed pre-war.

Sure, but then continues on to decry the de-nazification of Germany and the shadowy "cosmopolitans" who imposed that by force and not the suppression of leftists by the US military, CIA and McCarthyism.

That's the trick, you just gotta put half a sentence about "both sides" into your article and then suddenly you're a centrist and your right wing drivel is now serious intellectual writing.

It is an example of intellectual diversity even though nazis are monsters but I think the overarching point of the article is that despite the fact that monsters exist intellectual diversity is good.

If that's the point of the article, then its a pretty terribly argued article.

If the author wants to argue that we have less intellectual diversity now and its bad, finding some examples of ideologies that don't want to mass murder specific ethnic groups would go a long way to making the argument convincing.

[And i'm starting from a place where i believe intellectual diversity is a good thing, although i think we have more now than we did in the past. Its not like i disagree with the author on that point, I just don't think s/he actually cares about intellectual diversity and instead just likes nazis. ]

Indeed, there's no lack of good faith arguments for what you could call "intellectual diversity".

For example, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky talk at length about how the way our media is interlinked with corporations and governments steers the discourse toward a narrow range of ideas approved by those groups in their book "Manufacturing Consent". Mark Fisher decries a climate in which most people consider markets as the only possible solution for all problems in "Capitalist Realism".

However, because these authors can just be upfront about what their beliefs are, they aren't forced to argue for vague concepts like "intellectual diversity" and can instead be specific about the type of restrictions that are occurring and in the case of Herman and Chomsky even track them with real numbers, making for a much better argument.

Curious, how the conclusion of the "intellectual diversity" argument is always that we should tolerate nazis more and never anything else, really makes you think.

(Cue the "I don't support nazis I just think that for the good of mankind, unfortunately, we need to do everything we can to support nazis, incidentally of course" script.)

I don't think we should tolerate nazis more, there's a wide range of intellectual diversity out there the problem is that people like you think anyone who slightly disagrees with you on anything must be a nazi. Unfortunately intellectual diversity includes people who think that way

Literal Nazis of the NSDAP, whose exclusion from the Overton window the article laments as a tyrannical suppression of diversity, are, I think, fairly described as “racist sexist antisemites”.