How about far-left extremism? 100 million plus deaths[1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...

Wait until you hear how many perished under left-wing extremism under Soviet rule.

The point is, you can't associate violence and death with either side of the political spectrum. Politics is a tool, not a causative agent.

I think when one side, and one side ONLY, sends armed militia with pipe bombs to storm the capitol, then yes, you can associate violence and death much more with one side than the other.

There was no 'armed militia' this is hyperbole from the news. They were peaceful protestors.

The beat a policeman to death, man. They BEAT him to DEATH.

They set up a GALLOWS outside.

They had PIPE BOMBS. They had HANDCUFFS.

What the FUCK are you on about?

This is a bit hilarious because many of the things were seeing today from the left are exactly what the Nazis did. They thought they were correct and morally sound as they burned books and stomped out opposition voices. They turned on a part of the population labeling them as the issue with their country. They banned guns and eventually one thing led to the next.

You need to do a lot more reading on what the Nazis actually did. I'll start you off with a hint, though: No. What "the left" is doing now bears no resemblance to the actions of the Nazi Party.

Silencing a large chunk of the population because they felt they were on the moral high ground is exactly what the Nazis did. I dont need to brush up on that part of history thank you though.

That is an absolutely nonsensical argument, that twists both the meaning of words and completely ignores large swathes of actual history.

Do better.

If you take the time to study why and how the Nazis became popular and came into power, you’ll realise why suppression of public sentiment is so dangerous.

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle, or at least getting uncomfortably close to it. That's not allowed here—it destroys the curious conversation that this site is supposed to exist for. When accounts cross that line (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for more explanation), that's when we start banning them, regardless of which politics or ideology they're banning for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site for its intended purpose—especially now, as seemingly everything descends into the hell realms—we'd be grateful.

The NSDAP had plenty of rags they lied to the German people with

Actually, you won't find anything of the kind. Only if you wilfully set out to misinterpret history will you find anything like that.

Hitler came into power because he was allowed to spread his message. Because he was given chance after chance to speak. Because he was given a platform.

the argument you're presenting, at its core, is "if you dont give an evil person a chance to be evil then they wont succeed," which is correct, except how are you to interpret who is evil and who will be successful at being evil? and how do you do that fairly?

it seems to be an impossible problem to solve from my POV and removing comms from various groups willy nilly because we're too scared that humanity is too stupid practice critical thinking and not give in to evil thought is a slippery slope. there has to be other ways?

I don't think that at this point in history, right now, there is much trouble identifying who is evil.

highly disagree considering how much bs exists posing as fact/information.