Guilt by association makes no sense… would this also apply to eg, communists?

You know, the guilt by association kind of makes sense. Nazis have an ideology of violence/hate at their core - by being associated with Nazis, you tend to accept this. Therefore, it's ok to perceive you as one too.

I can't say about communists, as there are so few around these days.

> I can't say about communists, as there are so few around these days.

I dated one. Her description was basically the "People's Front of Judea" scene in Life of Brian — they're all in their own tiny rabbit holes, completely convinced all the other tiny groups are pawns, puppets, or stooges of capitalism.

Communist don't want to see the eradication of a single race of people so no I don't think it would.

What a surprise it is that so many millions have perished under the banner of communism. I suppose as long as everyone dies equally, it's still consistent with the system...

That's the justification that works for capitalist imperialism, why not communism as well?

There was a whole series of ethnic cleanings in the USSR [1], the CCP is currently enacting at least 2 efforts to erradicate non Han minority groups, the Khmer Rouge set about the mass murder of Muslim Cham and Vietnamese in Cambodia, the Ethiopian Derg were accused of similar atrocities.

[1] https://www.abc-clio.com/products/c6927c/

I know about the ethnic cleanings. Communism as an ideology does not endorse eugenics through mass murdering people. Nazism as an ideology does.

On the contrary, Leninism mandates terror and ethnic minorities are always among the first targets of terror and repression. Stalinism was synonymous with Russian chauvinism, and saw other ethnic groups as inherently counter revolutionary. Chinese communism is also an ideology of Han supremacy. These are all flavors of communism, but Naziism was a particularly German flavor of fascism, so I think the comparison is appropriate. Stalin ran death camps for ethnic minorities, and it was part an parcel with Stalinism.

> These are all flavors of communism, but Naziism was a particularly German flavor of fascism, so I think the comparison is appropriate.

So you hit it right there.

Neither fascism nor communism necessarily include mass murder.

Naziism does.

I would argue that fascism and communism inevitably lead to mass murder because they tend towards totalitarianism and the use of terror.

This is getting away from the original point. If you associate with a nazi then yes I believe you are guilty by association. There is no coexisting with a belief that doesn't believe you have the right to exist in the first place. If you believe that communism is in the same lane then feel free to throw them in the bin as well.

My whole point is that historically they are in the same bin, and doubly so for any Leninists and Maoists.

It's guilt by selective association. If you regularly visit /b you know there are a lot of white nationalists there, by continuing to use /b you're choosing to associate with that kind of content.

But the mere association itself does not mean you agree with that kind of content. As an example, would you vilify a scientist studying extremism because he regularly reads Neo-Nazi forums for his research?

There are many reasons to read something other than "I am reading this because I love and agree with every aspect of it". In fact, it is probably common knowledge that only ever reading stuff you wholeheartedly agree with is quite a bad idea. Echo chambers, social media "bubbles" and all that. Also, it can be good to build a tougher skin, can't it?

Come on, what is this argument? /b/ users aren't doing academic research and you know that. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I'm talking about the average /b/ user here... the site is rife with racism.

Are you seriously claiming that people should visit /b/ to avoid echo chambers? Have you been to /b/? I'd argue that it's probably more productive to change your perspective by hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. You're not being freed from your echo chamber by listening to people who support genocide.

I don't think I have ever been to /b/, and it could very well be a valid claim that most /b/ frequenters are assholes. I'm glad to see you acknowledge that there are exceptions to every rule.

My comment is meant more as a defense of 4chan as a whole. I have seen valuable information originate from their technology board, for example. I just don't want to see prejudice against any and all 4chan users. Blanket application of "guilt by association", which seems to be advocated in neighboring threads, seems horrible to me.

I just hope people will be willing to engage with any other person up to the point that they actively prove to you in person that they are a jackass. Trying to look for signs that the other person is secretly a jackass is not a great approach.

If you’ve never been to /b/ then you really don’t understand the severity. It regularly produces some of the most vile content I’ve seen anywhere. It’s a case where you lose something just by engaging.

Nazis use the internet. You use the internet. Therefore, you're a nazi.

Going back to the dinner analogy, you've stretched going to dinner with someone to happening to be in the same restaurant as that someone. It's not the same kind of association at all.

The entire website is closer to the entire restaurant in this analogy. Posting in the same threads might be similar to sitting at the same table.

That is a false equivalence though.

ex: "Nazis eat food, you eat food, therefore you're a Nazi."

Doing something that all people do and are expected to do, on either side of the conflict, does not actually make a difference. Being a complete and utter jackass makes the difference.

Cannot disagree enough. I love having dinner with people who are different from me if civil discourse is available. However, I am a US citizen, where free speech is fairly highly valued.

> "If you and 9 of your friends have a dinner with a Nazi, there are 11 Nazis around that table."

It is risible that one would make that accusation, by the way.

> if civil discourse is available

If we're talking about actual Nazis and not "everyone I disagree with is literally worse than Hitler" insult inflation, then it necessarily follows that civil discourse is not available.

Why? Because they mass-murdered people like me.

So, tough luck. If you use your freedom to pick them, I'll use mine to refuse you.

I'm pretty sure that even an actual Nazi would realize that they do not have the option to just straight up murder you right then and there at the restaurant table. A person also does not need to be uncontrollably angry at <minority group> to qualify as a Nazi. As one example, cynical and dispassionate severe dehumanization of <minority group> would also qualify you as a Nazi in my book. A Nazi who is cynical and dispassionate, rather than uncontrollably angry, might be able to sit at a restaurant table and maintain civil discourse with a member of <minority group>, either because the Nazi sees it as some kind of mental exercise, a display of his superior temper, logic and virtue, or whatever.

The point is, it is not physically impossible for a member of <minority group> to participate in civil discourse with actual Nazis. It just depends on the specific Nazi in question.

> I'm pretty sure that even an actualy Nazi would realize that they do not have the option to just straight up murder you right then and there at the restaurant table.

The fact that you think that's a counter argument, indicates you have severely failed to consider my perspective.

I won't willing hang out with you if you knowingly hang out with them. If you try to force me to hang out with you, I believe you would be breaking the law.

Furthermore, if they were in my country, I'd have them arrested because membership of that group is outlawed here.

There is no possibility of civil discourse, not only between me and someone who wants me dead (which wasn't actually the scenario I was describing even though it was clearly what you described in the quote), but there is also no possibility of civil discourse between me and those who tolerate those who wish me dead.

If we meet IRL, and you try to defend actual literal Nazis, the most civil I'll be able to be is getting up and leaving, not any kind of discussion. It's hard enough to not be enraged right now, and here I have the benefit of an edit button and the emotional distance that comes with text.

I don't think I am trying to (or capable of) forcing you to hang out with anyone. But I am trying to logically convince you that association and approval are orthogonal. I also don't think that wishing someone dead should be illegal. Acting on that thought, however, should of course be illegal.

Simply having a conversation with someone does nothing to help that person. If I eat at a restaurant with a Nazi, once we leave then nothing in the world will have changed.

Simply having a civil discussion with someone also does not mean that I approve of that person or their views. Most political discussions are inherently about disagreement.

If such a conversation means that you will think that I am necessarily evil, then I wonder why you think that.

If someone does something truly abhorrent, the appropriate reaction is to put them in prison. Whether or not to interact with that person is not relevant.

It seems to me like you are saying that the necessary obstacle to civil discourse is your own reaction to the situation. In my last comment I had assumed you meant the Nazi was the one who would not be able to remain civil. I guess I am opposed to emotional reactions when they accomplish nothing. Of course, overcoming our emotions is easier said than done, but it remains a goal of mine when it comes to anger and fear.

Is it too late to invoke Godwin's law, or is "actual Nazi" sufficiently unhinged for a late qualification?

I'm pretty sure there is nobody on /pol/, or anywhere on the internet for that matter (short of some 95+ year olds), who was an "actual Nazi" who "mass-murdered people like you."

I wish it were unhinged.

Sadly there are a whole bunch of people who self describe with that term (or its translation), and whose demonstrative behaviour matches the label to the greatest extent they can get away with.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and wears a badge saying "I'm a duck", why should I treat it as anything other than literally a duck?

There are a few useful concepts to wrap your head around when it comes to thinking about Nazis:

* The paradox of tolerance

* The white moderate by MLK

* A useful idiot (applies to ideologies in general)

>> "If you and 9 of your friends have a dinner with a Nazi, there are 11 Nazis around that table." > > It is risible that one would make that accusation, by the way.

This is a description of how everyone else in the community would view your dinner party. You'd be "the guy who has Nazi dinner parties" to all your neighbors.

I'd recommend wading through Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco sometime this summer. Nice little morality play tucked into that book; hanging out with evil people because you find them interesting is a bad idea.