[QUOTE=Lonestriper;48272320]It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines at what he's trying to say there.[/QUOTE]
That his political beliefs seem similar in some respects to the platform of a hated historical group, and not that he'll start shuttling Jews to the death camps once elected?
I think most people agree that calling someone a Nazi has implications beyond their socio-economic policies.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48272118][IMG]http://puu.sh/j9luI.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
You're mixing up necessary and sufficiency causes here. The argument would go:
If you're a Nazi, then you're a national socialist.
This does not entail that if you're a national socialist, then you're a Nazi. In fact, the article clearly and specifically associates him with Hugo Chavez, not Hitler.
[QUOTE]You know he could have said a plethora of different words in different combinations to avoid the implication that Bernie Sander is a Nazi but he didn't so one has to assume that he wants that to be implied to his reader. It doesn't help that he also mentioned the holocaust and Bernie being jewish in the same sentence. It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines at what he's trying to say there.[/QUOTE]
How about this: "He is a national socialist in the mode of [B]Hugo Chávez[/B]. He [B]isn’t driven by racial hatred[/B]"
Taken directly from the article.
[editline]22nd July 2015[/editline]
Let me be clear: this article is obvious clickbait and I don't support the way he said what he did, but he definitely didn't say what this ThinkProgress article is trying to make it seem.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48270929]Freedom of speech ends where it becomes harmful. For example, publishing an article falsely accusing a candidate of being the leader of a Neo-Nazi movement, with the intention of damaging his career.[/QUOTE]
No
When you say things like this, it implies that overall people are incapable of rational thinking.
Freedom of speech should have no limitation, in good faith that people will, if even eventually, realise when things are bullshit. You can't nanny people and decide for them what's acceptable for fear that they'll get carried away in stupid crap.
Even if they do get carried away, you can't deprive them of the chance to make that mistake, and hopefully learn from it and make better for the lesson.
It's lose—lose if we're deprived of freedom of expression, not being able to hear every however stupid side, and being disallowed to fuck up and then have the opportunity to realise our faults and mistakes. You'll breed stupider people who'll feel the best decision is whatever popular choice made for them to blindly follow.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48272414]You're mixing up necessary and sufficiency causes here. The argument would go:
If you're a Nazi, then you're a national socialist.
This does not entail that if you're a national socialist, then you're a Nazi.[/QUOTE]
[b]Nat[/b]ional [b]S[/b]ocial[b]ism[/b]
[QUOTE=ZeMole;48272420]No
When you say things like this, it implies that overall people are incapable of rational thinking.
Freedom of speech should have no limitation, in good faith that people will, if even eventually, realise when things are bullshit. You can't nanny people and decide for them what's acceptable for fear that they'll get carried away in stupid crap.
Even if they do get carried away, you can't deprive them of the chance to make that mistake, and hopefully learn from it and make better for the lesson.
It's lose—lose if we're deprived of freedom of expression, not being able to hear every however stupid side, and being disallowed to fuck up and then have the opportunity to realise our faults and mistakes. You'll breed stupider people who'll feel the best decision is whatever popular choice made for them to blindly follow.[/QUOTE]
No, this is different because it's literally lying about someone in order to give more people a negative view. It would be different if they weren't lying. I don't think Bernie Sanders shouldn't be criticized by his opponents, but publishing outright lies about a person is illegal (And for a good reason).
[QUOTE=Grimhound;48272435][B]Nat[/B]ional [B]S[/B]ocial[B]ism[/B][/QUOTE]
What does this even mean? The word Nazi doesn't come from the English words national socialism. It comes from the German phrase [I]Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[/I].
-snip-
National Socialism = Nationalsozialismus
National Socialist = Nationalsozialist = Nazi
[QUOTE=sgman91;48272468]What does this even mean? The word Nazi doesn't come from the English words national socialism. It comes from the German phrase [I]Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[/I].[/QUOTE]
Etymology website claims it comes from the pronunciation of "Nati" in "Nationalsozialist".
Regardless. Using the label of "National Socialism" only rights one bell. You only put it like that for the connection.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_%28disambiguation%29[/url]
[QUOTE=sgman91;48272468]What does this even mean? The word Nazi doesn't come from the English words national socialism. It comes from the German phrase [I]Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[/I].[/QUOTE]
Considering the fact he directly references Bernie Sander's Jewish heritage when he calls him a national socialist, I think we all know what he trying to compare him to. If the article didn't point out that fact I'd say your argument would have more weight.
Let's just keep focusing on the stupid etymology that doesn't prove anything and ignore this very pertinent quote:
[B]"He is a national socialist in the mode of Hugo Chávez. He isn’t driven by racial hatred"[/B]
[editline]22nd July 2015[/editline]
Yes, the comment about his Jewish Heritage was stupid, but based on the rest of the article he seems to more be pointing out the most known negative consequence of national socialism as clickbait, not saying that Bernie is actually like Hitler.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48272599]Let's just keep focusing on the stupid etymology that doesn't prove anything and ignore this very pertinent quote:
[B]"He is a national socialist in the mode of Hugo Chávez. He isn’t driven by racial hatred"[/B]
[editline]22nd July 2015[/editline]
Yes, the comment about his Jewish Heritage was stupid, but based on the rest of the article he seems to more be pointing out the most known negative consequence of national socialism as clickbait, not saying that Bernie is actually like Hitler.[/QUOTE]
Hugo Chavez wasn't a national socialist, though. There's only one reason to use the term "national socialist". And I'd reckon he also used Hugo Chavez's name in comparison just to bring up another right wing boogieman.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;48272654]Hugo Chavez wasn't a national socialist, though. There's only one reason to use the term "national socialist". And I'd reckon he also used Hugo Chavez's name in comparison just to bring up another right wing boogieman.[/QUOTE]
National socialist is just a buzzword for "people we don't like" in the right wing media
[QUOTE=Grimhound;48272654]Hugo Chavez wasn't a national socialist, though. There's only one reason to use the term "national socialist". And I'd reckon he also used Hugo Chavez's name in comparison just to bring up another right wing boogieman.[/QUOTE]
Whether Hugo Chavez is actually a national socialist is irrelevant. The author thinks he is and directly compared Bernie to him, not Hitler.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48272599]Let's just keep focusing on the stupid etymology that doesn't prove anything and ignore this very pertinent quote:
[B]"He is a national socialist in the mode of Hugo Chávez. He isn’t driven by racial hatred"[/B]
[editline]22nd July 2015[/editline]
Yes, the comment about his Jewish Heritage was stupid, but based on the rest of the article he seems to more be pointing out the most known negative consequence of national socialism as clickbait, not saying that Bernie is actually like Hitler.[/QUOTE]
Implying he is a Nazi and then going "oh but he's not like a nazi-Nazi as I implied earlier..." is a pretty weak way of dodging possible criticism. You'd think if he was trying to stress that he is like Hugo Chavez he wouldn't bring up the jewish thing at all. Except he did. After calling him a national socialist.
I mean, he could have said 'nationalist socialist' but he went the *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* route. Calling it a dog-whistle would probably be the most accurate way of describing it.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;48272829]Implying he is a Nazi and then going "oh but he's not like a nazi-Nazi as I implied earlier..." is a pretty weak way of dodging possible criticism. You'd think if he was trying to stress that he is like Hugo Chavez he wouldn't bring up the jewish thing at all. Except he did. After calling him a national socialist.
I mean, he could have said 'nationalist socialist' but he went the *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* route. Calling it a dog-whistle would probably be the most accurate way of describing it.[/QUOTE]
I agree that it was a badly written, sensationalist, stupid article, but the ThinkProgress article wasn't any better.
They seem to forget that the Nazis had a working economic system and became a world power within a few years.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;48273013]They seem to forget that the Nazis had a working economic system and became a world power within a few years.[/QUOTE]
Based completely on military buildup.
[QUOTE=ZeMole;48272420]No[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter what you say, Freedom of Speech [I]does[/I] have limits, even in America. If a statement is damaging to a person, or is a credible threat to peace, it is illegal. Defamation is illegal, inciting a riot is illegal, credible threats are illegal.
[QUOTE=sgman91;48273030]Based completely on military buildup.[/QUOTE]
and stealing everything that wasn't nailed down from the surrounding countries
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
