103
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
103 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13546 readers
963 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
You're missing the point. There is not literally a nazi book about bears vs Jews in the woods. It is not a direct 1:1 analogy. What is similar is the justification about why you need to fear the group because of the actions of the few and dehumanizing them by saying they're worse than animals.
The entire question is inherently flawed because it's the same question used by neo nazis quoting 13% use to justify their hatred of minorities. My question is why hexbear wants to defend a hypothetical that emulates the logic and thinking of reactionaries.
The answer, as far as I could see, is that they don't actually believe it. They're doing the left-wing equivalent of being an edgy conservative who says racist things to make people mad. That's fine, it's less harmful than the edgy conservative. But I'm not going to ignore it just because they're left-wing.
Nah, I think I get what you're saying now and I disagree with all due respect. I stand by my point in the last comment. I don't think there is an equivalence in the justifications and you're associating things that shouldn't be.
I know that there isn't a Nazi book about Jews and bears in the woods and that you don't think there's a 1:1 analogy but, again, there still isn't an equivalence in the justifications either. With candy and group fear, such as with men, you can say that the few ruined it for the lot. But with Nazi ideology all Jews are rejected in totality. Nazis would say that despite all appearances, all Jews are malicious. That is not the same as the candy/group justification. I don't think you can say these are just Leftists using Nazi propaganda, that's a little bad faith on your part.