Are we cooked, chat?

I wasn’t confused about it, this isn’t my first day being a contrarian on the Internet :P

I agree that the people that respond are not going to change their minds, they’re the ones that couldn’t overcome the impulse to do the social media thing (or they’re bots).

I just assume that there are people who are reading and understand that this tactic feels wrong but may not know how to articulate what they’re observing. There are people who are still forming their opinions and trying to get a grasp on the situation in a grounded manner.

It’s important to recognize that there are different flavors of fascism than 1930s Germany and the elites who are currently seizing power in the US have different motivations and methods than the Nazi party. Opposing fascism in 2025 requires understanding how fascism works in the current political environment and that defeating fascism in a democratic society will require different methods than was used in the 1930s.

I agree with the sentiment of the people that I’m arguing with. I just think that their messaging is 1 dimensional and, while it can feel cathartic to write, doesn’t advance their position in any meaningful way outside of creating outrage.

Yeah, I’d hate to think that Wal-Mart may be stealing my personal data.

Another side issue is solidarity. If you are not aware there are a lot of counter-intel and infiltration going on. This backbiting where you are trying to declare every progressive wrong who uses the word Nazi to describe conservatives is exactly this type of action.

There isn’t any solidarity created in attacking allies because they have a disagreement.

Disagreement is important, it creates conversations where people are should be forced to rationally articulate why they believe what they believe. Shouting down disagreement and using cyberbullying tactics to drive off anyone who doesn’t 100% agree with the group is incredibly toxic and corrosive to any group. You can see several replies from people accusing me of being a Nazi and that kind of behavior is being rewarded, while a person with a good faith disagreement is shouted down.

Outside of your response, the vast majority of responses in this thread are low-effort, zero substance, social media meme replies. These are not people that appear have a firmly held belief in what they’re saying, they just know what meme is popular in their in-group and which opinions and people that they can act toxic towards with impunity.

We don’t need a party of ignorant people who simply know which opinions to parrot. We don’t need a movement of people who reflexively attack anyone who disagrees with them.

Any rational organization would be punishing the low effort and toxic comments. That isn’t what is happening here. On social media, a person is more rewarded for making hot takes that drive outrage than having a reasoned opinion that they can defend. That may be entertaining while you’re doomscrolling on the toilet, but it is a terrible political strategy.

Got it. He just likes the aesthetics of the SS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Are you just scrolling fallacies on Wikipedia or did your network not get trained with more advanced arguments than simply making bad faith arguments tinged with sarcasm?

Oh, I love this game:

Nazis were incredibly interested in tattoos.

OP is incredibly interested in tattoos.

Therefore OP is a Nazi.

Reality is irrelevant if you’re just willing to engage in ad hominem, fallacies and motivated reasoning.

Oh, we have just as many complete idiots on the left as MAGA.

Our idiots just happen to be parroting left-wing talking points instead of right-wing talking points. They can’t articulate the reason why they believe what they believe, but they know which memes are popular and where to press the downvote button.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when, in fact, there could be many.

Nazi’s use this tattoo, He uses this tattoo, Therefore he is a Nazi.

A plane is a thing that flies, A bird is a thing that flies, Therefore a bird is a plane.

I know it’s a meme to call OP an idiot, but you’re employing a fallacy that would get you laughed out of even a highschool classroom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association:

• John is a Con artist Nazi. John has black hair a tattoo. Therefore, people with black hair a tattoo are necessarily Con artists nazis.
• Lyle is a crooked salesman. Lyle proposes a monorail. Therefore, the proposed monorail is necessarily a folly.
• Country X is a dangerous country. Country X has a national postal service. Therefore, countries with national postal services are necessarily dangerous.
• Simon and Karl live in Nashville, and they are both petty criminals. Jill lives in Nashville; therefore, Jill is necessarily a petty criminal.

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

It’s six percent of revenue, not 6% of profit.

Meta’s net profit margin is around 40%, so the fine would be around 15% of their yearly profits. That’s not insignificant.

On top of the fine for being in violation, they can be fined 5% of their daily profits every day until they’re in compliance.

If your point is that the right mischaracterizes things and twists the truth for political advantage, then I agree with you.

I’m saying that anyone that’s doing that is wrong, no matter which ‘side’ they are on. Lying and spinning the truth is toxic to political discourse and should be discouraged even when it is unpopular (as here).

Ah yes, everyone who defends Palestine are supporters of Hamas no?

Uh, no they’re not.

You’re way off the mark if you’re trying to attribute right-wing talking points to me.

If I did, which I didn’t.

Words and facts have meaning. Reality isn’t some malleable thing you can twist for political advantage.

This kind of rhetoric, caring more about political “winning” than reality, is toxic to any political movement. Look at what happened to the right when they let these kinds of people into the majority. Lies are nearly exclusively the tools that they use to manipulate their base.

Once you’ve untethered yourself from reality and are living in a world of memes and spin, you can be convinced to support anything. Anyone who promotes this kind of pragmatic misinformation isn’t helping, it’s making the left more like MAGA.

I don’t need to prove that they’re not Nazi’s. Nobody actually thinks they are a 1930s political party from Germany. Everyone has just accepted that it’s better to get a rhetorical win than to address reality. They are wrong.

Misinformation for tactical purposes is still misinformation.

There’s already one party that’s willing to rewrite facts and misrepresent arguments in order to advance their ideology. Anyone who’s okay with becoming untethered to reality in order to “win” is part of the problem no matter which side of the political spectrum they’re on.

to argue agisnst the capability of comparison is to defend one of the two parties, so which nazi are you defending here?

More ignorant nonsense. This is the kind of reasoning that you get from only consuming social media.

The world isn’t divided into “everyone who agrees with me 100% on everything” and Nazis.

“I make bad faith misrepresentations of what other people say, but that’s okay because I get upvotes and that’s what matters in the world”

I don’t need to find the Wikipedia article, I paid attention in school.

The companies participating in the current right-wing takeover are supporting fascists. The fascists are in power doing fascist things. None of these people are Nazis. If someone is serious about understanding what is happening in the US and how they can work to end it then they should, at the very least, understand the basic terminology of the topic.

Making provocative statements with simple minded black and white statements like ‘If you support Nazis, then you are a Nazi’ is ignorant, even if it gets upvoted. It’s spreading ignorance instead of knowledge, it is literally misinformation.

They’re fascists.

A person who was actually educated on the topic would call them fascists, not Nazis. Unless you think they’re literally the National Socialist German Workers’ Party of the 1930s then they’re not Nazis.

Calling fascists Nazis is a meme spread by the ignorant who’s only education is social media. Don’t confuse upvotes with being correct, the Internet is full of ignorant people and literal children.

The world is more complicated than memes would have you believe