Hi friend, I hope you are well. Remember this exchange? In the meantime, the German federal service for the protection of the constitution has found the AfD as a whole to be “assuredly right-wing extremist”, which is legalese for “they are literally neonazis and we have proof”.
You normalize fake quotes. Then the AfD can also make up quotes and claim that that represents foreigners.
You understand that it is bad when the AfD does it. Generalize that understanding. There can’t be exceptions for fighting the good fight. Everybody thinks they do.
I understand that it is bad when it misrepresents the actual state of things.
Let’s generalise. Is a painting bad? Is a description bad? Yes if it is used to mislead people. No if it portrays things accurately.
Holding yourself to the highest standards of correctness serves no one. The nazis - which we can now officially call nazis, by the way, it can no longer be seen as hyperbole - do not even use words according to their meaning, and they won’t be particularly interested in your view of that matter.
You can’t fight nazis with honourability, just like you can’t fight intolerance with tolerance. It’s a paradox.
How many people thought of themselves as better-behaved in 1935? Do you think they reconsidered their position in 1941? It doesn’t matter, the window of opportunity to prevent the nazis from irrevocably installing themselves has passed.
You can’t reason with fascism. They only understand violence. It’s terrible, yes. No one wants to use violence.
Then again, the German constitution has provisions for fighting nazis with all means necessary as a last resort, so maybe we can just make them fuck off? Or do we wait until the 21st century version of 1939 and quibble in the meantime?
The nazis - which we can now officially call nazis, by the way, it can no longer be seen as hyperbole - do not even use words according to their meaning, and they won’t be particularly interested in your view of that matter.
I will read your full comment later. Just note that there is no attestation that they are nazis. So you don’t use the words according to their meaning.
Right, if you wish to steer the conversation into ad hominem then I think it is best to end it here. I wish you and your loved ones peace and prosperity for the future.
Let me try a final approach.
For me, the conversation is ad hominem from the start. I don’t disagree with your judgement of the AfD. My point is that you don’t reason with the AfD but with people who are on the fence of deciding between AfD and other parties. You should’t write your comments for fascists to read but for regular citizens. Being correct is to appeal to them.
Hi friend, I hope you are well. Remember this exchange? In the meantime, the German federal service for the protection of the constitution has found the AfD as a whole to be “assuredly right-wing extremist”, which is legalese for “they are literally neonazis and we have proof”.
That’s good but besides my point. My issue is that you make up conversations.
Making up things is bad because it may mislead people. My example was an accurate representation of that party. “Sieg heil” is even a direct quote.
Would you also object to me making up quotes about Mussolini or Stalin if these are to the best of our knowledge accurate depictions? Probably not.
Yes I would.
You normalize fake quotes. Then the AfD can also make up quotes and claim that that represents foreigners.
You understand that it is bad when the AfD does it. Generalize that understanding. There can’t be exceptions for fighting the good fight. Everybody thinks they do.
I understand that it is bad when it misrepresents the actual state of things.
Let’s generalise. Is a painting bad? Is a description bad? Yes if it is used to mislead people. No if it portrays things accurately.
Holding yourself to the highest standards of correctness serves no one. The nazis - which we can now officially call nazis, by the way, it can no longer be seen as hyperbole - do not even use words according to their meaning, and they won’t be particularly interested in your view of that matter.
You can’t fight nazis with honourability, just like you can’t fight intolerance with tolerance. It’s a paradox.
How many people thought of themselves as better-behaved in 1935? Do you think they reconsidered their position in 1941? It doesn’t matter, the window of opportunity to prevent the nazis from irrevocably installing themselves has passed.
You can’t reason with fascism. They only understand violence. It’s terrible, yes. No one wants to use violence.
Then again, the German constitution has provisions for fighting nazis with all means necessary as a last resort, so maybe we can just make them fuck off? Or do we wait until the 21st century version of 1939 and quibble in the meantime?
The choice is yours, as it is mine.
I will read your full comment later. Just note that there is no attestation that they are nazis. So you don’t use the words according to their meaning.
This is becoming a pattern.
Right, if you wish to steer the conversation into ad hominem then I think it is best to end it here. I wish you and your loved ones peace and prosperity for the future.
Thanks and I wish you the same in return.
Let me try a final approach. For me, the conversation is ad hominem from the start. I don’t disagree with your judgement of the AfD. My point is that you don’t reason with the AfD but with people who are on the fence of deciding between AfD and other parties. You should’t write your comments for fascists to read but for regular citizens. Being correct is to appeal to them.