NYT's Nazi Next Door lost job, fled home

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

The English came up with the term Eugenics, the term was coined by Francis Galton, the concept predates that to the Greeks more than 2000 years past. It was popularized by HG Wells amongst many other people. It caught on in the US in the 20th century until the term got its hash creamed out of it by the Nazis. So that's a factual inaccuracy to start with that I can document, let aside your giant claim that Nazis have ''real political power in America''. Maybe get some better information sources.

I apologize. That was my bad for not doing proper research on the origins of Eugenics.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I didn't say anything about clamping down on free expression in this thread.

Nazis, like pirates, Videans, the Borg, and Daleks, are Enemies of Mankind.

Saying "I am a Nazi" is fighting words because you are effectively declaring war on every single non-white, non-native-born, non-straight person who belongs to a religion other than Christianity, Atheism, or Norse Paganism within earshot.

(emphasis mine)

You can perhaps see my confusion. Though I admit that you did not unambiguously say you wanted a clampdown on free speech. You should, however, realize that my first post was not directed toward you, personally. I didn't even quote anybody.

Okay, I guess I can understand that.

I'm glad you're acknowledging powerful racists, but you need to recognize that they aren't just racists, they are >>Nazis<<. Racism, in and of itself, is not a coherent ideology or a unified force.

We don't need a Nazi takeover of the presidency because we already have a president who reads Breitbart, advocates concentration camps for Muslims, and was endorsed by the KKK.

I need you to acknowledge that Nazis, as a faction, have real political power in America, and their influence from public reputation to dragging the overton window in their direction is growing. Don't forget that our country founded Eugenics. If you dismiss them as harmless 4chan incels, you won't notice it until they've done irreparable damage to our nation's laws and the most vulnerable groups among us.

Sorry, no. I think that you think you're seeing the tip of an iceberg, but I just see some floating ice. We have had presidents who read the New York Times, and I can find plenty in there I find repugnant. Breitbart is a lousy source of news and has had entries from conspiracy nuts but has distanced itself from white supremacy, and, from a quick perusal, seems to be missing any swastikas, calls for the extermination of anybody, or plans to invade Poland. It has a decent circulation but would probably still need a "Go Fund Me" first.

The KKK endorsement matters as much to me as an alt-righter's endorsement of Papa John -- none. And the KKK isn't Nazi, just racists. Racism, in and of itself, is not a coherent ideology or a unified force.

Point for racism not being a coherent thing in itself. Perhaps a better example would be Trump retweeting anti-muslim videos from a british neo-nazi order?

I haven't seen any endorsement from Trump of concentration camps for Muslims. I've seen him suggesting steps for tracking Muslims or people from countries rich with terrorist movements, and then comparing that to FDR's camps to suggest registries or tracking would be constitutional. If you can find a quote from him unambiguously suggesting concentration camps for Muslims, I will look at that with an open mind.

Okay, looking over the sources again, it is a bit less unambiguous, and your description seems more accurate. I'll keep my eyes open in case I find something that better fits my memory of the items.

I have a serious question, Fuzzy. It may seem flippant to you, but I promise it's an honest inquiry. Do you see flyers saying "It's OK to be White" as a racist?

A flyer just saying that, without any additional context or "follow this URL", no. However, I'm going to be wary of racist dog-whistles.

[GandALF]

Perhaps a better example would be Trump retweeting anti-muslim videos from a british neo-nazi order?

Yes, clearly that was a subtle and brilliant way of alerting his IllumiNazi cohorts and not an extremely clumsy way of distracting from the Russia investigation.

[Darth Wedgius]

Point for racism not being a coherent thing in itself. Perhaps a better example would be Trump retweeting anti-muslim videos from a british neo-nazi order?

That probably is a better example, to be honest. I have to admit that, or something tied to it, makes me uneasy. Not the tweets themselves -- OK, this gets complicated. Showing Muslims' actions is not, to me, a bad thing, any more than showing Nazis' actions. Not that I'm saying they're equivalent groups, because you can be Muslim and a really decent person, IMHO, but I won't say the same about being a Nazi of one's own free will. In the interests of clarity, here's where I'm coming from:

1. In my lifetime, the most notable things Muslims have done have been mass murders, and polls of Muslims show a decent percentage who think killing to protect the faith is the ethical thing to do.

2. Muslims have done heroic things to protect infidels from murder. They've refused to give up Christians on buses. They've surrounded churches to protect them. True, the villains in both circumstances have been Muslims as well, but that doesn't, IMHO, to any degree whatsofrellingever, make their actions any less heroic.

3. One of my core values is that people should be treated for their individual actions where at all reasonably possible.

In the end, I'm fine with Trump showing evidence of the evils that Islam does, because I view it as a legitimate concern. His Orangeness should have gotten his facts straight first, as the Muslim immigrant wasn't an immigrant or, probably, Muslim, but I won't burn him in effigy for getting a tweet wrong when he's passing along someone else's mistakes.

Plain and simple, what does worry me is the possibility that he follows bigots. Britain First is, as far as I can tell, not neo-Nazi. And if someone were running Sharia patrols in my town, I might well be up in arms quite literally. But the East London Mosque has condemned those same patrols. Britain First's anti-Islam reaction, IMO, goes beyond warranted concern into outright bigotry, and they want to preserve the UK's "ethnic identity," so they have found other ways to be bigoted as well.

If he re-tweeted not knowing who they were, my concern is lessened somewhat. It'd be nice if he knew who Britain First was, but I won't ding him too badly for not knowing. But it's not clear to me that he didn't know, and that's something I would have liked him to make clear very much.

TL;dr I don't think this makes Trump pro-Nazi at all, but I think it adds legitimate evidence to accusations that he's bigoted.

[Admiral X]

Modern day Nazis have a much bigger issue with muslims and they do recognize jews as an ally for the time being, going so far to defend Israel.

Actually from what I'd read, the two tend to actually get along somewhat due to their common antisemitism.

[Karha of Honor]

Modern day Nazis have a much bigger issue with muslims and they do recognize jews as an ally for the time being, going so far to defend Israel.

Actually from what I'd read, the two tend to actually get along somewhat due to their common antisemitism.

There are so few of them that i could not care less about their preference.

[PlasmaHam]

Modern day Nazis have a much bigger issue with muslims and they do recognize jews as an ally for the time being, going so far to defend Israel.

Actually from what I'd read, the two tend to actually get along somewhat due to their common antisemitism.

That I have read as well. Nazi's don't exactly love Muslims of course, but they often ignore each other due to their shared hatred of Jews. If you look up some quotes from the OG Nazi, Adolf Hitler, you can see him even praising Islam as a "strong religion" in contrast to Christianity which Hitler repeatedly derided as "for the weak". "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" I guess is how you can best describe the relation.