It's just a sign of political polarization. Like when people say the republican governor of Texas [did something not aligned with Democrat values] when discussing liberal ideas.
I'm not going to agree that both sides are the same. There's a serious problem with conservatives demonizing and even dehumanizing those who don't follow their ideology, which IMHO lays the foundation for current conservative leaders. In the U.S. and Europe you can't find significant liberal leaders nearly as extreme and polarizing as many major conservative figures, some of whom are heads of state, nor liberal equivalents for white supremacy and extreme nationalism that are anywhere close to having the support to win power. The left-wing equivalent in the past would have been Communists, but they are very weak - there is no chance for a Communist to win office in any major country; even China's Communists are authoritarian capitalists who have retained the old brand name.
Dehumanization is equally present on the left. The left is currently redefining the word Nazi to be equivalent to conservative in order to gain moral high ground. It's a big problem on both sides of the aisle and if you don't see it, you're drinking Kool aid.
> The left is currently redefining the word Nazi to be equivalent to conservative in order to gain moral high ground.
The scenarios I've seen people called Nazis, it was a matter of calling a spade a spade. What would you call a "conservative" who has swastika tattoos, a propensity to shout "hail victory" and re-enacting Nazi torch ceremonies? If you consider these folk the standard-bearers for conservatives, I think this says more of you than the people calling Nazis by their name.
You are being disingenuous if you are suggesting that the Nazi label is being applied to anything more than the (seeming ascendant) far right fringe.
Those aren't the only people being labeled. Plain Trump supporters get called that. Black people ho support Trump or Latinos supporting trump's immigration policies are getting lumped into the same group. It's really unfortunate because it's as if anyone who doesn't agree with their world view is a nazi.
It's unfortunate because people in the middle, who will now get skewered for being fence sitters will be more likely to vote against the antifa types who are trying really hard to antagonize.
You're going to have to narrow it down - Olbermann's Twitter feed is full of videos I'm not going to wade through. A search doesn't find any evidence of calling "Plain Trump supporters" Nazis - I mean, he's definitely calling people who support and excuse Nazis Nazis but I think that's a reasonable stance, no?
I'm not a conservative. No need for personal attacks, even if I was. Nobody considers some random Joe six pack to be the standard bearer for conservatism...except people that are trying to draw that comparison for obvious subversive reasons.
it's always a problem no matter who does it; I abhor it from the left too. But consider that it's unlikely to be 'equal' at any point in time between different groups in a fast-changing political landscape.
My main point is that the difference between the groups is not ordinary people on Twitter, but high-profile leaders, even national leaders, are doing it on the right; Obama did not act like Trump in that regard; the UK foreign minister and the leader of Hungary, among others, openly advocate white supremacy. Also in the media: Read Wall St Journal editorials, which go out of their way to demonize (and dehumanize) those on the left; it's in almost every one, it seems.
The current president refused to speak against swastika-waving literal Nazis. The left certainly has problems, but it's not accurate to say they're just as bad.
>even China's Communists are authoritarian capitalists who have retained the old brand name.
That one is a little more nuanced than you present. They are communists except for some big areas of the economic system. However, there are many areas where they have not departed. How the party is run, how the country is organized and governed, how the people are controlled, 5-year plans, etc.
> Win power? I hope not. Who would want any of those two choices
I agree. I'm against both. My point is that there is no threat of that from the left right now, but perhaps the largest threat from the right since WWII. Antifa has no chance of gaining political power anywhere much less having advocates in the White House and other national capitals.
> >even China's Communists are authoritarian capitalists who have retained the old brand name.
> That one is a little more nuanced than you present. They are communists except for some big areas of the economic system. However, there are many areas where they have not departed. How the party is run, how the country is organized and governed, how the people are controlled, 5-year plans, etc.
I don't know if I agree. They remain authoritarians (maybe becoming totalitarians) in those regards; they use the same structures that were used by Communists when they were ascendant in China and worldwide; but I'm not sure what is particularly Communist about all of that in the political ideological sense. I do know that Xi was reviving some of the ideological language, but that seemed more like a tool of obedience than something anyone took seriously. Capitalist authoritarians took over the Communist machine and decided it was easier to use the legacy tech. But maybe you know something I don't ...
Do you have any evidence linking those accounts to Antifa? Or any indication that they're Antifa? I might be missing it but I can't see anything in that image which justifies you linking it to Antifa...
A fair point; I should have written that more carefully. But if Amy says, "Bob is a hypocrite and you can't trust anything he says", and Bob responds, "Amy is demonizing me" - Amy and Bob are not equally guilty of demonization.
Perhaps I should have written: There's a serious problem that large numbers of conservative leaders and elite engage in demonization and dehumanization of others, to the point where it has become normalized, acceptable political discourse for them.
