One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.

Except that these are “actual Nazis” who have shown up. We’re talking about publications that, in some cases, use terms like “national socialist” and “reich” in their name and/or bio.

Curious that someone tries to sidestep an actual concrete example with some weird hypothetical to avoid actually confronting an actual issue at hand.

What is up with the lack of good faith from so many in this thread (not you, the parent)?

They don't want to be confronted with the breaking points of their ideology, but instead have to misdirect with some straw-man about another scenario.

And like a misdirected fool, I take the bait and comment on it.

Not so. Look at my post that goes through their examples, which HN being the bastion of well moderated tolerance that it is, is now at -1 and flagged. Only one meets your description and it's suspended for ToS violations. The ones that aren't suspended are just ordinary US politics that's being described as Nazis by the left.

> One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.

That's certainly true, but it sure is weird when a certain political leaning causes one to minimize the fact that actual Nazis showed up, which casts a hefty shadow on this perceived boundary between "actual nazi" and "not actual nazi". At what point does one stop imagining that enablement isn't a real thing? Shrug emoji, though, I guess.