> If you're going to call me a Nazi, I think all I can do is stick out my tongue, call you a commie, and close the tab.
Call me a commie if you like, I'm not ashamed to admit I sympathise with Communist principles (class and race/gender equality, for example) - unlike you, quacking like a fascist but too embarrassed to openly admit it.
The only people I see online making the effort to argue Nazism was not as bad as "X" are Nazi sympathisers/fascists. I mean who else would bother?
If you want to 'take down' a stupid and ridiculous caricature of what a Communist is ("Che wearing millennial" or whatever) you can do it without mentioning Nazis at all.
Instead you chose to take the 'at least the Nazis weren't as bad as the Communists' route. Your other posts here defending fascism don't exactly scream "Not a Nazi-sympathiser" either, so I don't know who you think you're trying to kid.
What happened after the Russian, Chinese or Cuban Revolutions doesn't negate the beliefs behind and reasons for the revolutions themselves (equality and 'the people'), any more than what happened after the American Revolution - almost 100 years of slavery, aggression and "Manifest Destiny" (cf. Lebensraum), followed by another century of racial persecution and overseas aggression/imperialism - negates the ideas and beliefs behind that revolution (equality and 'the people').
What happened in Germany after 1933, however, went exactly according to the Nazi playbook. What happened in Italy and every other fascist country, likewise, went exactly according to fascist principles.
Nobody becomes a Communist because they believe in purges or gulags; and nobody becomes a Nazi or a fascist because they believe in good roads, advanced rocketry or trains running on time.
That's why Nazis and fascists have a stigma attached to them - because the principles behind both are reprehensible to most people.
>and nobody becomes a Nazi or a fascist because they believe in good roads, advanced rocketry or trains running on time.
Actually, they do. The Nazis were admired both before and after the war for their tremendous infrastructural, technological, and social advances (for the races and classes they protected, obviously).
Call me a commie if you like, I'm not ashamed to admit I sympathise with Communist principles (class and race/gender equality, for example) - unlike you, quacking like a fascist but too embarrassed to openly admit it.
The only people I see online making the effort to argue Nazism was not as bad as "X" are Nazi sympathisers/fascists. I mean who else would bother?
If you want to 'take down' a stupid and ridiculous caricature of what a Communist is ("Che wearing millennial" or whatever) you can do it without mentioning Nazis at all.
Instead you chose to take the 'at least the Nazis weren't as bad as the Communists' route. Your other posts here defending fascism don't exactly scream "Not a Nazi-sympathiser" either, so I don't know who you think you're trying to kid.
What happened after the Russian, Chinese or Cuban Revolutions doesn't negate the beliefs behind and reasons for the revolutions themselves (equality and 'the people'), any more than what happened after the American Revolution - almost 100 years of slavery, aggression and "Manifest Destiny" (cf. Lebensraum), followed by another century of racial persecution and overseas aggression/imperialism - negates the ideas and beliefs behind that revolution (equality and 'the people').
What happened in Germany after 1933, however, went exactly according to the Nazi playbook. What happened in Italy and every other fascist country, likewise, went exactly according to fascist principles.
Nobody becomes a Communist because they believe in purges or gulags; and nobody becomes a Nazi or a fascist because they believe in good roads, advanced rocketry or trains running on time.
That's why Nazis and fascists have a stigma attached to them - because the principles behind both are reprehensible to most people.