this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
535 points (94.8% liked)
World News
32082 readers
917 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow. He straight up just admitted he's a Nazi. Absolutely fucking vile.
He thinks it's controversial to not let migrants (men, women and children) drown and die, and has no problem promoting a party which is full of nazi sympathizers.
He's a sociopath, a racist and a fascist.
And those likely aren't even his worst characteristics, given the stories of sexual assault, links to Epstein, and the fact his father married his own daughter.
asdfasfasdf
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
sadfasdfasdfasdf
I don’t think I want to let him off the hook with a metal disorder.
I won’t accept that he’s a sociopath until there’s an official diagnosis. Sociopaths deserve empathy and need treatment. Musk is just a reprehensible asshole.
(By the way @Hyperreality, I’m not arguing with you. I’m taking the word “sociopath” more literally than you intended. I know what you mean, and agree.)
Even a sociopath needs to want the treatment for it to work
"Metal disorder" sounds like a decent band name.
That's why he loves the letter X so much. With a slight modification, it becomes a swastika.
All billionaires are nazis. The fact nobody sees this is the main reason why shit has gotten so bad.
You know, these are the kind of blatant lies that ensures that no one ever believes you or your "team".
You must not know much about german politics lol go to the wikipedia page for AFD
What does German politics have absolutely anything to do with Musk admitting that he's a Nazi?
You know who supports Nazis?
Nazis.
Supporting a party that Nazis also support is not the same thing as admitting that you're a Nazi. This is not complicated.
Godwin's law is hard at work here. I honestly wonder if people know what Nazis are anymore as people just throw around the term like it's nothing.
Thank you for raising this point. On first glance your conclusion seems benign enough. But we can apply a bit of critical thinking and see the true nature of what you're actually saying.
While supporting a party that Nazis also support doesn't automatically make someone a Nazi, it does raise questions about the platform and policies of that person. If Musk chooses to use his platform to repost and then give massive exposure to extremists, it's worth examining why that is the case. Why would Elon Musk use his gigantic, sprawling reach to give exposure to an extremist group?
Perhaps not on a surface level. Ultimately though the world is shades of grey - we can argue black and white topics all day but it won't change the fact that the world is inherently a complicated place with complex interactions. I believe to boil it down to "This is not complicated" is likely a barrier to better understanding how the world works. If your political stance aligns with extremists, it's crucial to critically assess why that alignment exists. Dismissing concern over such alignment without introspection sidesteps an important ethical debate. The post in question raises some concerning questions about his responsibility to understand the wider implications of his actions. I'm curious to hear from your point of view why Musk isn't tactfully associating himself as a supporter of extremist right-wing views?
Supporting a political party is an action with consequences. Even if you're not a Nazi, by supporting a party that Nazis also support, you are indirectly contributing to the environment where such extremist ideologies can thrive. By excusing this type of ideology and behaviour you're giving it the thumbs up, stamp of approval to continue.
I understand what you're putting forward here but I'd like to state that the conversation didn't degrade into talk of Nazi's and comparisons to Hitler. It was the basis of the discussion from the get go. Godwin's law critiques the overuse of such comparisons, it doesn't automatically invalidate all comparisons. Some situations may legitimately warrant such references and dismissing them outright is an oversimplification.
The world has changed, so too has how fascism and Nazism present themselves. It's a mistake to assume that because the outward appearance and methods have changed, the underlying ideology is not the same or less dangerous. I put forward previously that the world is shades of grey; so too are the followers with their levels of commitment to the core tenets and ideologies of Nazism. Just because some modern adherents may not wear swastikas or hold rallies in the same overt manner doesn't mean they don't hold similar views about racial purity, authoritarianism, or other facets that defined the original Nazi party. Minimising the threat of neo-Nazis or other similar groups by arguing that "they don't look like Nazis to me" risks underestimating the danger they pose. Extremist groups often rely on the element of surprise and the benefit of doubt from mainstream society to grow and propagate.
This is a call for complacency and it's dangerous in the global political climate at present. This statement is a perfect example of the sort of dismissive behaviours that allow the Nazi ideology to manifest in contemporary society. Some factions of the contemporary movement intentionally distance themselves from historical imagery in order to gain mainstream acceptability. Dismissing them because they don't fit the 1940's stereotype allows for the normalization and sanitisation of their ideologies.
So in conclusion, you're correct! Supporting a party that Nazis also support is not the same thing as admitting that you're a Nazi.
You don't have to admit it, the world can see it as plain as day.
Thanks ChatGPT
Your inability to care what words mean is not our problem.
I care what words mean. This person clearly does not. That's the problem.
Supporting a party that's basically just the Nazis again is the same thing as admitting he's a Nazi.
That is what it means for him to say the things he said. That is what those words mean.
Why don't you care?
That's not the same thing and that's not what he said. Why don't you think the truth is important?
It means exactly the same thing.
He endorses a demonstrably bigoted right-authoritarian party - specifically for its attitudes toward minorities and foreign nationals. Their policy on immigration is "don't." Their stated goals involve mass deportation. They explicitly claim "the concept of multicultural society has failed" and "Islam does not belong in Germany." Naturally they're also big mad about women being equal and gay people existing. They were always extreme nationalists, and then a couple years ago their old leadership split off because their own party was starting to scare them, and as a direct result these German-nationalist Christian-supremacist anti-minority nutjobs got even more blatant.
They're Nazis. He endorses Nazis. He is loudly and openly throwing in his lot, with Nazis.
It's not even remotely the same thing, and lying about it only hurts your cause.
"Proving me wrong only pushes people toward my side," said yet another predictable CHUD.
God damn, do I wish you people cared about words.
Except no one has proven me wrong. Because it didn't happen.
They're Nazis and he endorsed them.
Feel free to have any opinion deeper than "nuh-uh."
No deep opinion required. It's a fact. He did not admit to being a Nazi.
Feel free to step back and consider the impact you have when blatantly lying about what someone else said. Especially when it comes to one of the most horrific organizations in human history.
His words amount to admitting he's a Nazi.
That's what his words mean.
Yeah, wouldn't it be fucking awful if a modern political party stood for the same things as that organization? What kind of asshole would promote those bigots?
How is that? Is the AfD a Nazi party? Maybe you should let the Government of Germany know, since Nazi Parties are explicitly illegal there. Or maybe you should stop throwing around terms like "nazi" to mean "things you don't like" unless you have something specifically actionable, that would get the party banned in Germany?
There actually are motions underway in pursuit of a party ban on those grounds, yes. It hasn’t been determined yet if their statements and objectives qualify, but there is widespread belief they do.
Germany has some of the most interesting politics to view as an outsider.
That’s certainly a unique perspective, lol. The most fundamental element of political success in Germany is to promise to keep everything as is, and maybe the current social issue voters care about. German voters are more than anything else afraid of actual change.
For the most part it is a bunch of centrist parties forming centrist coalitions with varying flavors of ideological coloring, doing not much but maintaining the status quo. Now that the economic system is increasingly failing for anyone but the rich that’s not working out for them anymore because they have been blurring together more and more over the last decades, and anyone unhappy couldn’t really find someone to vote for.
This now has given growth to the far right afd, which is still the same hyper capitalist bullshit but with a strong reactionary flavor, appealing to many conservatives and generally economically left behind people, as is happening everywhere else.
They are far right wing, and the AFD state division of Thüringen is considered extremist and is under surveillance of the Verfassungsschutz (domestic intelligence services). They have a lot of proven Nazis in their ranks and the party leadership does absolutely nothing against it.
So IMHO it's safe to use the blanket term Nazis for the AFD, although they of course don't see themselves as such.
They have a ton of Nazis in their party. Not even joking, you can call some of their top ranking members Nazis. And that has been decided by court order. It’s not slander because the courts agree that the term is fitting for some of those people. And honestly in my eyes the one that runs with Nazis is a Nazi.
We had many years of a Nazi partin Germany called NPD they were finally banned a few years ago, but obviously another party filled that spot. The AFD was far right wing but not extremist and got fast more votes than the NPD ever got. After internal fights they went more far right after they thrown out their founder. Now they are even more extreme right and you can consider them a Nazi party. Banning the party is currently under consideration.
Yes.
Its a far right party that harbours nazis/fascists.
Multiple rulings have passed that its legal to call some of their members those things.
If not all of them are, they are associating with nazis. Which makes them nazis.
In Italy, the Fratelli d'Italia (FdI) party is perfectly legitimate despite the constitution banning the PNF party from being created again. Despite FdI having roots in the MSI (Italian social movement), having a fascist symbol in their logo and some of the politicians participating in far right manifestations and declared Mussolini was a good leader, it's complicated to define what fascist, neofascist and post-fascist is. They have traits of fascism but also not, e.g. this time they are allied with US and not against them.