you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (17 children)

Yes. That's why you should quote what they literally say. It's not a quote if you write what you think they say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    "Sieg Heil" is definitly a real AfD quote, Marcel Grauf said that in a private chat that was evidence in a court case.

    Not sure what the exact quote for "gas the jews!" is as they probably said it in German, but it's very likley someone in the AfD said something that would translate to that on record.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (14 children)

    Thanks, I would have looked differently at your comment if you had directly added that source.

    it’s very likley

    Then it is still not a quote.

    In general, if somebody can proof something easily but does not, then I assume that it is wrong. If others think like me, you create the opposite message of what you want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh, I'm not the original commenter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    No worries. I kind of agree with you both.

    The AfD are not "literal Nazis" because they are not the NSDAP, which doesn't exist anymore. But they are as close as you can get and a spiritual successor. But the proper term is neo-nazies. And yeah you shouldn't make up quotes, when there are so many real ones you can pick from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I hope that this exchange has convinced you that the AfD are nazis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I am sorry to tell you but if I didn't know better, this exchange would have made me question the critics of the AfD and start seeing the AfD as the choice of reason.

    You say there are lies but you just offer a strawman argument in the form of a sack of potatoes. If you don't back up these claims I usually conclude that they are wrong.

    You don't have to convince me that the AfD is ineligible. I am with you. But you can't claim that the AfD makes up causes and you make up your own. That makes all your claims unbelievable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Hi friend, I hope you are well. Remember this exchange? In the meantime, the German federal service for the protection of the constitution has found the AfD as a whole to be "assuredly right-wing extremist", which is legalese for "they are literally neonazis and we have proof".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    That's good but besides my point. My issue is that you make up conversations.

    You don’t have to convince me that the AfD is ineligible. I am with you. But you can’t claim that the AfD makes up causes and you make up your own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Making up things is bad because it may mislead people. My example was an accurate representation of that party. "Sieg heil" is even a direct quote.

    Would you also object to me making up quotes about Mussolini or Stalin if these are to the best of our knowledge accurate depictions? Probably not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Yes I would.

    You normalize fake quotes. Then the AfD can also make up quotes and claim that that represents foreigners.

    You understand that it is bad when the AfD does it. Generalize that understanding. There can't be exceptions for fighting the good fight. Everybody thinks they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I understand that it is bad when it misrepresents the actual state of things.

    Let's generalise. Is a painting bad? Is a description bad? Yes if it is used to mislead people. No if it portrays things accurately.

    Holding yourself to the highest standards of correctness serves no one. The nazis - which we can now officially call nazis, by the way, it can no longer be seen as hyperbole - do not even use words according to their meaning, and they won't be particularly interested in your view of that matter.

    You can't fight nazis with honourability, just like you can't fight intolerance with tolerance. It's a paradox.

    How many people thought of themselves as better-behaved in 1935? Do you think they reconsidered their position in 1941? It doesn't matter, the window of opportunity to prevent the nazis from irrevocably installing themselves has passed.

    You can't reason with fascism. They only understand violence. It's terrible, yes. No one wants to use violence.

    Then again, the German constitution has provisions for fighting nazis with all means necessary as a last resort, so maybe we can just make them fuck off? Or do we wait until the 21st century version of 1939 and quibble in the meantime?

    The choice is yours, as it is mine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    The nazis - which we can now officially call nazis, by the way, it can no longer be seen as hyperbole - do not even use words according to their meaning, and they won’t be particularly interested in your view of that matter.

    I will read your full comment later. Just note that there is no attestation that they are nazis. So you don't use the words according to their meaning.

    This is becoming a pattern.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    What would you call e.g. these assholes:

    No, the word has not lost its meaning, but it has become less niche: some of them are better at hiding it and waiting for the right time, some of them want to make people forget what it represents and a lot of people are too lazy/stupid to distinguish between nazi/fascist/autocrat/authoritarian/ultraneoliberal or anyone who aspires to become one of those.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Right, if you wish to steer the conversation into ad hominem then I think it is best to end it here. I wish you and your loved ones peace and prosperity for the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Thanks and I wish you the same in return.

    Let me try a final approach. For me, the conversation is ad hominem from the start. I don't disagree with your judgement of the AfD. My point is that you don't reason with the AfD but with people who are on the fence of deciding between AfD and other parties. You should't write your comments for fascists to read but for regular citizens. Being correct is to appeal to them.

  • source
  • parent