Speak Its Name: Yes, This Is Naziism

from the indeed-we-are-the-baddies dept

History never repeats exactly the same, which is how it can be hard to recognize when it is indeed repeating—too many little things may be different the second time around for subsequent events to be a perfect twin of the previous. But it’s the big things that often reappear in similar ways that are meaningful. As they are here, which is why it’s time to recognize: for all intents and purposes, how the government of the United States of America is behaving is just like how the German Nazis behaved. It is doing to the people within its national embrace exactly what the Nazis did to theirs. The comparison to 20th Century Nazi Germany is not something that 21st Century America is still working up to; it’s where we have already arrived.

That we have not (yet) set up an Auschwitz-Birkenau, replete with crematoria, is not evidence to the contrary. After all, the German Nazis didn’t just suddenly start killing millions in the 1940s; their crimes against humanity began years earlier, in the 1930s. Even Hitler himself referred to the mass murder Auschwitz facilitated as the “final solution,” because it was the tactic deployed only after he had already committed plenty of other atrocities first—atrocities that look an awful lot like the ones we are inflicting now upon the human beings in our own national midst.

In the case of both nations the atrocities began, as such horrors often do, with the “othering” of people, as if there were those who, by virtue of something about their own humanity, were somehow disqualified from being part of our national community. While the Trump Administration may have begun by ostensibly focusing on “illegal immigrants”—which itself is a grotesquely deceptive label (an immigrant cannot be illegal; an immigrant can only immigrate illegally, and, for the most part, such illegality is but a civil or misdemeanor offense and not the heinously lawless act the administration paints it as)—like the German Nazis it has also stigmatized racial, religious, and ethnic groups comprising America’s cultural tapestry, as well as LGBTQ+ people. The rhetoric it espouses is all about conditioning the public to believe that there are some people who belong in America, and some who need to be expunged from it, so that the public will get on board aiding, supporting, and even celebrating the expunging that will soon follow.

The horror in both countries then continues by upending the law such that the targeted people cannot legally belong anymore. In Germany we saw how Jewish families who had been in the country for generations suddenly lost their rights as citizens. Here in the U.S. denaturalization has so far only been threatened, albeit palpably, but for non-citizens whose presence in the country has so far been entirely lawful, the Trump Administration has been unilaterally changing that status, moving people from welcomed additions to our community to accused interlopers who must be expelled and, per the government, right now.

But before the expulsions can happen, first the targeted people need to be rounded up. And so a force of federal police has been showing up at people’s homes, schools, jobs, health care providers, bus stops, and anywhere American life takes place to arrest people, without warrants or due process, for no crime at all other than existing. Even if not yet officially prisoners, everyone targeted by the regime has already been made to be, by forcing them to withdraw from life in fear. Governor Walz is absolutely right: there is some child writing a new diary about what it is like to have to hide from a lawless regime incapable of respecting the law and liberties that are supposed to protect them, just like the German Nazis refused to respect any of it either.

After rounding its targets up, the American government then does what the German Nazis did and “concentrate” those they have snatched in detention centers, or, as in the case of some of the larger complexes, “camps,” if you will. There these people—even small children—are kept as un-convicted prisoners, unable to leave on their own volition while, just like the Nazis’ victims, they are forced to live in inhumane conditionsassuming they manage to stay alive at all. Here history has been loudly echoing once again, as the stories emerging from America’s human warehouses are, as the German Nazis’ were, tales of inadequate food and healthcare, brutality by the guards, and indifferent murder.

The comparison to history does not even stop there. For instance, German Nazis also liked to banish their prisoners to far-flung nations where they could be imprisoned instead. It is an example the Trump Administration has already followed, such as by sending its own to places like CECOT in El Salvador or other nations around the world where a secret flight could be sent in accordance with a secret deal made with a regime willing to accommodate America’s evil. Furthermore, the Trump Administration has continued to walk in the path of the German Nazis in its penalization of any dissenting voice that would challenge its actions. Here, too, opponents of the regime have also become targets of its brutal power, being entered into databases, surveilled, and even summarily executed.

Naturally there are of course some differences between then and now. In fact, one of the biggest differences between what the Germany Nazis of the 1930s and 1940s did then and what the United States government is doing now is that we’re mostly using airplanes instead of box cars to traffic innocent people to places where at best they are imprisoned, often tortured, and generally put in mortal peril. And, unlike the German Nazis, who were meticulous in their paperwork, our government can’t seem to be bothered keeping track of whom we have sent to their doom. But apart from these differences what is happening now is still fundamentally the same as what happened then. Families are still being broken up, children are effectively being orphaned (even citizen children, who are also being expatriated), and lives and futures are being destroyed, if not ended outright. All without due process, and in grotesque volume, just as during the Holocaust.

However, there is another important difference: that so many in America can see what is happening for what it is and be willing to stand against it. There are of course stories from the Holocaust of people resisting Nazism and trying to save their neighbors—Anne Frank’s, for instance—but history lacks good analogs to what is happening now, like in Minnesota, where virtually the entire community has stood in solidarity to shield their neighbors and protest en masse, with even local government pushing back as well.

But that wonderful exception to America’s descent into Nazism does not mean the descent hasn’t already happened. The comparison remains too apt, and too important to run from. Because it also is instructive for how we got here. After all, how could it have happened here, in a country strong enough to have defeated the actual German Nazis, with its nearly 250-year old constitutional order that should have prevented everything that is now happening. But the answer is revealing: because neither regime committed their crimes with any legitimacy. In both cases, the sitting governments had to destroy the law that would have restricted their evil in order to perpetuate it.

Of course, even if the Weimar Republic had been too weak to resist it, surely America should have been more durable and able to resist such a threat emerging from within. Yet here we find ourselves, which itself adds to the list of reasons why it is so important to realize it: because thinking it can’t happen here is precisely why it has happened here. Saying it can’t and wouldn’t happen here is exactly what ensures that it can and will. It could and it did, because too many ignored one of the critical lessons of the Holocaust, which is that its horrors don’t come from nothing. Yes, there are malevolent people, but they only have power over us when good people do nothing with the power they have to stop it. And here far too many people who should have protected us from what is now happening turned a blind eye to it while it was brewing on the horizon and in doing so cleared the way for it.

As history keeps demonstrating, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Which is why it is so important to stop burying our heads in the sand, or, worse, try to excuse the inexcusable by rationalizing, even if only out of some sense of misplaced patriotic vanity, that what is happening is anything less than what we believed should never be able to happen again. It is only by recognizing that this evil has slipped through our defenses that those defenses can be fortified.

And it is important to start now, because, again, the story of Nazi Germany offers even more important lessons. One is that there will come a tipping point after which it may be impossible to stop the horrors the government is perpetuating without risking war. Furthermore, even if the atrocities the American government is committing were to stop today—and at last there finally seems some political enthusiasm for trying to get them stopped—hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people have already been traumatized, tortured, or killed by these monsters we allowed to run around among us for the last year wearing our flag. There is no undo button for what has befallen them. But if we act now we can save others. As well as ourselves.

Because one other key lesson is that this evil doesn’t just victimize others; it victimizes everyone. It is not just the targets of the regime but everyone’s welfare that is at stake. The history of the Holocaust shows how ultimately every German suffered along with the people the Nazis specifically targeted. There is no allowing this evil to happen to just some among us. We’re all in this country and world together with our fates inexorably intertwined. These are crimes being committed against all of us, trying to destroy the fabric of our nation, its values, and all the law that is supposed to protect us all. Saving everyone is the only way to save ourselves.

And the first step to salvation is acknowledging the true danger we face.

Note: I originally started writing this post because I thought it had an important point to make. Then I saw the execrable news that the US Holocaust Museum had the gall to criticize the comparisons being drawn between what is unfolding against the vulnerable among us now, and what unfolded decades ago against the vulnerable in Nazi Germany, as if any victims had some sort of a monopoly on sympathy for being victimized, and it only became more relevant. I may not be a Trump sycophant unlawfully operating one of the nation’s most important museums, but I’ve visited enough Holocaust memorials and museums, studied enough Nazi propaganda in academic environments, and toured enough concentration camps to have learned the lessons that curators in every instance have been desperate to teach the future. The US Holocaust Museum board should think about becoming similarly educated so that they, too, can learn that the point of all these efforts archiving and instructing on the past is NOT to take the Nazis’ side.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Speak Its Name: Yes, This Is Naziism”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
56 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
AnObserver (profile) says:

In fact, one of the biggest differences between what the Germany Nazis of the 1930s and 1940s did then and what the United States government is doing now is that we’re mostly using airplanes instead of box cars to traffic innocent people

Wait until there are too many to transport, and planes can’t scale enough.

And, unlike the German Nazis, who were meticulous in their paperwork, our government can’t seem to be bothered keeping track of whom we have sent to their doom.

Probably because these people don’t want records to be available and link them to attrocities. Or, perhaps Hanlon’s razor applies, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

They seem to be starting to rebrand. There are a few alternates “America First” seems to be a popular one.
So they will play the card “You sound so stupid calling me a MAGA! I am ‘America First(tm)’!”.

Kind of like how they deny they are Nazis, mostly because they do not use the term “Nazi” for themselves even though (as pointed out) they have all the trappings of being a Nazi.

Anonymous Coward says:

We need to stop calling them fucking Nazis and call them what they REALLY are — FUCKING CONFEDERATES.

Seriously, where do y’all think Nazis got the blueprint from? They got it from southern plantation owners who concentrated their wealth and believed they had a divine and unchallengeable right to rule over everyone else.

We are literally fighting the Confederacy again right now. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Slave patrols are running amok in Minnesota and Maine. Congressmen from southern states are letting it happen, because their real backers are still angry about Gen. Sherman burning down Atlanta, and 16 decades later, they remain intent on getting their revenge by destroying this republic. There’s no point in talking about a second Civil War, because these bastards are still fighting the first one.

We’re doing a terrible job of knowing our enemies in this country, and that gives those enemies too big of an advantage. Trump is front and center, because that’s how he’s always liked it, but the real enemies are moving in silence, and we need better tactical maneuvers against them.

Rob Clive says:

Re: Confederacy/slavery/nazi

Fantastic thread from Bluesky on this

https://bsky.app/profile/wolvendamien.bsky.social/post/3mdm5d7wnmk2l

(and apparently they made it public on facebook, which I hate to mention, but it’s a good bit of history).

https://www.facebook.com/themartinshuster/posts/pfbid0RvZKULsZYph7myTgfdHD37udATUh5nhyU4MfL9anBkhy5RUR9GVAWoqzrEBkQ9ABl#

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
ThatOtherOtherGuy says:

We are already there...

The US is shipping people off to their deaths. It is being outsourced to other countries so well hidden from the media and citizenry.

The numbers are still small, but that is just a matter of time.

And then factor in things like defunding USAID and the body count really starts to add up.

Trump and Stephen Miller are every bit as evil as the Nazis and just as intent on genocide.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

your bunch is still more like early-in-their-rule Nazis than like late-in-their-rule Nazis

Remember, though: the concentration camps, with terrible conditions but not mass murder, were known since 1933. Then they experimented with some murder, in secret, and in 1941 were secretly doing mass murder. It’s believed to have been about 1943 when the extermination camps became widely known among the German public, and they kept operating for two more years.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: be patient

That we have not (yet) set up an Auschwitz-Birkenau, replete with crematoria

How certain are we of that?

Well, at least at ``alligator alcatraz”, they have not set up crematoria. Largely because there is no place to put them. On the other hand, it seems to be a grossly unsanitary concentration camp, and most likely they will eventually need to dispose of the victims’ bodies, so it may be coming soon.

Your milage may vary with the next airplane which needs to make an emergency landing in So Fla. The old name for the facility was the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport.

Anonymous Coward says:

Actually, they’re WORSE than nazis.

When they deport someone, they torture them, then gas them, and then go and find their families too!

And they definitely Capture and KILL anyone who disagrees with them and says bad things about them! (like calling them “nazis”).

Not even you believe you. You just lost an election.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Raphael (profile) says:

Re:

When they deport someone, they torture them, then gas them, and then go and find their families too!

The whole point of the post is that, as of now, your bunch is still more like early-in-their-rule Nazis than like late-in-their-rule Nazis.

And they definitely Capture and KILL anyone who disagrees with them and says bad things about them! (like calling them “nazis”).

You’re mostly not doing that yet, but many of you have made it clear that they want to do that.

Not even you believe you. You just lost an election.

Yeah, when people lose an election, that clearly demonstrates that they’re wrong about everything, no one believes them, and not even they themselves believe what they say. Sure.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Same rhyme, same meter

“History doesn’t repeat itself… But it rhymes.”

(often ascribed to Mark Twain, but origin not known)

What’s happening in the USA today is not only rhyming, but following the same old meter as well… so I’ll just call it Naziism or fascism, or authoritarian autocracy or totalitarianism or whatever, as best seems to fit at the moment.

Right now I don’t care; it doesn’t matter — the fight is on, and the arguments are mostly fomented by people trying to distract us from the ugly truth — I’ll leave academic debates over the most precisely correct label as an exercise for political scientists and historians, once the fighting is finally over.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Nazism is quite specific and you probably need jews to be a main target. There certainly are neonazis near the administration and on the supporting side, but they are still being fought because some right wingers support the more extreme parts of Israels government.
Fascism is a lot closer with the demands for partial ownership of companies and the hostility to “others” as well as the “sexual conservativism”.
Authoritarian is a generic term that could apply to any leadership who doessn’t follow the constitution or ground laws. Would apply to at least ICE as there are now 3+ instances of contempt-proceedings against different efforts from their side.
Totalitarianism is “je suis l’etat”. The breakdown of separations of powers. You can argue that the judicial branch is still partially free, but the federal banking is looking to be swallowed by the swamp like DOJ has been…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Nazism is quite specific and you probably need jews to be a main target.

That’s what they were most famous for, but they had a hell of a lot of targets. Look at the concentration camp badges.

They were against communists, social democrats, socialists, liberals, trade unionists, anarchists, anti-fascists, illegal emmigrants (sic), the mentally ill, drug addicts, pacifists, homosexuals, bisexuals, sex workers, people not conforming to sex/gender norms, people non-specifically called “anti-social”… and the list goes on.

Yeah, Jews were on that list; also Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Catholics—for a while. Even the original Nazis adjusted their list somewhat based on the political winds. That the modern-day list is only mostly the same isn’t a very compelling argument.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

What do Jews think?

American Jews reclaim German citizenship | DW News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEkE4BZyu4Y

Once unthinkable: At 103, Holocaust survivor Ruth Gruenthal has reclaimed the German citizenship the Nazi regime stripped from her because she was Jewish.
After surviving Nazi persecution and rebuilding her life in the U.S., Ruth became a psychotherapist and raised a family spanning four generations — many of whom have now also reclaimed German citizenship.
Born in Hamburg in 1922, imprisoned in France, and forced to flee Nazi persecution as a teenager, Ruth rebuilt her life in the United States, where she lived for decades. But recent political developments, rising antisemitism, and fears of growing authoritarianism in the U.S. have shaken her sense of security.
Ruth is not alone. An increasing number of Jewish Americans with family histories shaped by the Holocaust are applying to restore German citizenship — not necessarily to leave, but to have a safeguard: the option to move to Germany should conditions in the United States deteriorate further.
Germany allows victims of Nazi persecution and their descendants to reclaim citizenship that was deliberately taken from them. In New York alone, applications have more than doubled in recent years.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Bondles (profile) says:

Paging Jesse Owens

Hardly the most important thing, but there’s another parallel coming down the road as MAGA America prepares to host the Olympics. Not many countries these days boast about their participation in the 1936 games, and the few stories still celebrated are those of protest and defiance against the hosts. I wonder how many national Olympic Committees will have the bravery to consider the lesson and sit 2028 out.

ajoslin103 (profile) says:

I object

I object to calling them “German” Nazis, just as I object to calling them “American” ICE

They are fanatics and they rarely [actually] speak for their nations people

They speak for their Nationalistic Authoritarian Regimes and it’s claimed Ideals

They speak for their Crusade, and as fanatics they will destroy anything on their way to victory (rather than creating)

They kill for their just and true God – Or/And they kill because they enjoy it — in both cases violating any claims to such representation as they may make.

And so I object, I object because they claim to speak for me with impunity

Anonymous Coward says:

America should have learned, and established clear-cut laws against hate speech. But we didn’t.

We have people like Gellis who probably still think that it’s okay that that the Nazi intimidation at Skokie was allowed to happen, and more recently, it was okay that Trump and Vance singled out the Haitian community of Springfield Ohio with racist conspiracy theories. The bigoted Proud Boys who marched in Springfield and put fear into the hearts of the Haitian community there? They deserve to be protected by the cloak of Freedom Of Speech, according to folks like Gellis.

Post-Trump and post-Trumpism, we must implement real and concrete hate speech laws like every other civilized democracy.

The privileged folks like Masnick, Gellis & more may dislike it, but the actual victims of the Trump Regime should have more weight in the discussions after this nightmare is over.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

America should have learned, and established clear-cut laws against hate speech. But we didn’t.

At what point would such laws cover speech that wouldn’t be labelled “hate speech” if not for the intervention of a government official who wants their opinion of what counts as hate speech to be made the law of the land? To wit: Imagine if Donald Trump could say “calling someone a Nazi is hate speech” and have the government punish anyone who has ever called him (or any other Republican) a Nazi.

I’m sympathetic to the idea that hate speech should be curtailed. And I’m well aware that I’m speaking from a place of privilege on this matter. But I’m also terribly pragmatic when it comes to free speech and any legal abridgement thereof. Barring the passage of a constitutional amendment that explicitly defines hate speech in a certain way, you won’t find me on the side of giving the government any power to define “hate speech” and punish its expression. That power is too dangerous to be left in the hands of people who would use it as a shield against even the most anodyne insults. It would be the first step towards Newspeak. Last time I checked, that kind of fascist bullshit is something we’re supposed to dislike.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

What I mean:

It’s going to be priviliged people like Stephen, Masnick, Gellis, and more advocating for the pre-Trump and mid-Trump free speech dogma, versus the victims and families of the victims of the hate speech that Trump & more spewed forth who don’t want all this to happen again. Stephen & Co.’s stances are going to look hilariously backwards. Hell, they look hilariously backwards now.

After a Nazi government is dissolved/tossed out, you don’t keep the conditions and laws and permissiveness that enabled that Nazi government to come forth the same.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

After a Nazi government is dissolved/tossed out, you don’t keep the conditions and laws and permissiveness that enabled that Nazi government to come forth the same.

Are you willing to throw out the entire Constitution of the United States? I mean, if you want to make the drastic changes necessary to achieve your stated goal, you’ll need to throw out the entire Constitution of the United States.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m not seeing an answer to my concerns. How would you ensure that the power to ban and punish the expression of “hate speech” wouldn’t be abused by a politician/political party to ban speech only they would ever define as “hate speech”? And don’t give me some shit about “the courts will handle that” because the Supreme Court is stacked in favor of Republicans/conservatism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

A lot of deliberation and discussion. A lot of taking what works about hate speech laws in other countries, and listening to the victims of hate speech here in America that never got any recourse or justice. In the end, coming up with a clear-cut definition of what hate speech is, and what it isn’t, and placing that in the new founding document.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

coming up with a clear-cut definition of what hate speech is, and what it isn’t

The problem you have here is that language evolves and changes over time.

Consider how the N-word: If saying it (with either -er or -a) in any context is hate speech, would your law punish Black people who use it as a reclaimed slur/term of endearment? “Queer” is a word that a lot of LGBTQ people still consider to be a slur even as a significant number of those people (myself included) use the word as a self-descriptor and/or a blanket term for LGBTQ people. Would that count as hate speech? Also, how would someone recording other people saying hate speech and posting those videos on the Internet be handled, since one could argue that posting those videos is inherently spreading hate speech? And what of those people who will come up with new dogwhistles by referring to certain demographics with existing, otherwise anodyne words⁠—would you ban those words from being said in any context just to prevent them from being used as hate speech?

That last question also gets back to my original one: How would you prevent the next Republican or a conservative-leaning Supreme Court from finding some way to expand what counts as “hate speech”? I know there’s a bunch of right-wingers who would love to make “fascist” count as hate speech; how could any law designed to punish/silence hate speech ever account for such a push and prevent it, especially if the Supreme Court would get to decide whether such speech counts as “hate speech”?

Also, in accordance with (and to reply to) the two comments both above and below yours in this particular part of the reply chain: You seem to hold a strain of thought that after Trump is out of office and a Democrat is elected president again, there’s going to be some Second American Revolution where the entire founding document of the country is going to be tossed out in favor of a whole new constitution written from the ground up. There won’t be. If you suggested that idea seriously to even the most left-leaning Democrat lawmaker in office right now, I’d bet they would laugh you out of their office. Maybe some extra laws get proposed to put better guardrails on the government to prevent another Trump, but I don’t see a full-scale starting-from-scratch revolution happening. So assume that the US Constitution will still be in effect if a Dem wins the 2028 election and is sworn in as POTUS on the 20th of January 2029, then go back and answer my questions with that assumption intact. I don’t want your fantasy revolution that goes off without a hitch and leads us all to Paradise; I want the here-and-now reality that is ugly and messy and imperfect. If all you want to do is talk about your New Constitution™ and how your proposal would work within that fantasy, don’t bother replying. It would be a waste of both my time and yours.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Consider how the N-word: If saying it (with either -er or -a) in any context is hate speech, would your law punish Black people who use it as a reclaimed slur/term of endearment? “Queer” is a word that a lot of LGBTQ people still consider to be a slur even as a significant number of those people (myself included) use the word as a self-descriptor and/or a blanket term for LGBTQ people. Would that count as hate speech? Also, how would someone recording other people saying hate speech and posting those videos on the Internet be handled, since one could argue that posting those videos is inherently spreading hate speech? And what of those people who will come up with new dogwhistles by referring to certain demographics with existing, otherwise anodyne words⁠—would you ban those words from being said in any context just to prevent them from being used as hate speech?

The idea is that people like Shiloh Hendrix slinging racial slurs at a Black child at a park would find themselves charged with hate speech and winding up $750,000 richer. Vance & Trump spreading racist lies about Haitian immigrants would be illegal rather than something that helped propel them to office. Context and intent would matter, not just the words used. Tarantino movies and To Kill A Mockingbird would be fine. Whistleblowing on bigots via sharing the video with the intent to inform would be fine. We have laws in other countries, incidents that we can analyze, experts and victims we can listen to. We wouldn’t be starting from scratch. It would still be difficult, but again, we need to do it.

I know there’s a bunch of right-wingers who would love to make “fascist” count as hate speech; how could any law designed to punish/silence hate speech ever account for such a push and prevent it

By pointing out, at every opportunity, that comparing being called the word “fascist” to the things that actual marginalized people have had to deal with and were put through, is stupid.

So assume that the US Constitution will still be in effect if a Dem wins the 2028 election and is sworn in as POTUS on the 20th of January 2029

Why should I or anybody else assume this given all the fresh nightmares that we are subjected to every week at this point? Everything is still very much up in the air for what might happen during midterms this year, let alone the election in 2028.

Yes, people are protesting and fighting the good fight. Yes, there are judges and courts who are increasingly fed up with the administration. I am glad for that.

But “We’re sorry, we will keep most everything the same and propose guardrails that may or may not go anywhere” is not something we can do or say as a country after kidnapping and killing so many American citizens, kidnapping foreign leaders, deporting people to foreign concentration camps and war-torn nations, and threatening allies with war and annexation. Our country is going to have to do more. And if the current Constitution and the Supreme Court and more get in the way of fixing what we’ve broken, they have to go and we have to come up with new, better systems in their place with hard work and blood and sweat and tears.

Under your speaking-from-privilege “We’re gonna have free and fair elections in 2028 and get a Democratic victory” scenario, what are your proposals for reparations to the people that the government has kidnapped and deported? The families of the people that the government has killed? What are your proposals for re-earning the trust of our allies & trading partners that we’ve threatened with war?

What is your actual vision for what a post-Trump America looks like? And please don’t try to say “I’m just a nobody with a keyboard, how should I know?” like you have so many times before. You’ve written multiple articles for this site. That makes you a bit higher up than a “nobody”.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Context and intent would matter, not just the words used.

You’re still kind of evading my point, though. A bunch of LGBTQ people don’t like the word “queer” even though other LGBTQ people use it to describe themselves. If an LGBTQ person who doesn’t like to be called “queer” hears someone else use the word and gets offended even when “queer” isn’t referring to the offended person, would your imaginary law count that as a hate speech offense only and specifically because the offended person considers “queer” to be a slur?

That’s part of the reason “hate speech” laws are so pernicious: You can’t legislate based on feelings and still make good law. The “hate speech” law you want is based on your feelings about slurs and fascism and while you might try your best to make it as objective as possible, there will come a moment where your law runs headfirst into a situation like I outlined above. If you’re not prepared to address it now, you’re not thinking past your own feelings. I advocate for free speech in the way I do because I don’t want to put my own rights in peril no matter how good censoring hate speech might feel in the moment.

We have laws in other countries

Those other countries very likely don’t have a First Amendment analogue, which is a hurdle you’re really trying hard to act like you won’t need to jump. But I’ll get to that in a bit.

By pointing out, at every opportunity, that comparing being called the word “fascist” to the things that actual marginalized people have had to deal with and were put through, is stupid.

That’s still beside my point: If you make this law a reality, what guardrails would you put in place to prevent the kind of potential abuse I brought up from happening? You’re the one advocating for this idea so hard that you’re calling me stupid for criticizing it, so I’d like to know if you’ve thought about it beyond the fantasy of “ban hate speech and everything gets better”.

Why should I or anybody else assume this given all the fresh nightmares that we are subjected to every week at this point?

Because unless something drastic like a full-on civil war or a complete breakdown of the federal government happens, the chances of your imagined Second American Revolution and your New Constitution happening are incredibly slim. (It’s not impossible, but it is highly improbable.) Even if a Democrat gets elected president and makes changes to SCOTUS and helps pass laws to put new guardrails on our democracy and all that, they’re not going to (and they’re not going to be able to) toss out and rewrite the entire Constitution. Your hypothetical revolution is still hypothetical until it happens; if it does happen, we can talk about it as if it’s a reality. But right now, the reality is that the US Constitution is still active and intact, and nobody is seriously proposing it be completely overhauled. That same constitution will likely still be intact and active come the 21st of January 2029. If you can’t propose your law under that reality, your proposal has a big fuckin’ problem.

what are your proposals for reparations to the people that the government has kidnapped and deported?

I don’t really have any because I’m not a lawmaker or a politician. I’m just some schmuck with a laptop. But if I had to come up with a quick idea off the top of my head: Assuming the people in question were deported wrongfully, I’d say the bare minimum would be to pay them a significant sum of money⁠—six figures at least⁠—and, if they were on track to legal citizenship, an expedited review of their case so they can receive that citizenship faster. Moreover, ICE (and DHS) must be abolished.

The families of the people that the government has killed?

I don’t know what you want me to say to that other than “big cash payouts” because we can’t bring people back to life.

What are your proposals for re-earning the trust of our allies & trading partners that we’ve threatened with war?

We elect someone who isn’t Trump, we undo all his tariff/trade war bullshit, then⁠—with the exception of the war in Ukraine, which I hope is ended by 2029 but don’t expect to be over⁠—we spend the next four years doing our best to stay the fuck away from foreign affairs that don’t directly and acutely affect the United States while rebuilding our relationships and our trust with the EU/NATO. (We could also stop funding the genocide in Gaza, but that’s more a pipe dream.)

Also, going a bit out of order here:

please don’t try to say “I’m just a nobody with a keyboard, how should I know?” like you have so many times before. You’ve written multiple articles for this site. That makes you a bit higher up than a “nobody”.

And my answer to that is “so fucking what”. Writing articles for BestNetTech has been cool and all, but I’m still just a schmuck with a laptop. I don’t have any expertise in any field, and half my opinions are borrowed from people far smarter/more educated than I am. I promise you that I am a “nobody”; trying to make me feel otherwise will fail every time because I’m too fucked up to accept even the barest minimum glazing.

Now, as for the other bit…

What is your actual vision for what a post-Trump America looks like?

As of the 20th of January 2029? It looks largely like the one we’re in now, in terms of what will or won’t change in day-to-day life. But what I’d like to see after Trump are Democrats, including the president but at all levels of government, who aren’t afraid to throw elbows. I want them to pass laws for all the things that would piss off Republicans and billionaires⁠—e.g., wealth taxes, more green energy projects (and subsidies for those projects), projects to build out public transit (including high-speed rail), single-payer healthcare. I want them to change at least the national election to ranked-choice voting. As I said above, I want them to abolish ICE (and DHS) as the start of genuine immigration reform. I want them to stop trying to push for regime changes through military force and start trying to rebuild the soft power routes we once had (and could have again) for helping to change minds and enacting regime change through the will of the people. And most of all, I want them to recalibrate the branches of government by stacking SCOTUS and redivesting some of the current powers of the presidency back to Congress.

After all that, I want them daring Republicans to take it all away.

You have a fantasy centered around censorship. I have a vision of a brighter future. Show me something better than “let’s jail people who say racial slurs” or stop trying to show me your fantasy⁠—I don’t care which.

Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: details required

America should have learned, and established clear-cut laws against hate speech. But we didn’t.

Who gets to decide what is ``hate speech”? I am fairly sure I would not trust the present congress. I sure as taxes would not trust our state legislature. City-by-city and county-by-county regulation is impractical.

Can you give me a clear definition of what should be banned? Because right now saying ``Thaw ICE” would qualify as hate speech or domestic terrorism according to the present administration.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

It is only by recognizing that this evil has slipped through our defenses that those defenses can be fortified.

And yet I strongly suspect that if any victims of the Trump Regime try to put forth the idea of a hate speech law along the lines of what almost every other civilized democracy has produced, Cathy & Co. will flail and screech at the idea of the Holy Of Holies First Amendment being intruded upon.

Anonymous Coward says:

After all, how could it have happened here, in a country strong enough to have defeated the actual German Nazis, with its nearly 250-year old constitutional order that should have prevented everything that is now happening.

It happened because people with a religious dogmatic reverence for the First Amendment treated hate speech and Nazi marches as just a bunch of rapscallions that Counter Speech With More Speech™ would solve. Except it didn’t. Same as the ACLU thought that defending Unite The Right in Charlottesville was a good idea; a bunch of suckers.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

I may not be a Trump sycophant unlawfully operating one of the nation’s most important museums, but I’ve visited enough Holocaust memorials and museums, studied enough Nazi propaganda in academic environments, and toured enough concentration camps to have learned the lessons that curators in every instance have been desperate to teach the future.

And yet you still thought that the First Amendment™ would protect us from this situation, I bet. What are your thoughts now?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ninja (profile) says:

I’m not surprised but I’m still saddened other countries are doing almost nothing to contain the 4th Reich. Part of this inaction stems from how the US has entrenched itself deeply into the global economy with the dollar. There are various countries divesting from US debt titles and dollar reserves, swapping them for gold but it’s too little and too slow. And the prices of gold have gone insane.

This should be a lesson for the future. There shouldn’t be a dominating currency nor should a single country concentrate that much power. We should be giving the UN more power over many things with a healthy rotation of management among countries and no veto power. Important stuff like ICANN, international trade and a common currency should be under the responsibility of such multilateral bodies and so on. It’s a good time to strengthen the UN and make it more democratic while respecting nations sovereignty as much as possible.

Sure there will be a few dozen countries with nasty dictators around. But alone they can’t do shit because there’s no other country with that much power. And some countries out there, north and south, east and west will have to dial back their colonizing impetus and let go of their veto power and possibly their colonies. But it’s better than what we have now.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Slow Joe Crow says:

Stop using sloppy language

Scare words like Nazi, Fascist or Genocide don’t fit the situation and just generate get people riled. What’s happening is authoritarian and totalitarian but is neither National Socialism nor Fascism. The Holocaust Memorial is correct to call out Holocaust appropriation and you are wrong to call someone criticizing Tim Walz a Trump sycophant. Anne Frank was a victim of the actual Nazis for being Jewish. To claim that mantle because a Federal agency is being heavy handed is bullshit and Walz knows it.
Call Trump a wannabe Caudillo all you want but util he’s wearing a hack kreuz he’s not a Nazi, he’s not even much of a Fascist.

Raphael (profile) says:

Re:

Anne Frank was a victim of the actual Nazis for being Jewish. To claim that mantle because a Federal agency is being heavy handed is bullshit and Walz knows it.

The original post explicitly points out that the Nazis didn’t start by murdering Anne Frank. They started by doing stuff that was already very bad, but not yet large-scale mass murder. The whole point of the post is that the Trump crowd is currently, for now, still in that early stage.

but util he’s wearing a hack kreuz he’s not a Nazi

A lot of his fans are showing off swastikas and other Nazi symbols, and were 10 years ago. Ten years ago, criticizing Trump while having a Jewish-sounding name already got you bombarded with oven and gas chamber memes on the old Twitter. What do you think why people who love symbols like that love him so much? Are they somehow sadly mistaken that he’s one of them?

Leave a Reply to Stephen T. Stone Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...