The term “Nazi” has been overused so much, especially in US [identity] politics, that it’s losing (or has already lost) its meaning. When are we going to start calling elevator farts “genocide” and “nazism”? 🤷🏻♂️
If the outrage is based on the screenshot of the comment above, I’d say that this is a typical example of “Swiss neutrality” with a touch of “I don’t give a flying f*ck about US politics because I don’t live in the US.” I don’t see how that makes you a nazi??
I suspect I may be missing something here…
As some who has been out literal in the woods, can someone give me more context?
tl:dr Proton CEO came out on Twitter and praised Trump’s selection for FTC leader. Which is fine, in my opinion, even though I disagree with it. What’s not so fine is that he followed that up with basically “dems are bought and conservatives are more likely to fight for consumer privacy”, which is abundantly clearly to anyone who pays attention to US politics, objectively incorrect.
Yup, that he is anything but a downgrade from Lina khan for consumer protection in the FTC is super wrong.
He, Andrew Ferguson
He has stated intentions to ease his predecessor’s scrutiny of business mergers and acquisitions, while continuing critical oversight of big tech platforms.
Expect continued increased in costs if goods.
The biggest problem to me was the official Proton reddit account making an official statement agreeing with Andy. Andy blamed this on a “miscommunication” and it has since been deleted, but probably only because of the backlash they were receiving.
The biggest problem to me is the CEO of a company whose entire focus is on privacy and privacy advocacy being so incredibly ignorant of US politics as it pertains to privacy.
He actually didn’t touch privacy, he touched antitrust and monopolies. The whole benefit to privacy is indirect by means of a level field.
He believes that republicans will do better than dems in terms of fighting big tech monopolies.
You’re right, he did, but my point stands regardless.
I thought the whole point stood on “company whose main point is privacy”. In this case, his views on antitrust may be naive, but it’s quite easy to see how what he thinks might happen with antitrust/big tech is indirectly benefiting the privacy of users (worldwide). So doesn’t it fit directly with the opinion of a CEO of a company whose main point is privacy? Ultimately proton didn’t change product because of this trump decision, didn’t change internal policies, terms, privacy policy, nothing.
Protons ceo is publicly promoting trump and so are public proton accounts
That’s a lie. He never promoted Trump.
I mean, you’re kinda splitting hairs no? He certainly promoted the Republican party, of which Trump leads.
This is also a lie. He did not promote the Republican Party. Words mean something, quit making shit up.
How is saying that republicans are the right choice for their policies and democrats are not, not promoting republicans?
Not what he said.
His words about the Gail Slater nomination specifically were.
Great pick by @realDonaldTrump. 10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned. People forget that the current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin.
I disagree with Yen here, but characterizing that statement as “republicans are the right choice for their policies and democrats are not,” seems like a real stretch.
Did you read his actual comments? He literally made propagandistic claims in support of Republicans and in opposition to Democrats. Or do you agree with him that Republicans are “for the little guy”? Its complete nonsense made up to promote the Republican party.
No, I don’t think so at all.
TrUmP iS a NaZi
Scratch under the surface of every for profit privacy / anonymity service, you find shitty libertarian cryptobros who probably post racist memes on 4chan while whining about feminism in the man-o-sphere. That doesn’t speak to the nature of people who care about privacy, it speaks to the nature of people who care about privacy and also want to do capitalism.
deleted by creator
Wait, the proton ceo is a trump supporter? What the fuck, he’s the last person I thought would do that
deleted by creator
No he had plenty of time to educate himself but instead doubled and tripled down. Also his username ends in 88 which has been the most unsubtle Nazi dog whistle since the invention of usernames and the internet.
If you look a bit around in this thread, someone linked an article that mentions he was born in 1988.
How convenient.
He didn’t have to put it in his username.
Neither do the other thousands or millions of people who do so, but it’s not a particularly uncommon thing and it’s likely enough that (birthdate) is the reason it’s there. I’ve got my birth year (not '88) in my username for some sites because the bare username was already taken
Isn’t 88 considered extremely lucky in Chinese culture?
You honestly think that’s what he was going for? Someone who grew up in a culture pretty heavily insulated from that but steeped in “former” Nazi ties?
Not only is 88 considered auspicious in his native culture, he was also born in 1988. Normally, yes, be wary of the 88 dog whistle, but without further evidence it looks like a nothing-burger in this case.
I think he’s more likely fascist than a Nazi, given the differentiator being the racial purity part. He lives and works in Switzerland, but was born in Taiwan and educated in the US.
Where’s the 88?
1011000 is binary for 88
Ohhhh. Drag thought it was the ASCII code for X
Considering how he runs a business whose goal is to capture the privacy crowd and how a large portion of the privacy crowd is made up of those “Libertarian” tech-bro types, it might be more than just “no clue about American politics”, especially since he’s also doing stuff like promoting Bitcoin through Proton Wallet which is also popular among “Libertarian” tech-bro types, and the article used for marketing that both-sidesed the problems the “left” vs “right” experience and equated the Democrats with the “left”, which is popular among “Libertarian” tech-bro types as well. The 88 in his Reddit username is also suspect regardless of him claiming that it’s there because it’s his birth year. People who know how to operate a business usually aren’t doing it out of stupidity, so I’m not going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this, especially since the entire platform depends on trusting that they aren’t doing anything shady.
This needs to be pinned at the top: only a Nazi goes out of their way to put an 88 in their username. He thinks he’s clever by putting it in binary so people don’t immediately call him out. Nazis get off on that kind of “clever” dogwhistle.
Holy shit. That is indeed 88 in binary…
He was born in 1988…
That doesn’t mean he needed to put it in his username.
looks at own username
It’s a bit more plausible when it’s all 4 digits.
Fair, but I have other variants with just “88”.
Maybe you shouldn’t be doing that. Maybe your birthday is not so special that you should use it when it’s a well and widely known symbol of Nazism. Frankly it’s a little hard for me to buy these days.
How did we all miss that 😮
When was he born? Not everyone knows all the “secret” signs for stuff. How 18 is A.H or how 81 is H.A (Hells Angels) 1% biker clubs have surprisingly much of such codes. 8 is also the number of Khorne in the Warhammer fantasy/sci-fi setting. And before we start with that there are surprisingly few Nazis who play, but the few are very vocal.
Years ago I saw a guy in a crocery store in Norway wearing a “Combat18 Böhmen” hoodie. Buying ingredients for tex-mex taco incidentally. And when I pointed him out to my wife, she said that you are probably the only one in here to know this, and spot him for what he is.
So if Andy was born in 1988 I hope it’s why he has 88 in his username.
When was he born? Not everyone knows all the “secret” signs for stuff.
I don’t care when he was born. Who puts their birth year in their username? “Here, internet. Here’s one less piece of information you need to steal my identity!”
No. “ItS mY bIrF YeEr” is just what nazi shit says when they get called out on being nazi shit.
Look, I can’t comment on the significance of binary 88 in this instance with any confidence, but a lot of people use their birth year in their username.
Is it stupid? Absolutely, alongside demonstrating a total lack of any creativity whatsoever. But it’s 100% a thing.
Edit: Lol, will also note the first ‘people also search’ suggestion coming up when Googling Andy Yen is “When was Andy Yen born”, and in the 5 seconds of drunken searching I still haven’t seen a birth date.
Look, I can’t comment on the significance of binary 88 in this instance with any confidence, but a lot of people use their birth year in their username.
A lot of people who like trump were coincidentally totally born in 1988.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that people don’t put 88 as a clear dog whistle to white supremacists/general Nazi bullshit. This is more to the comment “who puts their birth year in their username?” bit specifically. The answer is a lot of people.
I also am not excusing Yen for his pro-Trump comments - that was fucking bullshit and I’m deeply disappointed - I’m just saying the YOB thing is a thing, but also coincidentally I also can’t seem to find a source to prove if he’s also doing the YOB thing or something else.
Note to self: Limit Lemmy to 3 beers max, particularly where Trumpian bullshit is involved. And thank god for autocorrect. Apologies, I really should not be interneting right now.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that people don’t put 88 as a clear dog whistle to white supremacists/general Nazi bullshit.
To be clear, anyone who supports trump is already nazi-adjacent enough to get no benefit of the doubt, and I don’t buy the “It’s my birth year” shit from any of them. Even if they were born in 1988, that’s not the reason 88 is in their username.
I also don’t believe that someone whose entire personality centers around cannabis has “420” in their username because they were born on April 20th. I don’t believe that some fratboy who is constantly making horny comments has “69” in his username because he was born on June 9th, either.
88 is so much worse that I wouldn’t even compare then to the anodyne 420 & 69 examples.
If I were born in 1988 I would not put an encoded “88” in my username. I wouldn’t want people to think I was dogwhistling.
Tbf I’ve put my birth year in my username before when I was a kid who knew next to nothing about privacy. I’ve seen other people do this too. So it’s not totally implausible. But yeah it is a bad look for Andy regardless.
Tbf I’ve put my birth year in my username before when I was a kid who knew next to nothing about privacy. I’ve seen other people do this too. So it’s not totally implausible.
It’s one thing when you’re a naive kid or a clueless boomer. It’s quite another when you’re the ceo of a privacy-focused company.
Yes, a public figure, whose data can be discovered in few minutes, considers his birth year a secret. Also nobody ever used the birth year in their username on the internet.
Also ANDY = 1 + 14 + 4 + 25 = 44, which is half of 88 and contains 14, another nazy symbol. He is trying to pass it off as his name, but who uses their name on the internet? I will check the cabala now, because I am sure there is more.
God, I hope Nick Fury is already grouping the avengers, because Hydra is really making a move here.
If you don’t want people to think you’re a nazi, don’t say good things about trump with 88 sitting right there for everyone to see in your username.
The account is 2 days old. He knew what he was doing.
He’s my generation. That’s what we did in the dawn of the internet when web email was new and shit. Everybody has “coolname87” “dogshit89”, “hipguy88” as their username. It’s not such a wild idea.
He’s younger than me, but there was a broad age range that all caught the internet around the same time. I’m aware that this is how it was once done. Usernames are longer now, allowing for greater creativity.
And this goober still uses his first name and an obfuscated 2 digit number? Yeah, he didn’t choose it because it’s his birth year.
We all choose to believe what we choose to believe. 👍
Yup. I believe this is untrustworthy behavior and I regret signing up for proton mail.
Here’s all I could find about his age in a few minutes:
He was actually born in 1988, according to the author’s article. If anyone can find a more reliable resource, please, post it here🙏
Yeah, birth years are super common in usernames (and password, don’t use it there). Bob Smith finds his preferred username is taken so becomes BobSmith79 or BobSmith88 or whatever because it’s easy an easy enough variation to remember.
You can find patterns/relations in almost anything if you reach for something, kinda like the “six degrees of separation” thing even if there’s a more reasonable answer
He’s apparently said he was born in 1988. In another thread others mentioned that would make him 21 when he started his PhD, which checks out.
So he can dogwhistle with impunity. Lucky guy.
only a Nazi goes out of their way to put an 88 in their username
Yeah, I’m gonna need a citation for that. I was born in 1988.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2ff6q/call_for_andy_yen_to_resign/
UPDATE: Andy Reply
According to Andy’s logic, if Hitler were the president of some unfortunate country, we should differentiate the boss from his good nominees. Even using a company founded by an entire community to show a good evaluation made by one of its founders to give him a loving pat on the back and show the world that he is not completely bad as they think, but not meaning that the founder agrees with all his innocent actions, of course, such as disregarding the rights of many people around the world because they are just part of the democratic game.
Honestly I find his attitude to be quite commendable and I think that speaks much louder than whatever it is you disagree with.
Maybe he should have just left Trump’s name out of it entirely as that seems to be what really pushed people’s buttons.
People are going to twist things around no matter what is said though. Don’t forget hindsight makes everyone look guilty.
He should have just stayed the fuck out of Americans politics being a provider of a secure service that many Americans of all political persuasions use.
He is an idiot who cost his company business. The only spin is trying to downplay it at this point. The consequences are lost profits.
Let’s be real. You mean he should have stayed out of it if he was going to voice an opinion that doesn’t match yours. People don’t want apolitical, they want an echo chamber.
You say it doesn’t match that other users opinion, but doesn’t it not match the vast majority of proton users opinions? Authoritarians aren’t usually big on personal privacy. So praising one when you run a company based upon privacy is a dumb idea. It would be like running a vegan food company and praising people who like Slaughter cattle. It’s a stupid fucking mindset. Which says a lot of things to me about his capacity as a CEO frankly. If he’s this dumb why should people trust them to run a business they frequent?
No, he should stay out of either side because business is about making money. I don’t want to know what politics you support. I don’t care for politicizing everything. It is a fucking turn off.
You want my money, do your job, sell me your product, give me your service, but don’t talk to me about your hot takes on politics. Also religion as well. I and many many other people don’t want to hear it.
Better that they tell us imo. If someone thinks that the people I care about don’t deserve to exist for reasons no one can control, I’d rather know and avoid giving them money than to help them quietly gain influence and power until they can eradicate these people themselves.
There is a certain logic to this. I tend to agree that I would like to know. I also think I would probably find out I would have to be self sufficient if I truly did not want to give to bad actors.
Your comment might hold a valid argument, if your previous comments hadn’t made it perfectly clear you take issue with the fact he praised something a politician you don’t like has done.
Whether you agree with my character or not what I said was accurate for any business person/enterprise. It is really not beneficial and increases risk unnecessarily.
It would be one thing if Trump was actually anti-trust…but he isn’t.
He’s anti companies which don’t prostrate themselves in front of him and bow to his whims. They’re bad, terrible, anti American companies. The ones that do are great, wonderful, beautiful companies. The bad ones need to be broken up and given to the big ones.
He’s so transparent it’s painful. If someone says good things about Trump or give him money, they’re good. If they don’t, they’re bad. It’s absurdly obvious.
If that motivation still leads to work against tech monopolies, good. Can’t wait for people to do the right thing for the right reason. If that won’t happen it will be criticized as a lack of action.
Ultimately the benefit for the population is having as much freedom and fair competition in the tech space as possible. If that comes from Trump hallucinations, from a dream or from something else, who cares…?
How can anyone possibly think that Trump is against tech monopolies when Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg are going to be sitting behind him shoulder to shoulder at the inauguration?
If that motivation still leads to work against tech monopolies
It doesn’t, never did, never will.
I can’t believe we have to argue in 2025 about this.
The whole project 2025 is about breaking bad regulations, antitrust won’t survive. You just have to kiss the ring, and do whatever.
Maybe he should have just left Trump’s name out of it entirely as that seems to be what really pushed people’s buttons.
It probably didn’t help, but no, I don’t think that was it. I think it was his sweeping generalizations about dems/republicans as a whole, along with the insinuation that dems were bought, republicans are “looking out for the little guys”, and the election undermined the will of the people:
Dems had a choice between the progressive wing (Bernie Sanders, etc), versus corporate Dems, but in the end money won and constituents lost. Until corporate Dems are thrown out, the reality is that Republicans remain more likely to tackle Big Tech abuses.
You are right about the generalization on parties, but the “little guy” he meant are small tech companies opposed to big tech. It was clear to me in the context, and to clear any doubt, he explicitly said that in a reddit comment.
I want to specify because this has been stretched on here as far as “he said republicans care for the working class”.
the “little guy” he meant are small tech companies
That changes nothing.
Added for completeness. Lots of people got pissed because they assumed he meant that in general republicans stand with the little guy, prompting comments such as “what about trans/immigrants/etc.”.
You did not do that, of course, but you can see how your comment could reinforce this opinion in people who didn’t read the actual tweet and discussion and were just looking for reasons to get angry.
“People forget I don’t live in China. Just because I praise Mao for wanting to shed the yoke of cultural tradition, doesn’t mean I necessary support everything he’s doing…” -Andy, if this was 1966
Careful saying that around these tankie parts.
So, to get this straight, for you it’s impossible to recognize that a pick for a position is a good pick in the Trump government, by definition, without consideration of the actual pick?
To me this is religion, not politics or ideology (which I both consider very good things). To be even more clear, I consider Andy’s position completely rational and legitimate in this case. I believe it’s absolutely legitimate to be happy Trump picked someone good for a position and at the same time not support the rest 98%. At most, the interesting debate is why that pick is not good, which is 100% opinable and worthy of a discussion.
But saying that any statement, in any context, whatever narrow and specific equal full support is completely insane to me.
Context matters. Why did you ignore it? We see so many CEOs kissing Trump’s feet these days. Here Andy is, doing the same… Of course I don’t know what’s in Andy’s head, but Trump loves groveling, and clearly Andy is riding that bandwagon on purpose.
That’s not context, that’s a superficial observation. Zuck kissed the ring by changing Facebook policy to align with trump/musk posture on “free speech”, Andy said he likes the antitrust pick. They are completely different things.
Right, Andy’s action was bad but not as bad. We agree. It’s not identical.
And when given the chance to explain how he felt about this situation, on how the bad timing is … purely accidental or something … he did a bad job of it. Which suggests our original conclusions were in fact correct.
Also, if you think observations about time, place, and manner are superfluous, that’s a peculiar thought. Maybe we disagree. Maybe I think basic elements of societal interaction and communication are important and informative.
This tweet happened right after trump picked for the antitrust position. The “time” is completely logical, the “place” is a tweet and the manner is a short statement supporting that pick. Also proton is a US company, so it doesn’t have the same reason to “bend the knee” as other US big tech are doing.
So it’s not that I am ignoring context, I genuinely don’t see relation. He praised something that he pushes for years, he did not suddenly switch to “free speech” like Zuck.
If all he said was literally “i approve of this pick for this position” you’d be correct.
What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the “little guy”.
Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a “political statement”.
by all means, argue that you think there’s a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn’t suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.
I know what happened, I followed quite thoroughly.
He thinks that republicans are now the ones with a higher chance to push antitrust cases against big tech (I.e., work for the little guy - EDIT: source). He thinks this based on the last few years and a few things that happened. He likes the nomination from Trump. How is this a full support to Trump? How believing that republicans will do better - in this area - equals being a Nazi?
Of course I believe that there is a fuss over nothing. The above statement has been inflated and I have already read “he applauded to Trump antitrans policies”, " posted Nazi symbols" and other complete fantasies.
Many people, who are on the internet on a perpetual witch hunt decided to interpret a clearly specific tweet (about antitrust and big tech) as a global political statement, and read that “little guy” as “common man” or - I have read it here on Lemmy - “working class”. Basically everyone tried to propose ideas about why that post was so awful, rather than first trying to understand what the hell he meant. I will agree the first tweet is ambiguous, but that’s because it’s a 200 characters tweet, he then explained his position quite clearly, and the summary above is what he actually meant.
This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.
While it’s certainly true that some of the people who are angry at him for that tweet are saying things in their anger that are overboard, I think only pointing out the most ridiculous things that people who disagree with you have ever said in their anger is a really terrible way of engaging honestly on the subject.
It’s important to remember that an authoritarian that always figured out what the right thing to do was and did the opposite of that would be a really bad authoritarian. Republicans at the state level have been increasing state surveillance to hunt down and punish people for choices they make with their own bodies. For a lot of people in America, Trump is the head of the organization that they want privacy to protect themselves from, and the current largest threat to privacy in America.
For the CEO of a company that is supposedly about protecting our privacy to completely unprompted start publicly praising decisions made by the very threat we’re supposed to trust them to protect us from, and then to double down on their praise when called out, is deeply concerning.
Yes. It’s true that not every single thing Trump does will be the worst possible thing, but his goals are fundamentally opposed to ours. When I say I want big tech to be broken up it’s because I want their to be less concentration of power. When Trump wants to break up big tech it’s because he wants to eliminate the competition to his concentration of power. That is not worthy of my praise, even if in any one particular instance the thing he is doing is similar to what I would do, and the fact that the CEO of Proton either doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care is deeply concerning. I do not trust them after this, and I doubt they can ever get that trust back.
He praised one thing, and motivated that praise. It’s 100% possible to disagree, but I don’t find it concerning at all. I find it reasonable, because proton can better protect the privacy of users if more people can choose freely privacy oriented tools (like proton). Hence, if Trump does or says something that can help moving in that direction, it can be labeled as a good thing. Not every sentence is a collective or global assessment of all things considered.
When Trump wants to break up big tech it’s because he wants to eliminate the competition to his concentration of power.
- this is something US citizens should concern themselves
- it is only tangentially irrelevant
- if by breaking up monopolies people will be able to choose more privacy-preserving services, what you think is Trump’s goal will fail anyway. More privacy and less data is also a way to limit the amount of demographic targeting he uses so well in his campaigns.
So I am good with him doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and I wish him a swift failure afterwards.
doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care is deeply concerning
Have you considered that he might not agree with what is just your opinion? Obviously you are free to draw any conclusion you want and not use them.
See, now that’s a more thorough explanation of your position.
I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I’m disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.
This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.
It shows you read the initial information in it’s entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.
That removes the possibility of responses such as “Did you even read the initial tweet?”.
Well… it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven’t read your response in it’s entirety.
le false equivalence totally validates my endorsement for the worst president elected in US history
Andy will one day find out that, in the eye of the magat beholder, he is nothing but yellow. I hope he enjoys getting spent as the token he has become.
LOL I love this “anyone who disagrees with me is a literal nazi” nonsense.
did you really laugh out loud, or did you just type that, be honest.
I did just type it ☹️
that’s honestly a real disappointment, I was hoping someone so off the mark would at least be enjoying themselves.
Sorry to disappoint. It is funny in a morbid and depressing sort of way. Kinda like Trump.
must be nice to find it funny rather than be scared for your friends lives like the LGBT community is
Must be nice to exploit LGBTQ people to support literally any argument imaginable.
Have you both thought about talking why you disagree instead? If none of you bother to explain why you think the other is wrong this is just pointless
Honestly “lol” completely lost its original meaning years ago
LOL
I can’t be the only one who struggled to read that, and for general accessibility purposes since I’m already here:
Image ID:
andy1011000 Proton CEO posted:
“People honestly seem to forget that I live in Switzerland, where Republican/Democrat doesn’t mean anything, and Trump isn’t even on our ballot to be voted for…”
Onyx376. replied:
“The point is that fighting for a more just and equal society is not just about fighting for the fundamental right to privacy but also for all other fundamental rights, including individual rights and life. When you, as the CEO of a company that starts from these principles, nod positively to whatever action a political figure like Trump, who is known for always flagrantly putting his private interests ahead of those of his own nation, makes speeches about eliminating minorities, hurting their rights as citizens and flirting with Nazi movements, it is understandable that members of the privacy community are disappointed as this reveals a little about who is being the face of a company that should follow contrary principles. But now we really know what “freedom” means to you.”
Doing the Lord’s work right here. I absolutely cannot stand screenshots of desktop apps.
Mobile screenshots will be readable on both mobile and desktop.
But desktop screenshots are only readable on desktop.
Glad I could help…
Doesn’t seem to be the case here, but could it be due to subpixel rendering?
It renders fine, it’s just a pain to read due the wide aspect ratio. Either it’s too small or you have to scroll horizontal for reach line, or you have to flip your phone. None of it it is optimal.
Good bot
A wise man once told me, don’t mess with politics. The moment you show stance (which usually isn’t beneficial), you cut off options from yourself and endanger customer relationship.
Proton should just do business as usual, without that single post things would probably be just fine.
The fight for privacy and digital freedom is inherently political.
Get. Off. Reddit.
I seem to remember that Switzerland has a history of profiting from their relationships with Nazi’s. Thus they might not be a good source of advice as to what to do about Nazi’s.
It’s dumb to call Trump a nazi and the populist wing of the Republican party nazis.
It’s not even clever at this point, maybe it was edgy and transgressive like 7 years ago.
The reason it’s dumb is that you are wasting all of your powerful language and you will have no more if things get worse. Boy who cried wolf. Just like people did to racist which used to carry great power and now is basically meaningless as a powerful descriptor.
It’s not even clever at this point, maybe it was edgy and transgressive like 7 years ago.
Are you really this childish that you genuinely think the only reason people might suggest Trump is a fascist is because it was “edgy and transgressive”? Not the fascist rhetoric, increasingly fascist policy and the various fascists he’s willing to work with and support?
Nazism is a very small subset of fascism, they are not equivalent. Nazi also carries VERY heavy baggage which is inapplicable to Trump. Use the right terms.
Nazism is a very small subset of fascism, they are not equivalent. Nazi also carries VERY heavy baggage which is inapplicable to Trump. Use the right terms.
Can’t tell if you’re defending trump or gatekeeping nazism.
Hey guys, look at this dipshit, drawing irrelevant distinctions and pointlessly trying to police other peoples language because they think the only reason others would use those terms is because they’re “edgy and transgressive”.
Tell me, where on the fascism to nazism meter is mass deportations, muslim bans, endorsing far right militias, supporting running over protestors, palling around with white supremacists, and seeking to eradicate trans people from public life? Are we at .49? or is it more like .76? My readings seems to be off. Just so I know I’m not using the incorrect terms so some moron from .world doesn’t get mad and try to incessantly police terms on the internet.
chill
“Chill, I was just drawing a meaningless distinction between my party and another part of my party with identical views!”
Gee. Which side has all the people marching with nazi flags?
Which side never kicks them out when they do?
I’m sorry but what? This is really weird logic as language and words aren’t required to follow some linear path of severity. People call the GOP, Trump and the like Nazis because… they fit the definition of Nazis, actual card carrying Nazis support them by a significant majority. (Yeah yeah I know there is the odd one here or there that doesn’t)
If it walks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi and engages in Nazi tactics, behaviors etc. Then it can be called a Nazi. You don’t reserve your language so that you have some end point to progress to.
It’s also very weird to use the boy who cried wolf when the whole point of that story is that you don’t call something that which it isn’t for fear that when the real thing comes along no one will believe you as that would imply that they are in fact not Nazis. Which would only be true in the most technical of sense (As in they are not of the Nazi party of Germany) but by most dictionary definition the word fits.
Lastly, what the hell are you even talking about “edgy”? Do you think people are calling them Nazis to be edgy? Because that’s ridiculous and quite frankly your entire comment screams of someone trying to defend them through deflection.
What’s more important, winning the fight over what label to put on those assholes or actually fighting what they do? It’s the same as people arguing about whether the Gaza situation is technically a genocide or not. Endless debate on the technicalities while nothing changes. Calling Trump and by extension all his followers “Nazis” just reinforces their belief that the “left” is their unrelenting enemy.
Why in your view is it mutually exclusive? To address any problem one first has to identify that there is in fact a problem. Calling it out where it exists IS that identification. It isn’t about “labels” it’s about identifying what needs to be dealt with and make no mistake there are a lot of people who don’t want to acknowledge the problem and if anything what you’re doing is exactly the shit the fascists do by forcing the side wanting to fight fascism to moderate its language on the belief that if we use that language against the fascists the fascists will dig into their fascism… as if they aren’t doing that anyway.
In fact letting the right-wing control the narrative no matter what happens is in large part why we are where we are and why this shit needs to be called out, identified, labelled and opposed at every point with whatever means are necessary.
Now now. Many MAGA are in fact documented nazis, and Trump’s record is bad but it quite as explicit as that. If you’re afraid of the term being bandied about, I recommend therapy.
I recommend therapy.
Poe’s law detector fail
Far right is not mutually exclusive to Nazism
They don’t kick their nazi buddies out of their events.
Holy shit he’s still arguing with people about this today?
He’s well on his way to reaching Muskian levels of failure to shut the hell up.
I’d say he’s already a foot over the line.
He’s backally saying, “We Americans don’t get it. He did nothing wrong because both sides are the same.”
Rather than remorse, he’s doubled down.
Andy out here shooting straight through his foot and putting holes in his boat’s hull.
