I can appreciate that. Were you ever to read it, I can recommend padding your forehead, because by the time you're done, you'll have facepalmed enough to leave bruises.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that we're not engaging in the same kind of debate. But maybe folks in the audience would be interested in some historical details.
Hitler came to power on 30 Jan 1933. Within a month, he assumed total control with the Reichstag Fire Decree.
"The Reichstag Fire Decree permitted the regime to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and to suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments. The decree was a key step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. Germany became a police state in which citizens enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police."
By March Dachau Camp was established.
Trump has been in office four years, lost an election, and was re-elected. The early Nazi timeline was measured in weeks, not years.
While it may be true that a new Nazi regime wouldn't be identical to the old one, calling out something as "nearly Nazi" isn't benign.
Not only does such hyperbole muddy the waters of what actual authoritarianism looks like, making it harder to recognize when it does show up, but people casually equating present-day opponents with Nazis, inflames polarization, deepens paranoia, and increases the risk that political disputes escalate into real violence.
I'd prefer less political violence in everyone's future. The pathway there starts with some minimal agreement on reality. Like maybe it's possible that we are NOT living a repetition of 1933 Germany. Nobody even needs to believe it yet, just entertain the idea.
One of the problems with trying to have a discussion like this anonymously, typed out over the internet, is that instead of absorbing a disagreement logically and seeing the valid points someone else might be making, we tend to become more entrenched in our own viewpoint. Writing it out can feel like proving it to ourselves. That makes different perspectives harder to understand, not easier.
To combat that in myself, I regularly run my own arguments through AI (it’s never busy) and ask: “Am I overlooking something? What questions am I not asking? Can I steel-man the opposing side?” I also try to ask, “What would it take for me to change my mind?”
From my point of view, your San Francisco Chronicle example actually reinforces my point. Trump is **asking permission**. Hitler didn’t ask. He acted. Big difference.
I’m not much of a Trump supporter — some of his life choices are distasteful — but here’s what it would take for me to conclude we’re living in a fascist state:
Large groups of opposition *citizens* targeted by law enforcement entirely without cause.
Suspension of elections.
Federal takeover of the media.
Suspension of civil rights.
Suspension of the courts.
Suspending congress.
As long as middle-aged women feel empowered to chase down ICE agents and demand to see their clipboards without repercussions, I’m not buying it.
Resorting to little jabs about my supposed ‘newness’ to the topic and suggesting I don't know political philosophy is a curious tactic, especially since it’s much easier than engaging with what I actually wrote.
If you could refute the argument, you would. You didn’t. Which tells me everything I need to know.
I won’t read the Rosenberg book, but love that he uses a line from the late great Tom Lehrer for his title.
I can appreciate that. Were you ever to read it, I can recommend padding your forehead, because by the time you're done, you'll have facepalmed enough to leave bruises.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that we're not engaging in the same kind of debate. But maybe folks in the audience would be interested in some historical details.
Hitler came to power on 30 Jan 1933. Within a month, he assumed total control with the Reichstag Fire Decree.
"The Reichstag Fire Decree permitted the regime to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and to suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments. The decree was a key step in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. Germany became a police state in which citizens enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police."
By March Dachau Camp was established.
Trump has been in office four years, lost an election, and was re-elected. The early Nazi timeline was measured in weeks, not years.
Anyone who's interested can follow the full rise of Nazi Germany timeline here: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/timeline/holocaust
While it may be true that a new Nazi regime wouldn't be identical to the old one, calling out something as "nearly Nazi" isn't benign.
Not only does such hyperbole muddy the waters of what actual authoritarianism looks like, making it harder to recognize when it does show up, but people casually equating present-day opponents with Nazis, inflames polarization, deepens paranoia, and increases the risk that political disputes escalate into real violence.
I'd prefer less political violence in everyone's future. The pathway there starts with some minimal agreement on reality. Like maybe it's possible that we are NOT living a repetition of 1933 Germany. Nobody even needs to believe it yet, just entertain the idea.
One of the problems with trying to have a discussion like this anonymously, typed out over the internet, is that instead of absorbing a disagreement logically and seeing the valid points someone else might be making, we tend to become more entrenched in our own viewpoint. Writing it out can feel like proving it to ourselves. That makes different perspectives harder to understand, not easier.
To combat that in myself, I regularly run my own arguments through AI (it’s never busy) and ask: “Am I overlooking something? What questions am I not asking? Can I steel-man the opposing side?” I also try to ask, “What would it take for me to change my mind?”
From my point of view, your San Francisco Chronicle example actually reinforces my point. Trump is **asking permission**. Hitler didn’t ask. He acted. Big difference.
I’m not much of a Trump supporter — some of his life choices are distasteful — but here’s what it would take for me to conclude we’re living in a fascist state:
Large groups of opposition *citizens* targeted by law enforcement entirely without cause.
Suspension of elections.
Federal takeover of the media.
Suspension of civil rights.
Suspension of the courts.
Suspending congress.
As long as middle-aged women feel empowered to chase down ICE agents and demand to see their clipboards without repercussions, I’m not buying it.
Resorting to little jabs about my supposed ‘newness’ to the topic and suggesting I don't know political philosophy is a curious tactic, especially since it’s much easier than engaging with what I actually wrote.
If you could refute the argument, you would. You didn’t. Which tells me everything I need to know.