Wikimedia Bans Admin of Wikipedia Croatia For Pushing Radical Agenda (therecord.media) 209
The Record reports:
The Wikimedia Foundation has banned the administrator of the Croatian version of Wikipedia after an investigation revealed that together with other admins, they edited and distorted content on the site with radical right views. This group had de-facto control of the website between 2011 and 2020, the Wikimedia Foundation said in a report published earlier this month... This included:
- Claiming that Hitler attacked Poland and started World War II after the Poles committed genocide against Germans.
- Redefining a World War II concentration camp as a labor camp...
- Pushing opinions that EU decision-making endangers Croatia's sovereignty.
- Claiming that the EU had used propaganda to trick Croatian citizens into joining the European Union...
Since 2013 the dubious edits had been spotted by users and the Croatian press, according to the article — but other Croatian Wikipedia editors failed, multiple times, to wrest away control of the site's moderation.
"The Wikimedia Foundation got involved last year after it was discovered that the administrator of Croatian Wikipedia had been using sockpuppet accounts to manipulate discussions and staff elections on the site..." The Wikimedia Foundation's report on the abuses of this team also points to possibly similar far-right-based editing on Wikipedia's Serbian version as well. This is the second major Wikipedia scandal in the past year. In September 2020, the Wikimedia Foundation said it found and banned a public relations firm that had created and used a network of sockpuppet accounts to edit the site on behalf of some of its customers.
- Claiming that Hitler attacked Poland and started World War II after the Poles committed genocide against Germans.
- Redefining a World War II concentration camp as a labor camp...
- Pushing opinions that EU decision-making endangers Croatia's sovereignty.
- Claiming that the EU had used propaganda to trick Croatian citizens into joining the European Union...
Since 2013 the dubious edits had been spotted by users and the Croatian press, according to the article — but other Croatian Wikipedia editors failed, multiple times, to wrest away control of the site's moderation.
"The Wikimedia Foundation got involved last year after it was discovered that the administrator of Croatian Wikipedia had been using sockpuppet accounts to manipulate discussions and staff elections on the site..." The Wikimedia Foundation's report on the abuses of this team also points to possibly similar far-right-based editing on Wikipedia's Serbian version as well. This is the second major Wikipedia scandal in the past year. In September 2020, the Wikimedia Foundation said it found and banned a public relations firm that had created and used a network of sockpuppet accounts to edit the site on behalf of some of its customers.
That's not a "radical agenda" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hidden in there is a real funny story. The PR agencies, waffle on hard to their clients about how important internet image is. Problem is it is no where near as important as they claim, so many web sites, so much content, so many news sources, it is an internet flood and most of it just sort of disappears in the background.
They charge a fortune and con the clients in believing how critical it all is. Reality all the damage is done in an instant, upon first exposure of the truth. Try to fight it and you cau
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's not a "radical agenda" (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's where you're going with this, I'm not sure you're qualified to discuss the ignorance of other people.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Hitler was recorded as being against renaming the DAP to the NSDAP, because Hitler was very much against "The Socialists".
He was a fervent social darwinist and anti-socialist/communist.
He formed his first successful parliamentary government with the National The DAP leadership felt that the wording "National Socialist" would help make the tent bigger though.
Hitler had nothing but disdain for liberal democracy, and literally abolished it at his first chance.
He even tried
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Respect for individual liberty? How about the liberty to vote, which the GOP is hell-bent on restricting to a subset of society?
Re: (Score:2)
That subset (from an outsider's view) is the proven legal citizens. What subset are you talking about?
Every government restricts to a subset of the population of a country. There are various legal statuses in many places that are associated with serious criminal activity that remove voting privilege.
Anyhow, you successfully diverted making much of a response by whataboutism, which is a logical fallacy, which is essentially debating in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
The subset that the GOP is aiming for is primarily white citizens. They target the poor, which disproportionally affects African Americans.
As for whataboutism: no, it's not whataboutism to show that a claim made in a post isn't true.
If talking about voter suppression is causing you too much distress: let's talk about the rights of individuals who are journalists. Specifically, the targeting of journalists under the previous administration? Doesn't "freedom of the press" mean anything to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the GOP only wants citizens to vote, and to only vote once. How horrible of them.
Yeah, democrats think that black people aren't smart enough to get an ID, but they aren't the racist ones.
Let's assume that black people DO actually have a hard time getting an ID. The Democrat's response.. Fix the actual problem? Nope.
Somebody can't open a bank account? Who cares.
Can't board a commercial aircraft? Yeah, no big deal.
Can't legally buy a gun? So what?
Have trouble getting a library card? Not my probl
Re: (Score:2)
Before you make it more difficult to vote, you have to show that there is an actual problem. You have to show that there really is a non-trivial number of non-citizens voting, or a non-trivial number of people claiming to be someone else in order to vote.
You can't do this, because it simply isn't true.
So, since you don't have a reason to require ID, it's clearly voter suppression to require an ID.
Then we should look at the way states provide wildly unequal access to resources for getting an ID card between
Re: (Score:2)
Before you make it difficult to open a bank account, you have to show that there is an actual problem Before you make it hard to buy Sudafed, show that there is an actual problem.
The "actual problem" if it exists, is that some people can't get ID. Fix that and "showing ID to vote" is a NON-ISSUE, unless your intent is to make fraud easier.
The REASON to require ID is to make sure that you are ACTUALLY WHO YOU CLAIM TO BE ON YOUR VOTER'S REGISTRATION!!!! If you WANT to vote five or six times, the best thin
Re: (Score:2)
I am lilly-white, but I have three adopted black daughters. I will explain to them that according to people like you, they are too dumb to know how to get a driver's license. Then I will explain how you really aren't racist, despite having a low opinion of their IQ....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you have poor comprehension skills, so they don't have a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
Money laundering is a real and widespread problem. Your attempt at making a comparison failed.
For the most part, states issue IDs and the same states that demand that voters produce ID typically make it more difficult for poor people to get IDs.
Please tell me, if you have a job that requires
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surrounded by fucking morons. I'm tired of coddling you morons with kid gloves. You hate people being politically correct? Good deal. Here you go.
Deplorable is an inaccurate description of you. You're just. fucking. stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you guys come from? Like... what's the origin story? Dropkicked in the face as a newborn? Did your parents feed you lead supplements?
Respect for individual liberty: 1st and 2nd amendments are really only respected by the GOP
Because this dude. This. Is SO fucking stupid.
The GOP is the only entity that respects the 1st amendment? How the fuck do you figure?
Is respecting the first amendment when the Big Guy tried to send the DOJ after SNL because he didn't like being mocked?
Do you know what the fucking first amendment
Re: (Score:2)
Funny story, I have actually never watched Fox News. I do read though- the Federalist Papers, Locke and Hume, Newman, Von Mises, Hayek etc. I read Marx and Keynes in their own words. I read the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but it just made me sad that the rea of statesmen has passed.
Somehow, I really doubt that.
Otherwise you would have certainly stumbled across Constitutional Convention notes where the discussed the scope and origin of the 2A, including its original wording in the Articles of Confederacy.
Further, I can't imagine that anyone so versed in the writings of the great Enlightenment thinkers, or moral philosophers after that, would say something as goddamn stupid as this:
The person and their value is completely lost, as is true for all collectivist theories since Marx.
Marxism, or any of the schools of thought that bred from it having to do with erasing the person is a 5
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler's political party boiled down to antisemitism. Capitalism was suspect because, according to Hitler, Jews ran capitalism. Communism was also suspect because, according to Hitler, Jews ran communism.
More so, Hitler himself was careful to position his movement as a better alternative to both the left and the right - it was supposed to take from both the left and the right.
The "socialism" part of
Re:That's not a "radical agenda" (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck off. You don't 'die of overwork'.
You die by being beaten, by being shot, by being exposed to unsanitary conditions, by being medically experimented on, by malnutrition and yes, by being gassed.
The communists didn't gas people and didn't have mass shootings at their camps. They did generally mistreat people and they did kill many millions.
I'm happy to condemn both but don't fucking pretend the Germans didn't have a deliberate policy of genocide.
Re: (Score:2)
Holocaust denier at +5 insightful on slashdot. Why am I not surprised?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiousity, which part of my post do you actually think denies the holocaust?
Thank you nonetheless for linking an article that completely agrees with me. From that article:
minimal nutrition, food rationing; lack of hygiene; poor medical care and ensuing disease; and insufficient clothing (for example, summer clothes even in the winter).
Torture and physical abuse were also used.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to make the point that Nazis were bad? Because I'll bet at least 3/5 of Slashdot readers would agree with you.
You're right, ca
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine being so deep down the far left rabbit hole that you think that capitalist systems are slowly and painfully killing you in the same way that gulags do.
The depth of denial of genocide involved makes most holocaust deniers look like sane and coherent individuals in comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you so happily refer to wikipedia: that 1/6 number is not stated there. In fact, this section [wikipedia.org] says, that over 1.5 million were gassed with Carbon Monoxide, which was used before they used Cyanide gas. Assuming, that 6 million was the total number of murdered individuals in the shoah, these 1.5 million were already 1/4. The remaining deaths can be attributed mostly to mass shootings, not so much overwork, because only 10-20% of incoming people were even selected for work.
I'll happily discuss this with
Re: (Score:2)
Since you so happily refer to wikipedia: that 1/6 number is not stated there. In fact, this section [wikipedia.org] says, that over 1.5 million were gassed with Carbon Monoxide, which was used before they used Cyanide gas. Assuming, that 6 million was the total number of murdered individuals in the shoah, these 1.5 million were already 1/4. The remaining deaths can be attributed mostly to mass shootings, not so much overwork, because only 10-20% of incoming people were even selected for work.
I'll happily discuss this with you, if you come up with links and data, not just made up drivel.
Indeed, it looks like they removed the numbers references again. It's been an ongoing war on wikipedia page on whether they should include specific numbers or not for a long time, with overwhelmingly far left administration long complaining about page that travelled looking so similar to that of Stalin's gulags and Mao's laogai system in terms of cause of death.
Regardless, it's utterly uncontroversial, even if there's a massive effort to bury the numbers now that Communism and its crimes against humanity is
Expand your vision, Foundation. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact I was just ranting elsewhere that lately someone is going around adding postmodernist-style analysis to a lot of book descriptions, such that the author becomes depicted as either a white supremacist or properly woke, as the opinion of the editor may choose.
Way too much piss in that pool anymore.
Loss of sovereignty in the EU (Score:2)
How is this an opinion, and a far right one at that? Isn't it fact? EU membership comes with a sovereignty trade-off, which most EU members have decided is worth it. The UK for example, decided it wasn't worth it. Meanwhile, the discussion of ever tighter integration continues, and of course that will come at the loss of more sovereignty.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong is wrong (Score:2)
BOHICA
Re: (Score:2)
Either I'm a lot further to the right than most people, or there isn't really a substantial right wing anywhere in the world. (Right would oppose left, on pretty much every point, yet aside from a VERY few including myself, no one does.)
I don't expect the far-far-left to give me a platform. My principles say that their platforms are theirs and that it would be wrong for me or others to try to gain control of those by any other than strictly lawful means, means that do not violate the rights of anyone, not
truth is more precious than time (Score:2)
Journalist/Analyst presents fact; Broker 'generates' opinion;
"Time is precious, but truth is more precious than time" --Benjamin Disraeli (b. 1804)
A Real 2021 Scandal (Score:2)
I miss the days when a scandal meant someone embezzled money and/or got coked up and slept with the boss's wife/husband (hey, it's 2021).
How can you miss them given what happened today? Let me introduce you to the UK's former secretary of health [theguardian.com]. He cheated on his wife, broke the UK's covid isolation rules and violated the ministerial code of conduct all at once. So don't worry, if you are looking for real scandals that's still one area where politicians won't disappoint you, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
And the photos proving this happened to leak right at the time when there was turmoil in government and speculation that the PM wanted him gone. Sometimes the conspiracy theories are right: It's quite possible that someone else in power has been holding on to this dirt for months, waiting for the time to deploy it against a rival.
Re: A Real 2021 Scandal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the days when a scandal meant someone embezzled money and/or got coked up and slept with the boss's wife/husband (hey, it's 2021).
I mean those happen still [theguardian.com]. But first, you're on Slashdot, which I get it Slashdot 2021 ain't what it used to be, but it still is tech with the sometimes interesting political/scandalous story but that leads me into my second point of. Second, pretty much we've all grown accustomed to the fact that people with power fuck around and do drugs, so not many sites see that as all too interesting because. Third, there's a ton of competition out there now for eyeballs, so sites pick things they know will stir th
Re: some issues with wikimedia's statement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: some issues with wikimedia's statement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because ones an actual troll and the other was a funny way of putting a childish trolling shit in his place.
Some arguments are not worth addressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the one in this discussion with actual arguments gets downvoted -1 as troll, while the fuming, swearing, name calling troll, ignoring all arguments, is still at +2. Modding doesn't work if one party thinks the subject is forbidden.
The modding works because this isn't the place to debate the Holocaust. Or that Poland started WWII. Go read about Operation Himmler, the false flag attacks by Germany to justify invading Poland. And on the Holocaust, what EXACTLY do you think needs to be discussed?
Feel free to present an actual argument instead of arguing with mods. I know I'm not going to get tired of modding down neo-nazi talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:some issues with wikimedia's statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking your example of Auschwitz (which actually was a complex of several camps) starting in March 1942, many were gassed on arrival. I think it is most accurate to say that those sent to the concentration camps were sent there to be harvested. The strongest, and those with certain skills, could be exploited for a few months by using them as slave labour. Robbing them of all their possessions on arrival was also part of the process. However, that was not the primary point of the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question'. Primarily they were brought to the death camps to be exterminated
Calling the Nazi concentration camps 'labour camps' is as misleading as calling the Xinjiang internment camps 'Vocational Education and Training Centers'.
Re: (Score:2)
Their primary goal was labor. Their secondary goal was to keep making room for new arrivals, so when someone's usefulness was used up, they sent them to the gas chambers.
The prisoners were also systematically underfed. A prison that murders people to make room for new arrivals is no longer a prison. It is a place people are sent to die. That's without starving the prisoners, toss that in, and it only makes it more obviously a death camp.
A place where humans are sent one way to die is a death camp, period. If you give everyone free art classes during their stay, you can't call it "primarily an art school". You fucking tool.
Re: some issues with wikimedia's statement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There's more to go, Wiki (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Define "right wing". Define "left wing". (Score:5, Funny)
German national socialists were socialists like the westboro Baptist church are baptists.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), was a socialist state that spanned most of Europe and Asia during its existence from..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Apparently they thought of themselves as socialists, so perhaps it's more a matter of communism being a specific interpretation of the socialist ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
I want the opinion of Slashdot readers. I can't find that at the library.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden is not socialist, and you didn't make a distinction on how socialism and communism differs. Socialism, communism, and Marxism all appear to be the slightest of variations on the theme of collective ownership of property. Marx may have defined socialism as the path to communism but then that gets back to my original question on how to know the difference. If socialism is the stepping stone to communism then how is one going to know when that step is complete and communism has been achieved?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused how "right wing" can group National Socialists with US Republican Party leaders like Ronald Reagan or UK Conservative Party leaders like Maggie Thatcher.
It does not group them together - they are in different contexts. There is no implication that the right wing of the US congress is the same as the right wing of any other country's politics. And "radical right" or "far right" means something very different to just plain "right wing" or "conservative". HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't help because you gave nothing on how to determine a right wing party from a left wing party in any nation. Sure, political left and right can have nuance based on the time and place but there must be some defining feature that is consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
how to determine a right wing party from a left wing party in any nation.
eh? The more conservative party is designated as the right. You must know that, so what is the real question?
Re: (Score:2)
What defining features, ideals, policies, practices, or thoughts make right wing and left wing distinct?
OK, I see what you were getting at. If you just say what you think instead of asking rhetorical questions, I'll probably agree.
There are of course no "defining features". Political views cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional spectrum.
The left/right thing is just helpful sometimes. And misleading other times.
I had one reply claim that right wing means racist,
Well that person is obviously a political bigot.
Re: (Score:2)
There are of course no "defining features".
What do you mean "of course"? Being in the political right wing means something or we would not use the term. At best I got so far is that people on the right wing are opposed to the left wing. Okay, what does it mean to be in the political left wing?
Political views cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional spectrum.
Then don't reduce it to one dimension. Perhaps give a list of 5 things that would typically define someone as right wing, and if someone believes 3 of them then maybe we could consider them right wing. If the left wing is the anti-right wing then someone t
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps give a list of 5 things that would typically define someone as right wing,
Is google broken? You know the answers, but just have a chip on your shoulder, and are not hearing my answers. You still have a false premise in your fake questions.
In the US for example, the right tends to be ... oh FFS, there are any number of sources. Stop asking stupid questions and being obsessed with semantics.
Are you God-fearing, pro-gun, anti-abortion, and revere the founding fathers? Then you are right wing. Embrace it. Does not mean you are "far", "radical" or RWNJ.
Just as a person who pr
Re: (Score:3)
That's an old revisionist argument. N@zis were right wing, pure and simple. Why argue against that obvious fact? Do you think just because they were right wing that all those right of center must also be tainted? Do you also thing those left of center just just commies in training? The view that n@zis were left wingers was a rare stance until this millenium, as if it's being pushed as an idea for political purposes.
" Is that how a right wing person treats other right wing people?" Do you think just bec
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, and the so called "alt right" are left wingers too. I mean come on, Richard Spencer endorsed Joe Biden.
Re: (Score:3)
Utter nonsense, everyone knew the National socialists were left wing
This is so utterly ignorant.
The NSDAP rose from the DAP. the NS part was added in spite of very vocal objection by Hitler.
Eventually, he decided he could just roll with it, and National Socialist became the name for his brand of fascism.
But there was never anything left wing about that party.
They were Anti-communist, nativist, authoritarian, social darwinists.
You could call them modern day Republicans if you wanted to troll. You wouldn't be wrong, but it would still be considered trolling.
They were ar
Re: (Score:2)
Once out of prison in 1909 Mussolini wrote countless articles for Marxist socialist publications. He then started his own newspaper with the very Marxist title of La Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle). You don't get any more Marxist than this folks. Soviet Lenin praised Mussolini in 1912. Only later did the split between the communist leftists and fascist leftists appear. In the early days they were buddies.
Re: (Score:2)
He was very literary minded, and was well versed in socialist thinkers at the time.
He even toyed around being a socialist for a while, but it wasn't really a fit for him, because he decided that socialism had faltered and that egalitarianism should be replaced with social darwinism and the Nietsche's concept of übermensch.
That's when he became a fascist, and decidedly right wing.
You simply cannot fit Nietsche into any kind of socialist school of thoug
Re: (Score:2)
He was a Marxist, if you want to try and split a hair between Marxism and Communism. You claim that he rejected socialism, but he came to rule Northern Italy, he called it Repubblica Sociale Italiana, or the Republic of Socialist Italy.
Fascism is inherently collectivist, which is to say left. To argue that collectivism is to the right is batshit crazy. When asked what fascism is, Mussolini replied it was "like your new deal", which is to say like Roosevelt's Democrat policies. Under Mussolini, membership
Re: (Score:2)
That is because cultural institutions that set those standards that currently exist in most of anglosphere are the sole purview of the left. French philosophers of 1930s clearly defined National Socialists to be left wing in their time, and they were revised to be "right wing" only in 1950s. Fascist thought leaders like Gentili clearly agreed with that. If you read fascist texts, they will tell you straight up that Fascism and its derivatives like National Socialism as an ideology is an outgrowth of Sociali
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't be genocidal, or compared to those evil genocidal people, because I define myself as good!"
I know that far leftists hate this connection and this is their primary argument against it. It's why concept of "far right" was aggressively shifted by the far left intelligencia from what it actually was in the 1930s and 1940s, that being "conservatives seeking to maintain republics and monarchies against onslaught of progressives represented primarily by communists, socialists and national socialists" to "
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't be genocidal, or compared to those evil genocidal people, because I define myself as good!"
Ah yes, a moral relativist.
I literally provided examples of why your relativism is stupid.
If you're too fucking dim-witted to understand them and respond to them cogently, just duck out of the conversation. No need to make yourself look any dumber.
I know that far leftists hate this connection and this is their primary argument against it. It's why concept of "far right" was aggressively shifted by the far left intelligencia from what it actually was in the 1930s and 1940s, that being "conservatives seeking to maintain republics and monarchies against onslaught of progressives represented primarily by communists, socialists and national socialists" to "national socialists".
Far leftists don't hate this connection, they correctly identify the connection as laughably stupid.
National Socialists are not socialists.
I'll say it again for you, because you're clearly too fucking stupid to read.
National Socialism [splcenter.org] is not a left-wing move
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just post SPLC, the hyper partisan far left smear factory that is on record being so extreme as to call people who dare to de-radicalize islamists "far right" as evidence of something other than your derangement for caring about their opinions?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty weak.
The problem with using an ad hominem fallacy, is of course that it's fallacious.
It means you gave yourself no ground to stand on.
We all saw the footage at Unite the Right, man.
You fuckers thought you were untouchable.
National Socialists march with you guys, not with us.
Re: (Score:2)
"I will site a known smear factory in full seriousness."
"How dare you question my sources for having a very poor relationship with truth and objective reality?!"
"I see things!"
Get off drugs. It will help you see reality, rather than things you're seeing.
Re: (Score:2)
"I will site a known smear factory in full seriousness."
Whether or not SPLC is a smear factory is an opinion. One that isn't commonly held, even by Republicans. They're highly cited.
"How dare you question my sources for having a very poor relationship with truth and objective reality?!"
You argued using a fallacy. Ad hominem in this instance. The source isn't relevant. All is relevant is if the pictures are real. Are you claiming SPLC fabricated them?
I mean you can validate them in 3 seconds using Google.
"I see things!"
What?
You're a fucking idiot.
Are you so desperate to keep your own reality coherent as to deny that Nazis aren't a staple at any far-right rally?
It's pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine that we translated "Nazi" not as "national socialist" but as "privatizer": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Does it make more sense that Thatcher might be like the Nazis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Define "right wing". Define "left wing". (Score:4, Insightful)
People can't tell if you're gaslighting, or stupid.
They've chosen the latter, because slashdot doesn't give us a -1 GoBackToEatingYourSoap.
The Nazi party has a rather long history, but I'll give you the super condensed version.
After an attempted coup, the right wing elements of the party eliminated (literally) the left wing elements of the party.
The loci of power in the country hated the left wing elements of the party so much that they pretty much said "ya, sure why not. we won't complain"
The resulting National Socialist party that outlawed all left-wing parties after declaring Hitler the absolute ruler after the Reichstag fire was a very, very, very right-wing group of individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
You gave nothing to define right wing or left wing.
If the right wing of the National Socialists killed off all the left wing people in the party then why keep the name if it no longer described their philosophy? If socialism or nationalism is right wing then how are Democratic Socialists considered left wing?
It appears I got people's attention given the number of replies to my post, but so far nobody has answered my question on what are defining features of the political left and right.
Re:Define "right wing". Define "left wing". (Score:5, Interesting)
You gave nothing to define right wing or left wing.
I shouldn't have to, but I'll give you the generics:
The Right wing, to which Hitler's Nazis are generally considered to have been in political science:
anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies.
The Left wing, or Hitler's opponents are generally for social equality, egalitarianism.
If the right wing of the National Socialists killed off all the left wing people in the party then why keep the name if it no longer described their philosophy?
Imagine, if you will, that the true Trumpophiles in the Republican Party had an event. Let's say they called it The Knight Of The Long Knives.
After they had done the deed, would they then rename their party?
Some reading for you, I think. [wikipedia.org]
Basically, the NSDAP initially had a very socialist leaning with what they called a "25 point program" to implement whatever their brand of socialism was.
Hitler however quickly became a rising star within the party, and formed his own paramilitary branch (the SS) to match that of the original socialist paramilitary branch (the SA)
As the SA (and Rohm) became more and more upset that Hitler obviously had no intention of implement the 25 points, Hitler became afraid they were going to take over the party (and again, all of the right-wing former monarchy establishment in the country hated the left wingers).
Hitler "consolidated power". Generally right in the streets with people watching.
Justifications were written up after the fact.
? If socialism or nationalism is right wing then how are Democratic Socialists considered left wing?
Socialism isn't right wing.
You seem to have missed the point again.
Hitler's National Socialists were not socialists.
This isn't a No True Socialist argument- he literally killed off the left-wing aspect of the party (the SA and its leadership) and then literally outlawed any and all left-wing parties from running for parliament.
Hitler's national socialists are right wing.
Your average socialist? Left wing.
As I said, you're getting caught up on what people called themselves without looking at the history of it.
It appears I got people's attention given the number of replies to my post, but so far nobody has answered my question on what are defining features of the political left and right.
That is again, I think because people don't think you're seriously asking a question like that.
There are many definitions available to you.
Why must we copy and paste them for you? Did you never take a polisci course out of boredom?
The book "Why Hitler?: The Genesis of the Nazi Reich." by Mitcham, Samuel W. Jr. details party deliberations where "Socialist" was added to the moniker for no reason than to pick up more left-wing voters, over Hitler's vehement objection.
This was back when the NSDAP was only the DAP. You can probably guess what the NS they added was. They picked up the voters they wanted, and then they killed that faction of the party once their power was solidified.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially the one about killing Jewish people.
Ya, remember that time Bernie got up there and talking about killing Jews?
Almost every single one of their policies comes straight out of socialist dogma.
That's patently false, and there's a reason that the Nazis are considered a far-right party.
That's because academics are smarter than you. Which isn't a terribly fucking hard bar to hit.
Perhaps I could just quote some of Hitler's own disgust with Socialists and Communists to you?
Would it make a difference?
Re: (Score:2)
You let me know when you see Bernie Sanders scream "from the river to the sea!"
The people who say that are shit-for-brains terrorists like Hamas.
Again, you're a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't comment on Bernie Sanders. I pointed out that many of his supporters are actual Hamas fans.
Actually, you initially attributed the desire to eradicate Jews to socialists. You then narrowed it to Bernie Bros after I laughingly brought up Bernie (A Jew, no less)
But hey, I'm more than willing to tackle these goalposts too.
Bernie supports are supporters of Hamas? Na, fuck you.
They generally support Palestinians, because frankly, they're in a pretty shitty fucking spot, and liberals are generally against shit like apartheid, but there isn't a liberal alive talking about driving the Jews into the sea
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you initially attributed the desire to eradicate Jews to socialists. You then narrowed it to Bernie Bros after I laughingly brought up Bernie (A Jew, no less)
I didn't narrow it down. I pointed out that his fans are included amongst the ranks of anti-semetic socialists.
People who hate Jewish people:
- Socialists, national or otherwise
- Muslims
- Neo-nazis
Now whether neo-Nazis are socialist or right-wing would require greater exploration of their political views than I can be arsed with, not least because it's entirely fucking irrelevant to the point I was making.
Nazis were socialists, and had many socialist policies, including hating Jewish people which is common a
Re: (Score:3)
People who hate Jewish people: - Socialists, national or otherwise
- Muslims
- Neo-nazis
National Socialists are Nazis, are Neo-Nazis. Those guys vote republican, shit-for-brains.
They don't vote for socialists, because they, unlike you, are well aware that National Socialism was not what you are referring to as Socialism.
Muslims? Muslims hate Jews? Really, dude?
Socialists hate Jews? Again, really?
Every socialist in this fucking country is currently pissed off because they can't seem to get their favorite socialist, a Jew, into fucking office.
Nazis were socialists
That is false. I can back it up all day with a th
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats have a problem with antisemitism in the party. Sanders is among them with his policies on Israel and Palestinians, while he may not be explicitly supporting the killing of Jews he's not exactly speaking or acting in their defense as they are being killed.
No. Fuck you, shit-for-brains.
You don't get to call any kind of criticism of the government of Israel antisemitism.
It's funny that Democrats are the ones who have a problem with antisemitism in the party, but I don't recall seeing fucking swastikas at any left-wing political rallies.
Those guys with the fucking NSM banners that are sick attempts at mimicking the NSDAP banner? Ya, those guys don't vote democrat.
You're a fucking moron, or you're trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
One more time, what the fuck does NSM stand for?
Stands for National Socialist Movement. And you know who those guys vote for? Republicans.
Again, you can see them marching in a conservative protest venue near you, shooting the shit with the KKK guys and other ilk you carry under your tent.
You're STILL trying to use the fact that Nazis use the word "Socialist" as an attempt to call them Socialists. And you're still a fucking idiot for doing that.
But hey, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the next election in the Democratic People's Republic o
Re: (Score:2)
You are arguing that a Jewish man is anti-semitic?
Perhaps you might want to try to understand the difference between anti-zionist and antisemitic.
Re: (Score:2)
You are arguing that a Jewish man is anti-semitic?
Yes, and I'm not alone in this.
Re: (Score:2)
As I wrote, you and your friends need to understand the difference between antisemitic and anti-zionist.
Words are fun (Score:3)
And the Tea Party was about tea, it's right there in the name.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: LOL at Wikimedia/pedia (Score:2)
Wikipedia isn't facts, they openly admit this. It's not about what's true, it's about what there are credible sources for. And credible is subjective.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Don't forget the time Jimmy Wales edited his girlfriend's Wikipedia page to remove the fact that she had falsely accused her swim coach of sexual harassment as revenge for his not going out with her. Missing from Rachel Marsden's wikipedia page: The coach was fired even though he had tapes of her from his answering machine and that he only got his job back after a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
I fully support the agenda of accurately documenting history and reject any agenda to distort it for political reasons. And so should you.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The real fascists are those who are fighting the fascists.
Definitely. We can play this stupid fucking game for anyone. What shall we call it? No True Fascist?
Fucking moron.
Re:the price of freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the paradox of tolerance. If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. In order to keep being tolerant, a society must be intolerant toward intolerance.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using violence, intimidation tactics, smear campaigns etc. you're never the good guy no matter what you think about yourself or what you call yourself.
Correct. But it doesn't mean you're the most bad guy.
What about those dirty murderers back in '44 shooting up the fascists on the fields of France?
When you embrace "the ends justify the means," you become an arrogant tyrant.
That doesn't even make any fucking sense.
Tyranny has nothing to do with believing the ends justify the means, or not.
And let's be real, to some extent, we all believe the ends justify the means. We're just arguing over where that line fits, in a way that suits us better than our opponents. Come on, simpleton.
Even the Nazis thought they were the good guys and played word games to justify it.
Indeed, which is precisely what y
Re: (Score:2)
It only seemed misleading because you're too fucking stupid to put words together as sentences in your fucking pea brain.
All I see from your points is a bunch of "blah often..."
You lost the argument right the fuck there.
This isn't a statistics study.
Re: Non-English WP (Score:2)
Is it though? Or could it be that the whole thing is biased and you are used to the bias in the English version?
Read a page on something you know about professionally and see how objective it is. I learned to treat Wikipedia like "a guy in the pub, who seemed to know, said.."
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for absolutely every article, but when it comes to my field of electric engineering it's actually not bad.
On the other hand the localized Germ
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give an example? I don't know the names of any conservative youtubers, because I've never wanted to before now
Re: "The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:2)
A concentration camp is where you collect people for holding. A labor camp is a type of concentration camp.
The reality is that these were extermination camps, and both terms are polite euphemisms. Concentration camps are what the U.S. had for the Japanese.
Re: (Score:2)