Talk:Nazism
I said "pseudoscience" because they were fans of pseudoscience for some reason. Ask RobS, I'm sure he could tell us about it.-αmεσ (!) 21:44, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
- For pages and pages, no less. CЯacke® 21:46, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
- Hitler himself was into the occult, and Nazi race ideas were based on pseudoscientific eugenics ideas. They still sucked.--PalMD-Berate Me 21:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
- See Godwin's Law SJGsjg 22:01, 15 September 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
[edit] Definition
In the light of recent events, do we need to review our definition?--Bobbing up 15:22, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
- can the new definition include Zionist Jews who believe in their racial superiority over the Palestinians who they kicked out of their homeland because of a 2000 year old myth? --Choose 15:32, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
- No, because that would be hyperbolic unfounded inanity. --Linus(plot evil tech) 16:35, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Latest edit
A new editor has left us with this citation [1] anyone know what it is from? - User
06:35, 18 December 2008 (EST)
- I have cleaned it up a little. The writing was pretty bad. It may have been Fall down again trying to prove as long as you write conservatives are bad we wont kick you off. - User
06:39, 18 December 2008 (EST)
[edit] Removing Extreme Wingnuttery
I could be wrong here--but something tells me that by tagging the Nazi article this way, we're (not so) indirectly making a Godwin-esque comment on other people/movements we've tagged this way--people and movements who may be wingnuts, but aren't genocidal. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see why you removed but after much thought I think we should add it. It is a right-wing extremist movement, after all. However there are different degrees of extreme wingnuttiness, which is somewhat clear in the categories. Michael Medved, though a wingnut, obviously isn't as wingnutty as David Duke, so it's already clear there are different degrees of wingnuttiness. In fairness (balance fallacy I know but still...) I have added far-left Maiosm to extreme moonbattery, which is a philosophy that killed even more people when implemented, so its clear we're not shilling for one side.ClothCoat (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Slave religions
Hitler extended his rationalizations into religious doctrine, claiming that those who agreed with and taught his "truths," were "true" or "master" religions, because they would "create mastery" by avoiding comforting lies. Those that preach love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts," were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognizes these "truths," Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader," and those who deny it were said to be "natural slaves." "Slaves," especially intelligent ones, he claimed were always attempting to hinder masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines. [2]
Above is a quote which shows the Nazi attitude, if you don't agree with our religious ideas you're a slave, I've put it into the article. Also it's better to have other references as well as Wikipedia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Linking "far right" to "conservative" and linking socialist.
As Nazism was a sui generis political movement and as comparisons to Nazism are a common rhetorical weapon, I suggest that "conservative" in the sense that it is used today is not really applicable to this sort of genocidal, racialist ideology. Moreover, few socialists as the term is usually used would recognize much of anything they believe in in Nazi ideology. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 02:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Coconut
Allegedly (tweet from @qikipedia [The QI Elves]) the Swahili for 'coconut' is 'nazi'. Scream!! (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Nazism as Leftist
There really needs to be a debunking of the "Nazis were leftist" lunacy that's now in wide circulation among hyper-rightists.
[edit] Type of pathogen
Is it a bacteria, a parasite, or a virus? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 19:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Pius XII
What's the problem with John Cornwell? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Swastika-wearing Dominican cab driver
I don't know why this guy doesn't want to talk about the Holocaust and whether he's an admirer of Hitler, if he's so proud of his beliefs. But I like how he defends his First Amendment right to wear whatever he wants. Kinda like what was written in American Booksellers v. Hudnut, "Bald or subtle, an idea is as powerful as the audience allows it to be. A belief may be pernicious -- the beliefs of Nazis led to the death of millions, those of the Klan to the repression of millions. A pernicious belief may prevail. Totalitarian governments today rule much of the planet, practicing suppression of billions and spreading dogma that may enslave others. One of the things that separates our society from theirs is our absolute right to propagate opinions that the government finds wrong or even hateful." Ironically enough, the fact that he's going around with a Nazi armband, while others go around with turbans, burqas, rainbow flags, etc. shows us that freedom of speech is still alive in this country, and that therefore, Nazism or other authoritarian doctrines haven't prevailed. Landmartian (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Irony is lost on some people. They also champion to say what they wish, and associate with whom they wish, but if anyone applies it to them they get really angry. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, it's their right to get angry, just like we can get angry at them. Landmartian (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it wasn't their right. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I never said you said it wasn't their right. :) Landmartian (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, misinterpreted sorry. My opinion is that people can think/write/say whatever they want, assuming no direct threats, but they need to remember others will do the same thing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I never said you said it wasn't their right. :) Landmartian (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it wasn't their right. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, it's their right to get angry, just like we can get angry at them. Landmartian (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)