Adolf Hitler? Socialist.
Franklin Roosevelt? Socialist.
Joseph Stalin? Dare I say, he was a downright pinko!
The entirety of WWII was just leftist infighting over Trotskyist revisionism. Just a big ol' non-binary fuss over intercontinental ballistic tweets. Wake up, sheeple!
Simple reply is: More emphasis on National[ism]. Hitler didn't even like the name, the party was formed and named before he joined.
Having recently read Rise & Fall, yeah. The party started out as a small nationalist club with socialist tendencies to attract the impoverished WW1 soldiers. But Hitler only cared about the nationalist part, and once they had any sort of public presence, Hitler squashed any attempts at doing anything socialist. For example at one point when they were a minority party, there was a vote to take land from the wealthy Junkers, which some members of the party wanted to vote for, because it wouls be popular with their voters. But Hitler refused, because he wanted the Junker's support and money.
Does anyone actually say that?
Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Dinesh D'Souza, and Peter Hitchens among names you may have heard of.
As well as an endless supply of idiots on web forums throughout the last 30+ years.
This is the right's favourite lie to distance themselves from the natural end result of their ideology.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
sadly more people than you'd think
As democratic as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Permanently Deleted
You're better off.
Better off without him. I had to cut out a friend recently for, among other reasons, literally shushing me for being "too political."
I was saying I hope we get back the half hour busses we had before covid. 🙄
My mother loves to.
Oh, that's what those are called.
I'll have to save this image for the next time someone does this
shit.Welp, by the same logic, I guess social justice ain't real justice.
That's not the same logic though. His logic is "Noun A is part of noun AB, that does not mean noun AB is equal to or a subset of A." While the way you're interpreting it is "Noun A is part of noun AB, thus AB is not equal to and not a subset of A." The important part is that his logic only dictates that the relationship between A and AB are independent of eachother, while your interpretation states that A depends on AB in an inverse manner. Ie: "We cannot say popcorn is or is not corn based on name alone," vs "popcorn cannot be corn because corn is in the name."
Not taking a side on social justice, the logical comparison you attempted just bothered me. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Thank you. Logical fallacies like this irk me a thousand times more than any one ideology.
Yes, because everything must always be literal and if something is not words just don't have meaning anymore /s
