• Erika3sis [she/her, xe/xem]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!

  • someguy3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Simple reply is: More emphasis on National[ism]. Hitler didn’t even like the name, the party was formed and named before he joined.

    • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Rocha@lm.put.tf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Welp, by the same logic, I guess social justice ain’t real justice.

    • Fanghole@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Jorgelino@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you. Logical fallacies like this irk me a thousand times more than any one ideology.

    • onkyo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, because everything must always be literal and if something is not words just don’t have meaning anymore /s