Iiiiiiiits NAZI PUNCHING TIME!!!
I oppose punching Nazis.
You might hurt your hand.
Use an object instead.
I enjoy the satisfaction of a broken hand after some nazi punching. Reminds me I did something good for the world.
Something you can be proud to tell your grandkids about one day. “Kids, a storm be a brewin’ - I can feel it in my bones. Because I once broke my hand on a Nazi’s face.”
You’ve never punched anybody, have you.
You have a severe lack of sarcasm, don’t you?
I shot a lot of zombies
I once bruised my hand badly enough to need a brace. Another time I broke my forearm and mostly lost the use of my dominant hand for a couple of months. Trust me, it’s not worth it.
I’ve broken many bones in just my hands in the 40+ years I have been on this earth, from soccer when I was a kid, to fights as a teen, and tools as an adult. I’m not afraid of hurting myself on a fascist nazi.
deleted by creator
If only we had some technology that could throw bits of hard things really fast from a good distance away. Science may never know if it is possible.
I hope it makes a satisfying “PING” sound when it’s done throwing hard things at Nazis for the moment.
We perfected Nazi neutralizing tech in 1911. Call me a fud but it just feels like the right tool for the job
I’ve used both an M1 and a 1911 .45. Both are absolute perfection, but the M1 makes the ping sound. It wins.
Maybe I’ve been bit by the clip one too many or maybe I just love heeling the mag into the well. Dealers choice I suppose, I somehow both love and hate taking apart the spring assembly under a 1911 slide
Either way, if it’s killin Nazis it’s doing it’s job
Pings for democracy!
It’s incredibly important to our democracy that we beat Trump.
Here, use this piece of rebar.
I figured it was a bit of a BYOB (Bring Your Own Bat) sort of scenario
(Holding a pitchfork). Yeah! Well sorta.
Its always good to bring extras in case someone forgets.
These days, and especially with the continuing shift to the right in Europe, I’m repeatedly asking myself what the attractiveness of these ideologies is, that so many people again fall for them. They represent destruction not future. They do not have a plan for the future, they are only “against” everything good.
They construct an ideology where everything was great way back when foreign powers were jealous of our national heritage and destroyed everything. It’s a very easy to grasp and convenient myth, since your nation becomes the main character of history.
Nationalism/patriotism is very succeptible to falling for fascist ideology. Therefore, everyone waving their national flag with pride is sus to me.
Your last sentence especially hit it home for me. I’m not currently proud of America, and I myself would feel like a total jamoke waving around the US flag with a grin right now.
But I will vote and try my best to fight for a country that I can be proud of.
…one can support american ideals without supporting actions of the american state: it’s our choice which that flag represents…
…sadly, fascists have so brazenly siezed the apparatus of our state that whenever i see its flag proudly unfurled these days, my first reaction is to associate its bearer with fascism…
Same thing any “in group” feeds on: self esteem. If you feel powerless, or worthless, or rudderless, any group that makes you feel powerful, valuable, and effective is going to be very appealing. Conservatives (read: fascists) prey on this. They make it seem like joining them is brave, and important. And since their followers lack identity and purpose, their self worth becomes entangled with [in group], be it closeted fascism such as the American GOP, or flaming such as Q/proud boys/whatever. And since their identity and value depends on the perpetuation and proliferation of their in group, they willingly accept lies and falsehood. Pretty easy to gaslight someone who’s encouraging it.
Then when they wear their symbols of hate, or make shocking claims, or in anyway troll and grief society, up to and including dismantling democracy, they get a reaction. They’ve exerted their will on the world around them, and as such they feel powerful. The insidious bit is, even if the good guys win, with all their high falutin factual arguments and social programs, it just makes these sad people angier and feel worthless again. So they go right back to their pimps for some more sweet lies and marching orders.
How do I upvote a comment twice?
Make more accounts
…i use the little star so i can find again it later…
This is spot on and something I teach in social psychology. One thing that helps is increasing membership in other groups so that the dismantling of one group doesn’t fracture their self identity. Granted I usually teach this with more benign examples (e.g. if you’re a “good student” and get a bad grade, it hurts more depending on how important it is to your identity). But the idea is the same.
A few things you can look up though: cognitive dissonance, confirmation biases, contact hypothesis, and probably a few more. The funny thing is, social psychology as a discipline boomed after WW2 because people wanted to know why Nazis were Nazis. It’s only recently we also realized that social rejection uses the same parts of the brain as physical pain, though.
The biggest irony is they will always be worthless because of their shitty mentalities
Fascism preys on the ideas of regime change and stagnation. Physically, a government wishing to gather power through voters will promise new public works, a focus on workers, and the general embetterment of society. Ideologically, fascism promises a purging of those in power, those that lead the stagnation and bad working conditions that started the movement. They conveniently pin in on a group of people or a few undesirable groups to appeal to a large number of the population and then make a grab for power. Bad times and stagnation create fascism.
They are looking for a community that accepts them. That’s why they are usually from broken poor white people with drug problems. Their parents are absent in many ways and are looking for somewhere to belong.
It provides easy answers.
You’re a good strong person. They’re bad people. All your problems are their fault
Most people love feeling like they’re part of a group.
People want quick solutions to complicated problems. What quicker solution is there to all of your problems than blaming it on a disadvantaged group of people and persecuting them for it?
They never realize it’s not an effective solution until they’re way too established in the “kill the X” mode.
Why are you assuming most people care or are capable of reasoning about some vague “future”? Right now they feel disenfranchised because right now some <insert slur> is getting uppity.
How are these people not named and shamed? They are just standing there in public with no mask on wearing a swastika and giving a nazi salute? And then, what, they go back to selling real estate or what…? When is this even from?
Picture is from 2010 in Knoxville Tennesee. Can’t find any other info on the girl:
Needs a snopes status for “They’re still fucking Nazis, man”
I wonder if she knows the Jan 6 girl from knoxville. Who was upset the cops pushed her out of the capitol and she got maced
Thanks for the Snopes link, that gave some more context. I still can’t believe no one figured out who she and the others are. It’s just mind boggling to me, maybe because she’s young-ish, that no one was like oh my god is that Sharon??
I mean, that someone can live and do whatever they do, show up to this event with no mask and do this, and then go back to living a normal life is crazy to me. People lose their jobs for saying something racist on camera, and this person is full nazi-ing it up seemingly with no social consequences.
Goddamn, why is it always Knoxville with the racist stuff. We’re not all bad!
Because most of them have no jobs and live off the gov. While talking shit about people who aren’t racist cock wagons, that use gov support. So they have nothing to lose.
NAZI PUNKS FUCK OFF 👊🏼
Don’t think I’ve seen a bigger oxymoron before… The definition of punk is being anti-authoritarian.
It’s in reference to the Dead Kennedys’ song with that same title. There was a rise in far right “punk music” along with early skinhead (neo-nazi) movement when the song was written. Nazi punks were trying to flood the scene and people were not letting them.
“Nazi punks” beat the oxymoron by being anti-authoritarian, just depending on who’s authority they reject.
I won’t tolerate any boot on any neck (except if there’s my foot in it)
Did you think this through? Seems pretty authoritarian to me (sounds like “nobody should rule but me”)… maybe it’s a quote so I don’t get it.
I like this bettrr: Und weil der Mensch ein Mensch ist, drum hat er Stiefel im Gesicht nicht gern! Er will unter sich keinen Sklaven seh’n und über sich keinen Herr’n.
(And because a human is a human, he doesn’t want a boot to the face! He wants no slaves under him, and no masters above!) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einheitsfrontlied
This wasn’t supposed to be my opinion but a nazi punk slogan invented on the spot.
I liked the mental imagery of him attempting to put a boot to his own neck.
The Nazi punks are super into yoga
Well the US was very much in love with the nazi party until it became politically inexpedient. Then they pretended they never were but didn’t actually change anything
“The US” was very much in love? NO, a lot of Americans were. But the US was NOT in love with the Nazi party. And if you mean, “when Americans realized how horrible the Nazi’s were”, instead of “politically inexpedient”, then maybe I can agree with you.
The Nazi party’s racist ideology was based off of the Eugenics movement that started in the US. Fascism has a bit of history in the US as well, besides the NYC Nazi rally.
Mussolini seemed to think that FDR was the same as him: https://italoamericano.org/the-italian-connection-roosevelt-mussolini/
Didn’t the president have a party at the White House to show a movie titled something along the lines of “the jew problem” before WW2?
Have anything to back that up?
You’re kidding, right? I mean that very sincerely, this is incredibly well documented
The rally occurred when the German American Bund’s membership was dropping; Kuhn hoped that a provocative high-profile event would reverse the group’s declining fortunes.[2] The pro-Nazi Bund was unpopular in New York City, and some called for the event to be banned. Mayor Fiorello La Guardia allowed the event to go forward, correctly predicting that the Bund’s highly publicized spectacle would further discredit them in the public eye.[2]
So they were popular and then declined. Exactly what OP claimed
While Madison Square Garden had prepared itself for the presence of the German Bund, many around New York City considered the Nazi sect less welcome in their city. About 100,000 anti-Nazi protesters gathered around the arena in protest of the Bund, carrying signs stating “Smash Anti-Semitism” and “Drive the Nazis Out of New York”.[6] A total of three attempts were made to break the arm-linking lines of police, the first of these, a group of World War One Veterans, wrapped in Stars and Stripes, were held off by police on mounted horseback, the next, a “burly man carrying an American flag” and finally, a Trotskyist group known as the Socialist Workers Party, who like those before, had their efforts halted by police.[4]
If you gather a crowd of 100,000 counter-protesters, several times larger than your own rally, not sure how ‘popular’ you are.
Again, not popular anymore at that point.
To prove the point you seem to ba making, you’d need to find a quote that backs the notion they were never popular
At some point people gushed over Mel Gibson, then his crazy was made public and he lost favour. Could I take his popularity numbers from 5 years ago and pretend he wasn’t super famous ever?
Op claims they were popular for a while and then not. You seem to take evidence from the “then not” part of the story and seemingly use it to prove they were never popular
Again, not popular anymore at that point.
It was literally at the peak of the Bund’s popularity - which is pretty damning for anyone claiming that they were popular.
To prove the point you seem to ba making, you’d need to find a quote that backs the notion they were never popular
So when someone claims that the Bund was popular, citing an event, and I cite the actual details of that same event showing that the accusation of popularity is highly dubious, the burden of proof is on me.
Is that what you’re saying?
Op claims they were popular for a while and then not. You seem to take evidence from the “then not” part of the story and seemingly use it to prove they were never popular
I didn’t realize “When the biggest event they ever manage to have is outnumbered by counterprotesters 5-1 maybe they just aren’t that popular in the country” was such a huge leap of logic.
This is not what OP claimed.
Well the US was very much in love with the nazi party until it became politically inexpedient. Then they pretended they never were but didn’t actually change anything
While being popular and then having that popularity decline was part of it, they suggested that the reason it became unpopular was because that support became politically impractical. They also suggest that the US itself, not US citizens, were in live with the Nazi party. This may be an accident due to poor phrasing, but assuming that’s what they were going for, their sources only show of a small political activist group, not any governing body.
Also, the group, although the size isn’t actually reported anywhere among the sources I could find, was actually pretty small, and was mostly German immigrants who were torn between supporting their homeland and their new home. This was made more difficult a decision due to German propaganda calling for people of German descent to stand together.
Precise membership figures are not known. Estimates range from as high as 25,000 to as low as 6,000. Historians agree that about 90 percent of Bund members were immigrants who arrived in America after 1919. In Wisconsin, the most heavily German state, the Bund seems to have mustered barely 500 members, which would rule out the possibility of anywhere near 25,000 members nationwide.
Assuming that the largest reported member count of 25,000 members was correct, that’s hardly popular. The US had a population of 139 million people in 1945. This would be 0.0018% of the population. To put that number into perspective, ~12 million Americans were in military service, about 9% of the American population at the time. So the people willing to risk their lives to kill nazis outweighed this political activist group by 5000%
deleted by creator
The article seems to summarize events concisely and provides links to outside references. We really shouldn’t turn our nose up to any outlet trying to share information. Even if an outlet tends to be sensationalist we should pay attention to each article as they may be breaking a story, provide more research paths, or give an insight from a point of view we miss.
With that being said I know nothing of Vogue, TeenVogue, or the author. However you never know when someone cries “wolf” if it is the real deal unless you look.
deleted by creator
Oh I remember the story quite well. I just read it to my kids. Yes there is the responsibility of the kid to not lie, but it also the responsibility of the town to check it out even if wolf has been called several times before. The sheep feed the town, not just the child. There are multiple morals of the story.
I’ll admit I quickly read through the article and just scanned for key points and followed the linked articles, some of which were no longer valid links. The point I was trying to make was not in the defense of Vogue themselves but in the defense of news outlets that are often ignored.
I appreciate you reading the article and providing your insight into the author’s bias. I did not wish to start an argument and I apologize if I offended.
Looking at the article it’s explicitly talking about Jewish American organised crime groups and their efforts against antisemitism in the prewar period, particularly the notorious Abner Zwillman so I’m not sure exactly what you think you are doing here. They are literally talking about Jewish American mobsters.
We also had a war over being a conservative Loyalist, vs a proud progressive patriot, but people seem to forget that happened.
You don’t get to be a regressive conservative, and be a proud American
Approximately one war every 80 years is what we’re on pace for.
Gotta wait for the last people who experienced the horrors first hand to finally retire from power.
Yeah I actually think this is literally why. As a species we can write things down all we want but we struggle to truly understand things we didn’t experience.
Even our living memory fades fairly fast. Maybe, at best, a couple years before people can be convinced the past is different than it actually was.
Maybe we should put VR to good use finally.
America is involved in waaay more than a war every 80yrs.
There was Irak, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Vietnam at the very least.
No but the white wars against white supremacists were in 1860 and 1940 so 80 years apart.
White imperialism against white imperialism you mean.
White surpremacy was not an issue for WW2 America.
Given that it took another 100 years from 1860 until formal equal rights regardless of race were established we should mabye just call them wars between white supremacists and other white supremacists.
Every year, we open up a stadium for a giant Pro Slavery + Pro Nazi + Pro Confederacy rally. At the end of the rally, we lock all the doors and sell everyone in the stadium to the highest-bidding slavers.
Everyone at the rally gets to enjoy their pro-slavery desires and everyone else is rid of them. Win-win.
um… who do we sell them to? if it’s someone outside the stadium, aren’t they also pro-slavery? wouldn’t that mean they’d also be in the stadium? also, wouldn’t we, then, end up with a lot of slaves?
this seems like a bad idea for a few reasons, the least of which is the hypocrisy…
Qatar. We sell them to Qatar.
Plot twist, they find that their belief systems are extremely similar and they join forces.
Russel’s slavery paradox.
It could be solved if slaves could own slaves, but it would become circular.
Maybe a circular chain (no pun intended) of slavery can work if the circle is long enough? Each slave/slaver will get abused by their master and take out their frustration abusing their own slave. While it’s true that if you go far enough in either direction you’ll eventually reach yourself, there is not much you can do about it - even if you try to order your slave to order their slave to order their slave … to order their slave to free you, by the time that order reaches your own master the incentive to enforce it will be so diminished that they could ignore it without much consequence.
Of course, in order for this to work we need a rule that a master cannot order their slave to give them their slave. Or - to be on the safe side - a master cannot interfere with what a slave does with their own slaves.
Hmmm… it wouldn’t be circular if we had “levels” of slaves. Imagine you only directly enslaved the people in the level below you, and you were only directly enslaved by the people in the level above you. I think it would still end up circular in places, though, so maybe we should call these “classes” instead.
Wait a minute… MyGodIGetItNow.jpg
Not strong slavery. Never mention the word.
But make it so if you didn’t play along then you would be cared for if you fell ill. Or you couldn’t get food. And you could only level up if you passed the right exams.
Make sure the highest slave owner pays a different kind of tax to the others at a much lower rate.
Make sure ownership can be inherited with relative ease.
I mean fire’s always an option
She’s a Nazi, George.
She’s in Tennessee
Honest question, did we fight the Nazis because they were Nazis as we know them today (genocidal/racist/fascist)? Or did we fight the Nazis because they were attacking our allies?
The US government under Roosevelt was opposed to the Nazis from the start, before WW2 began, on account of its fascist character.
While America was deeply racist at the time, it was also very unevenly racist, and even prominent Nazi fellow-travelers like Charles Lindbergh expressed revulsion at the level of Nazi racism displayed.
The genocide proper didn’t begin until WW2, and by the time we were already, for all practical purposes, ‘in the game’, so to speak.
That’s a complicated question without a clear answer. It’s hard to establish the motivations of an individual person, but much harder when you’re talking about the entire country. Generally, people were united in the war effort, but for a variety of reasons. The NYT downplayed the Holocaust and specifically tried to avoid focusing on antisemitism, in part because they were worried that people wouldn’t like the idea of fighting a war to protect Jewish people, as racism and antisemitism were very much present. On the other hand, you had people like folk singer Woody Guthrie who explicitly connected the war to anti-fascism in his songs. But there were also plenty of people and media who had been praising Hitler, before he started invading everywhere.
Basically there were lots of reasons for lots of people to dislike the Nazis, so it’s kind of hard to detangle who was motivated by what and to what degree. Generally though, if they had kept to their own borders, it’s unlikely that any other country would have invaded them just for being fascists, and many countries went through great lengths not to go to war with them, because nobody wanted to recreate the devastation of WWI. Even then the US wasn’t willing to get directly involved until it was directly attacked.
Wasn’t Pearl Harbor also a main reason?
Yes, that’s what I said at the end. The US didn’t get involved until directly attacked.
It’s notable that the US decided to get involved and to focus on the European theater, despite being attacked by Japan. But that doesn’t really tell us about motivations. It could be that the US considered Nazi ideology more dangerous than Japan’s ideology, or it’s possible they were more interested in Europe for the sake of their allies, or it could’ve been a purely strategic decision.
Uhh…yes, because yes. They didn’t just burst onto the scene after Kristallnacht but once the regular folk see the pogroms it’s suddenly a war crime
If you grab a book on Henry ford and his ilk then you’ll need a book on Reconstruction and then a book on plantations, etc. This is a country by and for land owning white men so there was a lot of stern words before the Infamous day, after that it was a mix of actual Steve Rogers and the same robber barons getting richer but we mostly agreed with the Reich until it hit our shores.
If Japan stuck to their close neighbors and ze Germans just annexed Western Europe…we probably wouldn’t have all the beach landings and such, see again Ford and his friend list.
Because they attacked, I am fairly certain.
Read Eisenhowers D-Day remarks. Most Americans believed the Nazis were a genuinely dangerous, oppressive evil that, left unchecked, were likely to subjugate the whole of Europe. Both their ideology and methods had to be rebuked on a moral level.
It would be too simple to say either. Societies are diverse with multiple viewpoints.
Both. The autocratic bend that was already known of provided plenty of fuel for the pro-war camp, and it was a lot of what motivated Roosevelt to want to back the Allies as much as he was legally allowed.
Pearl Harbor was a tragedy, but as Churchill is attributed to have said, never let a good crisis go to waste.
Japan basically provided all the excuse the pro war camp needed to leeroy jenkins themselves at Hitler’s face.
We built the bomb with the intention of using them on Germany, that is the kind of axe you’ve got to grind with someone who you hate for a lot more reasons than just that they socked your best mate.
Because you got invaded. Nothing else.
Churchill (part American) always thought the Americans would join the war but they didn’t.
Germany was getting held up in Russia and Japan attacked America. Hitler thought if he declared war on America then Japan would declare war on Russia. Hitler was more worried about Russia so it was a good trade. Unfortunately for him Japan kept they pact of non aggression with Russia so it just caused him another enemy.
Evil never rests. Neither should we
You don’t get to be a German and not feel pain - a lot of pain.
But not yours to bare my German brother from across the pond.
Germany has learned ( IMO) that while nazi party rose in Germany. Germany isnt the Nazi party. The United States never learned the lessons from this historical past.
Danke
Well said. And Fck AfD. You guys keep fighting the good fight.
(bear)
As an American, you’re far ahead of many of my countrymen
There were also wars of “being a Native American and being allowed to live” Vs “fucking dying”.
I guess wars aren’t always a good metric.
Relevant for over 44 years:
Every time I hear about a mass shooting, I always hope it’s at one of these gatherings or a KKK rally. It never fucking is tho… 😮💨
Like how all the good people get assassinated
Come out Virginia
Do some reading on the Battle of Hayes Pond for some literary soul food.
