I thought it was commonly understood that most people have racial biases, unconscious or conscious; that's the premise of most equitable programs. I am just aware of mine. I am not saying that's a good thing or making any claims about any kind of people.
I was making the point that people with racial biases are common, usually harmless, and we probably shouldn't call for their blanket execution.
I think it is strange to say that admitting I have biases is a bannable offense.
It will make more sense if you consider the context in which you're posting: a large, anonymous internet forum which is prone to bursting into flames when provoked on divisive topics.
Even if we take the most charitable interpretation of what you posted—say, something like: honest exploration of racial prejudice within ourselves—the tiny text blobs that we have to communicate with here are not a genre that can handle casual detonations like "I just don't like black people very much". That would require a much stronger and more secure container than this sort of internet forum can provide, not to mention safety and confidentiality that don't exist here. Comments like what you posted are simply going to blow up a thread like this into an even more violent conflict than it already is, and that's not something we're ok with.
As I said, that's under the most charitable interpretation, which I don't personally find to be the likeliest. Your GP comment included plenty of other things that support a less savory reading.
Also, this pseudo-debate about who should or should not be "executed" is puerile and obviously off-topic on this site, but I'm not singling you out for that, since plenty of other users were contributing to it.
I disagree with your framing about not wanting a civil war.
At this point it's between the fascists taking over unopposed and them maybe losing this civil war. I'd rather take the chance than give up without a fight.
I agree with the framing of "rather you than me", fwiw.
That's a bit of an arbitrary constraint, given that Nazism is widely understood to be a particular brand of fascism.
Wikipedia does a descent job, if you're really wondering how it might be done using different words. Given your odd challenge, I suspect you might not really care, though.
In case I'm wrong, here are, for your convenience, but also for others who might stumble across this nasty thread:
I asked because his other replies in this topic imply to me that his definition of Nazi is much more broad than the literal definition, and would result in a lot more executions than just of the people who adhere to a Nazi ideology as strictly defined by Wikipedia.
That's a good point. Goes to show how quickly things get arbitrary once you start chopping off heads in the name of ideas. It's disturbing how quickly people get their axes ready, even just from their behind their keyboards. I'm used to it from other places, but it's sad to see this here.
I wish there'd be some sort of dream-like simulation for people to experience the consequences of their ideas: "Congratulations, your policy killed millions of people and fed them to the pigs. Due to the sloppy definition, and a blind spot on your behalf, this includes yourself. Then there was a war and your family is now dead. Would you like to try again?"
Sorry for not-so-politely wondering what was behind your question. It's a fraught topic.
I would recommend just saying "white supremacist" instead of "Nazi", because precision in words matters. As the sibling comment pointed out, they are not equivalent terms. Nazis are usually white supremacists, but not the reverse.
I noticed my use of "indiscriminately" was problematic and I edited my previous post to remove it before I saw your reply. I'd hoped I could fix the ambivalence quickly, before someone misunderstood. I was too late; my apologies.
What I meant to say: indiscriminately murdering people after an ideological lithmus test. Or for their beliefs. For their ethnicity. Stuff like that. You know, not entirely unlike what the Nazis did.
> The ends matter. The means do not.
We disagree here; but even if we take this to be correct, you are wrong about what the ends are. "No nazis around" is in itself only a means, and not an end. The end is what we want to accomplish by "purging the nazis", or what we do end up accomplishing instead.
Their abhorrent ideology does not merely exist in an ideological space. It is abhorrent precisely because of the consequences it leads to: the rule of violence, the establishment of a system for wholesale "purging" of whole groups of people (and lots of other bad things, but we're discussing these ones). That is what we want to avoid.
You may think that you can simply "kill all the Nazis and feed them to the pigs" to avoid this. Even if you think that's a reasonable course of action, have you thought about how this would work?
In order to accomplish it, you will have to put into place a system that catches all potential Nazis, precisely determines their ideology - judge people not by their actual actions, but what is believed are their thoughts, some of which are now a capital crime. Which are the ones, by the way? Where is the line? Who is going to decide this correctly? Even if you can, or are willing to accept some false positives (your "no benefit of doubt"): you will then have to kill all these people and feed them to the pigs. Such an effort is going to require state power and some serious organisation, and likely more than one "pig farm", let's call it that.
Does this remind you of aything in history? There's plenty to choose from, humanity seems quite adept at pulling off such things, whenever instability propels a group to power that hates another group very much. But I believe the prime example, that comes closest to what you envision, happened in Europe in the last century.
For the admittedly noble goal of countering nazis and their destructive doings, you're willing to slaughter, and keep slaughtering, permit me this summary word for "kill and feed to the pigs", everyone who is deemed to be a Nazi. In such a situation, if I were you, I'd avoid things that might get me mistaken for one. You don't want to become a Robespierre!
Take a good look at yourself and what you are endorsing, where you're invariably going to end up. The ends do matter.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. While we still disagree, I understand your hesitation.
When I think of this, I think not of Robespierre, but of Tito, who managed to liberate his own country from the Nazis and keep the reactionaries (of which there are many in the region!) at bay through state repression.
Of course, it all fell apart once he died and the subsequent weakening of repressions created an opening for the reactionaries to return.
However, while Tito ruled Yugoslavia he created the country with the strongest passport in the world (the only one that could travel to both Cold War blocks!), free education, an economy centered around worker-owned coops and liberal freedoms unseen in other Socialist nations.
It's not without reason Yugonostalgia is still a strong force in the Balkans. [0]
I believe freedom needs to be protected from those willing to harm it - aggressively so. We cannot stand by idly while those that wish to harm us set their machinations in place - we need to stomp them out before they do it to us.
