Anonymous #1 22w

no it’s not

1

Anonymous #1 22w

I’m gonna start saying this randomly about random things

8

Anonymous OP 22w

really? it looks a lot like his art to me

1

Anonymous #1 22w

nah its not exactly his style (coming from a big goobsmooch fan 😼)

6

Anonymous #5 22w

What does this have to do with Neo-Nazis saying Hitler was right about Jews

21

Anonymous #2 22w

Because even genocidal levels of antisemitism is still watered down Hitler ideology. A full “Hitler was right” implicates a LOT more than just Jewish people

45

Anonymous #3 22w

my gooch smoob

11

Anonymous #14 22w

Famously the worst thing he did ofc

6

Anonymous #10 22w

?

1

Anonymous #14 22w

Calling Hitler an authoritarian is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a hungry guy

5

Anonymous #10 22w

i feel like that implies that being authoritarian is a neutral thing to be. it's not. it's bad

1

Anonymous #11 22w

This is not the implication

1

Anonymous #12 22w

okay i must be misunderstanding would you explain the implication bc i'm a little confused

1

Anonymous #11 22w

the point is it is an understatement

1

Anonymous #12 22w

ohh okay, i think i would have understood better if it was like "thats like calling dahmer a creepy guy" cuz i took it in the sense that hungry guy was neutral descriptor & thus authoritarian is also neutral but i see what it means now

1

Anonymous #11 22w

Once you’ve studied comparative politics for a while you come to realize that “authoritarian” kind of is a neutral descriptor because there’s plenty of cases where using the strong arm of the state is, in fact, necessary. Obviously, Nazi Germany is not one of those cases. Yugoslavia under Tito though? Yeah, he kinda just *had to* force those mfs to get along at gunpoint, there was no liberal option.

1

Anonymous OP 22w

huh, well i'm not a polisci person so maybe i'm just underinformed about the nuances. for instance, i don't know anything about yugoslavia. but i think i have a bit of a libertarian edge to my politics in the sense that autonomy is really important to me, so i'm anti authoritarian in principle. i'm certainly willing to be wrong if shown why it's necessary in a given case though

1

Anonymous #11 22w

Yugoslavia was a state of five nations, each of which had their own feuds with each other, founded by coming together during WWII to resist Nazi occupation under the leadership of one Josip Tito, who was notably ethnically ambiguous, nobody knew which type of Yugoslav he was, and when ethnic conflicts would break out between his constituent nations, he put them down HARD, albeit fairly. Tito was an authoritarian, he had a lot of power, and he was unafraid to use it, but mostly for good reasons.

1

Anonymous #11 22w

The real criticism of Tito isn’t in his willingness to use the gun, it was in his personalism. Tito himself was a powerful enough figure to hold Yugoslavia together, but he never put the necessary work in to set up a clear succession, and so when he died the country collapsed into those old ethnic conflicts he was good at shutting down. But his rule, while he was alive, was pretty objectively good, despite the fact that yes, he was objectively an authoritarian. He had to be to stop civil war.

1

Anonymous OP 22w

Fascinating 🧐

1