I have to parse your post in pieces -

I'm honestly beginning to think I'm hitting a mental block in some people here.

Yes you did hit one with me, but only inasmuch as I insist that you are missing the point. However.. I appreciate your patient attempts - even though you're wrong in 2 respects.

A professor at a university in America, and Britain for that matter, can profess himself to be a communist and few people take notice. In some circles, he is actyally admired for it.

A professor announcing himself to be a Nazi would be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. At the very least, he would be fired with no further ado.

This is not an apology for Nazism, as you seem to insist on interpreting it by reversing my arguments. I am not arguing that we should tolerate Nazism. I am arguing that we should be less tolerant of the other side of the same coin. I am pointing out a massive discrepancy in the judgment of our culture toward two equally foul philosophies of running a nation, not demanding sympathy for those wearing swastikas.


First point (which I have tried to get through to you without success): that is all true, but this is not the time to be making those points! Why bring up Stalin and Soviet insignia whenever someone is attacking something ELSE?? This 'discrepancy' you point out, is irrelevant in this context! .. So, every time someone attacks fascism and Nazism, you are going to point out the double standard re tolerance of Communism?? That's irrelevant, and morally weak, IMO!

Now BTW: I really have made it quite clear that you and Lee have totally different agendas here (yours is democratic/libertarian I suppose) - so I am not at all saying that you advocate tolerance of Nazism. I am saying that you have inappropiately introduced this moral discrepancy you point out, into the wrong context. Basically, IMO you blundered into a dispute between Lee and me - which got me riled and is why I asked you to 'stay away from my thread'. (However I'm glad you ignored that, in the end)

The second 'respect' I mentioned is respect for the historical significance of the Holocaust - which shares such significance IMO only with the attempted genocide of the Armenians by the Turks during WW1. (Hitler modeled the Holocaust on that one, incidentally.) This event has its own uniqe significance, as I assume you would agree. So please add that on to my first point about in appropiate timing and irrelevant context ..

Do you or do you not get what I am trying to explain??

The difficulty of making this point shows the problem.


You can't seriously think that I regard you as an apologist for Nazism?? I do believe you to be morally and ethically motivated - I have just been attacking some of your tactics, which I have noticed on CE. You go on too much IMHO about the hypocrisy of your opponents - OFTEN VALID CRITICISMS, but it is dishonest and lazy to use your opponent's flaws to bolster your own case! You were doing something similar here, and that got me irritated. You were making a valid and ethical point, but at the wrong time and context.

Using a 'MORAL COMPASS' means that your needle points to the truth of your OWN moral and ethical outlook - it does not mean truth by cartography, whereby you measure your position by its distance from other, worse outlooks! You do clearly have an ethical compass, so my final and 3rd point is that you should keep your eye on IT rather than on your opponents' flaws and hypocricies ..

(END OF LECTURE ..)