The fall of American democracy is on the horizon

The New York Times and lots of other outlets are reporting that democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin will vote against the democratic bill to protect voting rights. In a letter to a local newspaper, , Manchin wrote “I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy.” What Manchin is unable to see, probably mostly because he is a radical right wing extremist, is that opposing protections for voting rights will further weaken and finally break American democracy. 

Manchin appears to be oblivious to the massive, anti-democracy voter suppression laws the GOP has been feverishly working to pass in nearly all states where they have to power to do so. Those voter suppression laws are knowingly and intentionally designed to shift power from less partisan election officials dedicated to free and fair elections to Republican Party hacks willing to subvert elections and deny voters their power to vote for anyone other than a Republican. 

This is how American fascism will rise and the fall of democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law. Joe Manchin gets a lot of credit for the disaster. he demanded GOP support, but he was not able to get any. That ought to have been a clear sign to him that the GOP has no interest in defending democracy or voting rights. Manchin is just too blind to see the lethal danger that is right in front of him. The NYT writes:

WASHINGTON — Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia said on Sunday in no uncertain terms that he would not vote for the Democrats’ far-reaching bill to combat voter suppression, nor would he ever end the legislative filibuster, a written promise that imperils much of President Biden’s agenda.

The bill, which all the other Senate Democrats had supported and the party had portrayed as an urgent effort to preserve American democracy, would roll back dozens of laws being passed by Republican state legislatures to limit early and mail-in voting and empower partisan poll watchers. The measure, known as the For the People Act, would also restore many of the ethical controls on the presidency that Donald J. Trump shattered.

In The Charleston Gazette-Mail, the newspaper of the capital of his home state, Mr. Manchin, a Democrat, wrote: “I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Furthermore, I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster.”  

With Mr. Manchin’s vow, passage of the full For the People Act appears to be impossible, though parts of it could pass in other ways if Democrats are willing to break up the bill, a move that they have resisted. Mr. Manchin’s blockade of filibuster changes makes other Biden initiatives far less likely to pass, including any overhaul of immigration laws, a permanent expansion of the Affordable Care Act, controls of the price of prescription drugs and the most serious efforts to tackle climate change.  

“I continue to engage with my Republican and Democratic colleagues about the value of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” he wrote, “and I am encouraged by the desire from both sides to transcend partisan politics and strengthen our democracy by protecting voting rights.” 

Given this new development, it looks like the only thing left for the Biden administration and democrats in congress is to pass legislation by budget reconciliation. But even that requires Manchin’s vote. If he refuses to go along without GOP support, of which there will be none, we will have seen about all that the Biden administration will be able to do in terms of major legislation. We are on the verge of going back to the 6 years of gridlock we enjoyed under two Obama administrations. That there was nothing but unified, lockstep GOP opposition to Obama for all 8 years he was in office seems to be completely lost on the bipartisanship-seeking but clueless, naïve Manchin. His conservative anti-democracy ideology blinds him and betrays the rest of us, pro-democracy conservatives included. 

Obviously, fascist conservative Republicans are rejoicing in Manchin’s state of mind. He has brought the American experiment to an autocratic end.

Questions: Is it fair to put a lot of the blame for the fall of democracy and rise of fascism on Manchin, because without him, Mitch McConnell would still be in control of the Senate and there would not even be a COVID relief law passed? Is it too early to project the end of meaningful democracy and elections and the rise of fascism because the game has not finished playing out yet?

Employer vs employee: A power shift is underway

A balance of power shift has been underway since ~2009?

In a fascinating article, Workers Are Gaining Leverage Over Employers Right Before Our Eyes, the New York Times describes a new phenomenon, employees having and exerting more power over their working conditions. It is not clear low long this will last or how important it will turn out to be. The power shift seems to reflect at least in part years of employer power and labor weakness that led to many jobs being unpleasant. 

This power shift phenomenon may be linked to the pandemic in some ways. Younger workers have had to time to reflect on what they want from life. A few (about 1 in 28 according to an NPR broadcast in the last few days) who are not looking for work are using extended unemployment benefits from the COVID relief law to hold out for better jobs. Nearly all Republican politicians, i.e., about 99.5% of them, are anti-government. That ideology demands that they claim that extended employment is why employers are having a hard time finding employees. But the evidence indicates that is a small part of this phenomenon (~3.5% ?). Most employees are looking for a better quality of life and they are increasingly opting for jobs with intangible or hard to quantify benefits, e.g., flexible hours, some work at home time, etc.

The NYT writes:

“By creating your own dumb barriers, you’re actually making your job in the search for talent harder,” said Obed Louissaint, I.B.M.’s senior vice president for transformation and culture. In working with managers across the company on training initiatives like the one under which Mr. Lorick was hired, “it’s about making managers more accountable for mentoring, developing and building talent versus buying talent.” [Lorick was a bouncer in a bar working the “devil’s 9 to 5 shift” (9 pm to 5 am) and he hated it]

“I think something fundamental is changing, and it’s been happening for a while, but now it’s accelerating,” Mr. Louissaint said.

Efforts like the one at I.B.M. are, to some degree, a rediscovery in the value of investing in workers.

“I do think companies need to relearn some things,” said Byron Auguste, chief executive of Opportunity at Work, an organization devoted to encouraging job opportunities for people from all backgrounds. “A lot of companies, after the recessions in 2001 and 2008, dismantled their onboarding and training infrastructure and said that’s a cost we can’t afford.

“But it turns out, you actually do need to develop your own workers and can’t just depend on hiring.” 

“Traditionally in restaurants, it was: ‘Hey, this is the job. If you want these hours, great; if not, we’ll find somebody else,’” said Christopher Floyd, owner of the hospitality industry recruitment firm Capital Restaurant Resources in Washington. “Now employers have to say, ‘You have the qualities we’re looking for; maybe we can work out a more flexible schedule that works for you.’ Employers are becoming much more cognizant that yes, it’s about money, but also about quality of life.”

Whether it’s a bigger paycheck, more manageable hours or a training opportunity offered to a person with few formal credentials, the benefits of a tight labor market and shifting leverage can take many forms.

The NYT article points out that some companies have figured out that they can find good, reliable workers with no experience but if given some training. In some situations, employers find that a 6-month training period can replace the previously required 4-year college degree, including for jobs like computer engineers. In the past, most companies did not want to spend money training people. That locked many people out of the jobs they wanted but did not have the necessary experience the job qualifications listed. Now, a realization is dawning, that some of the past job qualifications weren't necessary at all, if the company was willing to train their employees.

Demographics also seem to be part of the power shift. Fewer employees are entering the workforce. Because of that, supply and demand is probably part of the reason for the power shift to the smaller supply side employees.

Context -- regarding the flow of power

One reason for this post is to point out the concept of the flow of power. It is a critically important concept to keep in mind in politics. In this situation, power is shifting in the economic context, but the idea of the fluidity of power is about the same in other contexts. One of my main areas of focus about politics relates to the flow of power in political, social and economic contexts. 

One of the key propaganda points that anti-government and anti-democracy republicans and conservatives constantly make is that deregulation increases personal freedom. But under that way of deregulating, special interests, businesses and employers, get deregulated and power flows from government to the special interests, not to consumers and average people. Those special interests turn around and exert it against society as they see fit, i.e., usually to increase profits and to externalize risks and social costs such as pollution and worker safety. By usually, I mean probably about 96% of the time or more. 

The entire concept of conservative power (and thus liberty) flow to the people is a myth. It’s a big fat dark free speech lie. The power flow they want is from government to special interests, including the GOP and rich people, not to average people. Another lie is that the people empowered by government deregulation does give them more power. That’s another big fat lie. What the GOP and conservatives never say (and will always deny) is that they are deregulating special interests, not government limits on civil liberties. In fact, right now the fascist conservative movement in the US is fighting dagger, tooth and claw to limit civil liberties, e.g., abortion, freedom from gun violence, and voting rights.

Modern conservatism stands for accumulation or concentration of power, wealth and liberty at the top. That demagogic fascism it is fighting dagger, tooth and claw against democracy and the rule of law, which stands for more distributed power and wealth.

That is why this issue of power flow to employees seemed a good thing to bring up. Never forget about power flow. It is central to most everything related to politics.

Climate change update: Things may be worse than experts believed

Clearing trees in a peatland forest for a palm oil plantation in the 

Central Kalimantan province on Indonesia’s Borneo island in 2014

The Washington Post writes on new research has has identified what has been a large but overlooked source of carbon dioxide emissions due to human activities. This one is unsettling. WaPo writes:

A new study finds a large, previously unknown contribution to climate change through human conversion of peatlands for agriculture.

Long before the era of fossil fuels, humans may have triggered a massive but mysterious “carbon bomb” lurking beneath the Earth’s surface, a new scientific study suggests. If the finding is correct, it would mean that we have been neglecting a major human contribution to global warming — one whose legacy continues.

The researchers, from France’s Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences and several other institutions across the globe, suggest that beginning well before the industrial era, the mass conversion of carbon-rich peatlands for agriculture could have added over 250 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That’s the equivalent of more than seven years of current emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for energy.

The new finding of an “ignored historical land use emission” suggests that even now, we lack a complete understanding of how the Earth’s land surfaces are driving and modulating the warming of the planet. That’s troubling, since the use of land to trap and contain greenhouse gases is set to play a critical role in the Paris climate agreement.

WaPo points out that peatlands are a type of wetland where dead plant matter only partly decay due to wet conditions. Normally peat slowly pulls carbon out of the atmosphere. But if it is disturbed decay resumes and carbon dioxide is released into the air. Draining peatland and using it for agriculture restarts the decay process. An expert estimates that CO2 from peatland amounts to ~10% of the carbon that humans have emitted from burning fossil fuels since 1850 based on the current study.

The new study is incomplete because it only considers Northern Hemisphere peatlands from the year 850 until now. And, it is possible that CO2 emissions could have been lower if humans had turned to draining peat only after once all other good land was in use. Further research and analysis is needed to better estimate how big this effect has been. 

Question: Are humans playing Russian Roulette by not taking climate change seriously, e.g., when special interests block or minimize climate change regulations, usually to protect profits.[1]

Footnote: 

1. A couple of days ago, the New York Times wrote this:

LONDON — During a contentious meeting over proposed climate regulations last fall, a Saudi diplomat to the obscure but powerful International Maritime Organization switched on his microphone to make an angry complaint: One of his colleagues was revealing the proceedings on Twitter as they happened.

It was a breach of the secrecy at the heart of the I.M.O., a clubby United Nations agency on the banks of the Thames that regulates international shipping and is charged with reducing emissions in an industry that burns an oil so thick it might otherwise be turned into asphalt. Shipping produces as much carbon dioxide as all of America’s coal plants combined.

Internal documents, recordings and dozens of interviews reveal what has gone on for years behind closed doors: The organization has repeatedly delayed and watered down climate regulations, even as emissions from commercial shipping continue to rise, a trend that threatens to undermine the goals of the 2016 Paris climate accord.

One reason for the lack of progress is that the I.M.O. is a regulatory body that is run in concert with the industry it regulates. Shipbuilders, oil companies, miners, chemical manufacturers and others with huge financial stakes in commercial shipping are among the delegates appointed by many member nations. They sometimes even speak on behalf of governments, knowing that public records are sparse, and that even when the organization allows journalists into its meetings, it typically prohibits them from quoting people by name.

Obviously, huge polluters like Saudi Arabia, Exxon-Mobile, etc., have no significant concerns about keeping the fossil fuels burning and the carbon spewing into the air. For the polluters, profit and power talks and risk of civilization collapse walks. After all, the rich believe they will always be able to take care of themselves. They could not care less about the rest of us.

Chapter Review: The Blitz

Chapter 7 of Katherine Stewart's 2019 book , The Power worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism, is entitled The Blitz: Turning States into Laboratories of Theocracy. This chapter focuses on the propaganda and legislative tactics that Christian nationalist (CN) leaders have successfully employed in their relentless quest to merge secular government with a CN authoritarian vision of Christianity. Their ultimate goal is to convert federal, state and local governments from secular institutions that work on ideals of equality and tolerance for all Americans. CN vehemently opposes that secularism and any other secular ideology. 

Instead, the CN political goal is to control governments at all levels who will rule according to a particular CN biblical worldview. That worldview privileges the true believers above all others. That authoritarian-fascist theocratic ideology gives government freedom to openly discriminate against the unworthy in the name of “religious freedom.” 

Those not worthy of equal dignity and treatment include all women, the entire LGBQT community, and all non-CN Christians, i.e., everyone who does not faithfully adhere to CN dogma. CN dogma is rigidly patriarchal. Women must submit to their men and they cannot be preachers. Children, including defiant infants fresh from the womb, must be raised to fear God and they must be subject to corporal punishment when they are disobedient. Failure to beat naughty children is failure to be a good Christian.

Three phases of Project Blitz - looks like CN is mostly doing phase III now:

democracy and the rule of law are on the verge of falling

The Blitz Project is the social and political war plan that the CN movement has been following and refining for years. The propaganda is sophisticated and carefully crafted to split conservative religious from other people in society using shrewd, subtle messaging that has been quite effective.

Stewart describes the three phases of Project Blitz like this: 

The first consists of symbolic or ceremonial gestures that will receive some “some opposition but not hard to beat,” according to David Barton.[1] Some like the Minnesota bill, focus on placing mottos in schools. Others aim to place “In God We Trust” placards and stickers in statehouses, federal buildings, libraries, post offices -- even even police cars. 

But the point of phase I is just to clear the path for phase II, which consists of bills that propose to inject Christian nationalist ideas more directly into schools and other government entities. Some phase II bills are intended to promote the teaching and celebration of Christianity in public schools, including support for sectarian “Bible literacy” curricula, particularly those that serve hefty servings of Christian nationalist history and the declaration of a “Christian Heritage Week.” They are a means of spreading the message, among children especially, that conservative Christians are the real Americans and everybody else is here by invitation only. According to Barton, these laws “will also be pretty easy to pass,” but the opposition is “going to be a lot more virulent and mean in their attacks.” The point of phase II, of course, is to make room for phase III, which legalizes discrimination against those whose actions (or very being) offends the sensibilities of conservative Christians.

Subtle but powerful propaganda

CN leadership has though long and hard about how to trap the religious conservative mind in the authoritarian CN vision of America. Their thinking is deep and subtle but effective. Stewart writes:

The documentation of Project Blitz[2] makes clear that a principal purpose of the “In God We Trust” legislation is to force the opposition to take unpopular stands on seemingly symbolic issues. In fact, the authors specifically seemed to envision using the bills to catch opponent lawmakers on video saying things that can later be used against them.

The documentation of the Blitz is particularly valuable in that it shows that Christian nationalists have self-consciously embraced a strategy of advancing their goals through deception and indirection. For many years critics have warned that concessions to the Christian right on “symbolic” issues -- erecting religious monuments and emblazoning religious mottos on state property, for example -- would set the nation on a course leading to the establishment of religion. We now knw that the critics were right .... 

 Like the sponsors of Americans United for Life [anti-abortion] legislation initiatives, the leaders behind Project Blitz are playing a long and ambitious game. They have invested their deepest hopes in the third and most contentious category of model legislation. Recognizing that the initiatives will be unpopular, Project Blitz advises its troops against framing them in religious terms, recommending instead that they “begin a public discourse on these important topics grounded in the language that the opponents themselves use.” 

The public perceptions of these bills, often abetted by Christian nationalists themselves, is that they they concern only the religious feeling of homophobic cake bakers and florists. 

 

Stewart cites some examples on the power of the propaganda. In one example, in opposing the “In God We Trust” motto in public schools, one political opponent wondered if conservative Christians would be OK if “God” was replaced with “Allah.” Another politician opposed to putting the motto in public schools commented that it was offensive. Stewart writes: “The last comment in particular was like gold for the right-wing media sphere. The implication that “God” was “offensive,” or that Islam might claim equal rights before the law with Christianity, was more than worth its weight in conservative rage. This seemingly minor incident led to massive publicity on right wing outlets like Fox News. CN propagandists had a field day in making democrats and other opponents look like anti-Christian zealots, which was not the case. But that point was lost in the thunder and fury of right toxic wing propaganda.

The important thing to keep in mind about this is simple. Under secular constitutional government, equal treatment and equal respect, it does not matter one iota if the “In X We Trust” motto recites God, Allah, Satan or Reason and Empathy as X. But under bigoted CN ideology, Allah, Satan, Reason and Empathy and everything else are all unacceptable. Only the “Christian God” can be mentioned. That is unconstitutional theocracy, pure and simple.

Protect the gravy train at all costs

The CN movement is deeply concerned that its bigoted, pro-discrimination against everyone except CN loyalists will cost it the precious tax breaks it heavily relies on for financial support. Stewart writes:

Apart from consolidating the privileges of conservative Christians to impose their beliefs on others, the point of bills like HB 1523 [now the law in Mississippi] has a lot to do with money. A helpful clue can be found in a letter that the American Family Association sent out in support of the Mississippi bill before it was passed. The bill, said the AFA, is critical because it protects the AFA and groups like it  from “government threat of losing their tax exempt status.”

There is a revealing irony in that statement. Tax exemption is a kind of gift from the government: a privilege. It is an indirect way of funneling money from taxpayers to groups that engage in certain kinds of activities (like charity work or nonprofit education) and not other kinds of activities (like business and political activism). In articulating their concern for potential threats to their government subsidy, the AFA implicitly recognizes that if our society decides that it no longer wishes to to subsidize groups that preach homophobia and promote discrimination, the justification for continued subsidies and privileges from government will evaporate.

The people who drafted the bill on behalf of the Mississippi legislators get it. This is why the very first “discriminatory action” by the government that the law prohibits is “to alter in any way the tax treatment” of any person or organization that abides by the newly sanctioned religious beliefs.

Thus, states are trying to make it illegal for society, through the federal government acting on behalf of the will of the people, to revoke the tax breaks that are so valuable to CN welfare queens. Although the CN hates government and wants to drown it in Christianity, it wants to keep its vast welfare-industrial complex alive and fat with precious tax dollars.

Stewart concludes the chapter asserting that the Project Blitz agenda is not really about genuine religious freedom. Instead, it is a declaration of a war that is squarely aimed at retaining tax subsidy funding and empowering conservative Christians to discriminate against people who do not share their beliefs. To CN, “religious freedom” means privileges only for those who adhere to its vision of Christianity.

Questions: Probably most conservatives (~97% ?) would reject Stewart’s characterization of CN and Project Blitz. Is Stewart’s characterization credible, and if not why not, and if so, why? Does any politically active religious organization deserve tax credits, CN, anti-CN or otherwise, e.g., anti-abortion or pro-abortion? Are states under significant CN influence, i.e., most or all Republican-dominated states, mostly laboratories of theocracy, mostly laboratories of anti-democratic autocracy and corruption, some combination of both, and/or something else to a non-trivial degree?

Footnotes: 

1. David Barton is one of four key CN leaders. Barton founded Wallbuilders ProFamily Legislative Network and is the president of the National Legal Foundation, both of which are influential in the CN political movement. Barton is also on the steering committee of Project Blitz and one of the two CN leaders (along with lea Carawan) who lead in laying out Project Blitz strategy for Republican politicians and leaders.

2. Project Blitz documentation was uncovered by a journalist. It came as a major revelation in understanding CN as a powerful, sophisticated political movement. What appeared to be an uncoordinated and scattershot phenomenon was in fact a carefully orchestrated political assault on secular government and the legislative process. Over time the CN expanded and refined the document to increase the effectiveness of the the CN effort to establish a privileged CN version of Christianity as the official American religion. The 2018-2019 edition of the project is entitled Report and Analysis on Religious Freedom Measures Impacting Prayer and Faith in America, a copy of which is here. 

I intend to do a separate blog post on 2018-2019 document and maybe some other CN-related material. The CN war plan is too complex to be included in this chapter review, which is more than complex enough by itself.

An escape from Afghanistan

A New York Times article reports on how one of Afghanistan's best pilots escaped from both the Taliban and the Afghan military. It hints at how broken Afghanistan is and how far America has fallen in all regards. The helicopter pilot, Maj. Naiem Asadi, is a member of the Afghan air force and considered one of its most effective Taliban killers. He, his wife and 5 year old daughter have been in hiding for 7 months.

Asadi's wife and daughter at the Kabul airport

The threat from the Taliban is clear. The Taliban threatened Asadi's life stating that “The U.S. cannot protect you.” They posted his photo online with the instructions “Find him and kill him.” The Taliban also wrote and phoned his father, ordering him to surrender his son or face death. So, there's that aspect of Taliban justice for at least some Afghan people.

The other threat to Asadi comes from the Afghan military who is angry at him for being in hiding, asserting that he is deserting his post during a time of war. They want him to stay at his post where he and his family would be subject to Taliban justice. To add some spice to the story, the Afghan military discriminated against Asadi because he is a member of the Hazara ethnic minority. The military there is angry because of fear that if the country’s top attack helicopter pilot was allowed to leave his post, other threatened Afghan pilots and soldiers might also want to get out.  

The Asadis getting a COVID test before their flight to the US

The NYT writes:

Many pilots and soldiers have been threatened by the Taliban. Most can only dream of relocating their families to the United States.

Major Asadi conceded that his actions could undermine air force morale, but he said he acted to protect himself and his family. He said he ignored orders to report for duty because he feared he would be detained for desertion.

But he said he had fulfilled his 10-year commitment to the military last year — serving eight of those years as a pilot, logging 3,000 flight hours and countless combat missions. “I haven’t done anything wrong,” he said.  

“It’s a pity. He did this to escape from serving his homeland,” said Lt. Col. Jalaluddin Ibrahimkhel, an Afghan Air Force spokesman, adding that others were now more likely to “make excuses and escape.”  

The Defense Department “would have been in the position of abetting the desertion of a serving Afghan officer as Major Asadi had not informed his chain of command of his parole application,” pentagon spokesman Major Robert Lodewick said.

Yes, it is a pity that an officer who served his country, who cannot protect him, and fulfilled his military obligation did not want to stay to be slaughtered by the Taliban at their leisure. 

Then, there's the US government. What a steaming pile of . . . . whatever. 

In his application to come to the US for safety, assistant secretary of defense Ezra Cohen wrote for Major Asadi: “Applicant and his family are in imminent danger of being killed by the Taliban.” In support of Asdi's application for entry into the US, US Air Force Capt. Robert V. Yost stated that in July of 2020 Major Asadi flew one of two armed helicopters to protect the crash site of a downed U.S. Air Force pilot in northern Afghanistan until he was rescued. Yost wrote “This is one of countless events where Major Asadi’s actions have protected and saved lives.”

The US military rejected Asadi's application to come to the US. The excuse was that Asadi’s application “was found to have not been fully vetted” by the Department of Defense. The application was fully vetted, but there's no law against lying by the all mighty US military. The US military confiscated the Asadi's passports. So, there's that aspect of how the US operates, or depending on how one sees it, fails to operate, or betrays, or whatever.

Kimberly Motley and the Major working on immigration papers in Kabul

Then, North Carolina-based human rights attorney Kimberley Motley was asked to intervene. She secured a humanitarian parole for the Asadis’ last month. That came without endorsement or support from the Pentagon. Last Tuesday she flew with the family from Kabul to Dubai to New York. Major Asadi’s American sponsor has asked for anonymity to safeguard the location of the Asadis. He or she has offered housing in New Jersey and paid travel expenses. Former and active U.S. military advisers who worked with Major Asadi pledge to support the family. The Asadi family will be able to apply for asylum. Whether they will get it or not is an open question. The NYT writes about the family's arrival in the US:

The family walked outside onto American soil, weary but elated. “I’m really not so tired because of all the new and beautiful things we’ll be doing now,” Major Asadi said.

During the long plane ride, he released emotions that had been welling inside him for months. In neatly printed English, he wrote a two-page letter of gratitude to everyone in the United States and Afghanistan who had helped them.

He wrote: “Your ambition is like a roaring sea and running water and your kindness is as high as the sky and the vastness of the earth.”

The Major is grateful to the US. Will the US be grateful and kind in return?

Questions: The "he said, they said" disagreement here is whether Asadi is a deserter or not. He says no, they say yes. What should the US do, send Asadi back or grant asylum? Lying by the Pentagon and the rest of the US government is nothing new, so how much credibility should they get? Does it matter that he deserted, assuming he did? Does it matter that the Taliban threatened his family (father) and the Afghan military and police cannot protect people from Taliban assassinations? 

Between flights at the Dubai airport

Godwin's Laws

 Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler becomes more likely.^[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

It’s time to stop making comparisons to Hitler

The deadliest, most destructive war in human history should not become a metaphor

Godwin’s Law, an internet adage coined by American attorney Mike Godwin in 1990, states that in any online discussion, sooner or later, someone will compare a person or a trend to Adolf Hitler, fascism or Nazi Germany during the Second World War.

Sadly, this trend seems to be happening faster and more frequently than in the past.

I’ve heard and seen the Nazi comparisons made about COVID-19 restrictions, public safety policies and more. World leaders, elected officials and supporters of certain political parties have too often been compared to Hitler or his supporters, even when their ideologies are far from that of Nazi Germany.

https://www.trailtimes.ca/opinion/its-time-to-stop-making-comparisons-to-hitler/

Snowy's question: Is it ever appropriate to refer to another, or a political group, or a group of people, or someone you just disagree with - as Nazis?

Granted neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Qanon and the like, maybe even some Trumpers might invite that comparison, but folks on the internet tend to use that term too freely, and is that in a way being disrespectful to those who actually did suffer under Nazism?

Just curious.