The 10 tactics of fascism - Truth

Mendel

Senior Member.
This is why debunking is, at times, political.

The 10 tactics of fascism​


How do fascist leaders take hold? Lying to a whole nation, and having them believe you, is just one tenth of it.

[...]

As Hitler says in "Mein Kampf," "Science is only useful insofar as it strengthens the nation." Fascism is a cult of the leader. It involves the leader setting the rules about what's true and false. So any kind of expertise, reality, all of that is a challenge to the authority of the leader. If science would help him, then he can say, "Okay, I'll use it." Institutions that teach multiple perspectives on history in all its complexity are always a threat to the fascist leader.

The center of democracy is truth. You're not free if you've been lied to. Nobody thinks the people of North Korea are free. The people of North Korea will vote for Dear Leader every time because they've been lied to. It's not a free vote because they don't have access to the truth.

Equality, similarly, requires truth because equality and democracy doesn't mean we all have the same amount of money. It doesn't mean we all have the same car. It means political equality, that each of our voices matters the same. And political equality means speaking truth to power. If someone really powerful is humiliated when they're caught lying, that's the core of political equality. So if you're gonna rip the heart out of democracy, you get people used to lies.
Content from External Source
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CpCKkWMbmXU
Transcript at https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-fascism/ .
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
As Hitler says in "Mein Kampf," "Science is only useful insofar as it strengthens the nation." Fascism is a cult of the leader. It involves the leader setting the rules about what's true and false. So any kind of expertise, reality, all of that is a challenge to the authority of the leader.
Transcript at https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-fascism/ .
what page was that on?
I doubt Hitler wrote that. I think that Jason Stanley's video (above) about fascism is mostly true and
useful. But Stanley is a philosopher who specializes in language...not a historian. While a transcript
accompanies the video, Stanley does not have a citation for the Hitler "science" quote.
I don't think it exists. Perhaps it's just Stanley's interpretation of Hitler's views
(not one I'd totally agree with, btw) but, if so, it shouldn't appear in quotes.

All that said, anyone who knows America's political history of the last 6 years should be mighty uncomfortable. Trying to avoid Godwin's Law is generally good policy...but ignoring history
and obvious historical similarities is the greater peril...
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I don't know about "Mein Kampf", but this was in fact the stance of the German Nazis.
Article:
Die entsprechende Anweisung an die Wissenschaft lautete 1933 mit den Worten des damaligen bayerischen Kultusministers vor den Münchener Professoren: „Von jetzt ab kommt es für Sie nicht darauf an festzustellen, ob etwas wahr ist, sondern ob es im Sinne der nationalsozialistischen Revolution ist“.

In 1933, the corresponding instruction to science was, in the words of the then Bavarian Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs in front of the Munich professors: "From now on it is not important for you to determine whether something is true, but whether it is in the spirit of the National Socialist Revolution".
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
I don't know about "Mein Kampf", but this was in fact the stance of the German Nazis.
Article:
Die entsprechende Anweisung an die Wissenschaft lautete 1933 mit den Worten des damaligen bayerischen Kultusministers vor den Münchener Professoren: „Von jetzt ab kommt es für Sie nicht darauf an festzustellen, ob etwas wahr ist, sondern ob es im Sinne der nationalsozialistischen Revolution ist“.

In 1933, the corresponding instruction to science was, in the words of the then Bavarian Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs in front of the Munich professors: "From now on it is not important for you to determine whether something is true, but whether it is in the spirit of the National Socialist Revolution".
Content from External Source
page 473
Auch in der Wissenschaft hat der völkische Staat ein Hilfsmittel zu erblicken zur Förderung des Nationalstolzes.
Content from External Source
I'm a little confused: Are you saying
"Auch in der Wissenschaft hat der völkische Staat ein Hilfsmittel zu erblicken zur Förderung des Nationalstolzes" is Hitler's words, from Mein Kampf?

My German is poor...this is what I got from Google Translate:
German Quote.jpeg
Are you saying that this is the"Science is only useful insofar as it strengthens the nation" passage?
 

Attachments

  • German Quote.jpeg
    German Quote.jpeg
    65.3 KB · Views: 151

Mendel

Senior Member.
Are you saying that this is the"Science is only useful insofar as it strengthens the nation" passage?
Yes, I'm saying Google mistranslates this sentence from "Mein Kampf", and that the translation given by Jason Stanley is acceptable. I'm a native German speaker.

Would you like me to give you a lesson on (antiquated) German grammar?
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
How exactly do you think Stanley deviates fron the meaning that Hitler intended?

As a native English speaker, I had reservations about the translation given the google translate mangling above - the "only" aspect carries a lot of weight in the English, and it looked as if perhaps google had ignored that.

Deepl translate, however, converts the german quote to "In science, too, the völkisch state has to see an aid for the promotion of national pride. " ( https://www.deepl.com/translator#de...u erblicken zur Förderung des Nationalstolzes. ) which contains a "has to" that performs the same duty. However, my understanding of German is superficial, I'm not sure that the "hat" is perfoming the role, because "has" is an extremely general purpose word.

Dicing the German into sensible-looking phrase chunks "Auch in der Wissenschaft / hat / der völkische Staat / ein Hilfsmittel / zu erblicken / zur Förderung des Nationalstolzes." became "Also in science / has / the völkisch state / an aid / to see / for the promotion / of national pride." which contains all the same ingredients as "Also in science / the völkisch state / has / to see / an aid / for the promotion / of national pride.", which I think is close enough to the original quote to support your stance that it's a fair *representation* of the original (conditional on the 'has' working the same way, of course). However, it's perhaps a loose enough "translation" that I would have perferred it to not have been presented as an actual *quote*.

We work with German-English translators, I'll see what their input is and report back.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
"You're not free if you've been lied to."

Sloppy rhetoric that's easily debunked assuming anyone can be free.
Take the free person, and tell him an alien spaceship has just disappeared up his behind. How has his freedom been diminished by you telling said lie?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Deepl translate, however, converts the german quote to "In science, too, the völkisch state has to see an aid for the promotion of national pride. " ( https://www.deepl.com/translator#de...u erblicken zur Förderung des Nationalstolzes. ) which contains a "has to" that performs the same duty. However, my understanding of German is superficial, I'm not sure that the "hat" is perfoming the role, because "has" is an extremely general purpose word.
Yes, "hat"+infinitive means "must".
"The völkisch state must see science as an another tool to promote national pride" would be a fairly literal translation.

Hitler doubles down on this on the following pages, demanding of schools to select their curriculum to induce full national pride in the pupils instead of turning them into "half democrats".

From the 1939/1941 translation published by Houghton Mifflin:
Article:
Also in science the folkish State has to see a means for the promotion of national pride. Not only world history, but the entire culture history must be taught from this viewpoint. An inventor must appear great not only as an inventor, but greater still as a fellow citizen. The admiration for every great deed has to be recast into pride in the fortunate performer of this deed as a member of one's own nation. From the vast number of all the great names of German history the greatest have to be singled out and presented to youth so impressively as to become the pillars of an unshakable national sentiment. The subjects to be taught must be built up systematically according to these viewpoints; education must be arranged systematically in such a way as to make the young man upon leaving school not half a pacifist, democrat or something of that kind, but a genuine German.



Take the free person, and tell him an alien spaceship has just disappeared up his behind. How has his freedom been diminished by you telling said lie?
That person is going to vote for the party that promises to spend their tax money on the (nonexistent) alien threat, and going to distrust the party that says aliens aren't a threat at all.
The person is no longer free to vote their actual best interests.

Obviously, only political lies affect political freedom, but keeping reality from us (e.g. as gaslighting) manipulates our choices and actions.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Deepl translate, however, converts the german quote to "In science, too, the völkisch state has to see an aid for the promotion of national pride. "
so...sending a man to the moon was not a source of supreme national pride? we did not make our scientists "heros" for accomplishing the task?

that's how i read that particular line.

none of the translations suggest throwing out science that doesn't jibe (<thats for ZW) with national policy.
I would imagine Hitler did at some point ignore science about "pure bloods" (or whatever germans called themselves) vs. Jews, just not in that line quoted.
I imagine there must be right wing activists who use Hitler to point out the "badness" of trying to lie/sell the public on "biological males are the same as biological females in women's sports", perhaps that's an avenue to explore to find an accurate quote from Hitler.

Ultimately, Hitler was a monster, it' sad this writer has to make up lies, when there are plenty of truths that condemn Hitler or those like him.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
so...sending a man to the moon was not a source of supreme national pride? we did not make our scientists "heros" for accomplishing the task?

that's how i read that particular line.

If pride in the nation and system that enabled such a scientific feat was increased by that endeavor, then that use of science would be entirely Hitler-approved.

However, I'm not entirely sure what your argument is, so I'm not sure I've clarified. Can you reword declaritively without the negative questions?

All I can get from your argument in present form is what seems to be an implication that because the US did something that would have been Hitler-approved, the US did something bad, which is somewhat bizarre. There's nothing intrinsically wrong about being Hitler-approved. Lots of central european cooks can feel great pride in their liver dumplings, for example.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
An example from current politics is Critical Race Theory. As I understand the argument against it, there's nothing wrong with it intellectually, but since it diminishes pride in the nation, it should not be taught, maybe even censored.

As an example from Hitler's time, race biology is almost entirely a fake science serving political ends.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
If pride in the nation and system that enabled such a scientific feat was increased by that endeavor, then that use of science would be entirely Hitler-approved.

However, I'm not entirely sure what your argument is, so I'm not sure I've clarified. Can you reword declaritively without the negative questions?

All I can get from your argument in present form is what seems to be an implication that because the US did something that would have been Hitler-approved, the US did something bad, which is somewhat bizarre. There's nothing intrinsically wrong about being Hitler-approved. Lots of central european cooks can feel great pride in their liver dumplings, for example.
i'm saying the Hitler quote in the OP is inaccurate.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
An example from current politics is Critical Race Theory. As I understand the argument against it, there's nothing wrong with it intellectually, but since it diminishes pride in the nation, it should not be taught, maybe even censored.
CRT isn't science. (and i disagree with your understanding of the argument against it)
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
You said nothing about the accuracy of any quote.
sorry, i thought since that was the entire point of the discussion thus far i didnt need to restate that.

but i probably should've added this part of your comment to indicate what i was disagreeing with (in case people didn't pay attention to what you said)
which I think is close enough to the original quote to support your stance that it's a fair *representation* of the original (conditional on the 'has' working the same way, of course)
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
An example from current politics is Critical Race Theory. As I understand the argument against it, there's nothing wrong with it intellectually, but since it diminishes pride in the nation, it should not be taught, maybe even censored.

As an example from Hitler's time, race biology is almost entirely a fake science serving political ends.

Pretty much every argument I've heard against it says that there's everything wrong with it intellectually. And I'm not just talking about ranty youtube randos who don't like it, I'm talking about elected US senators who have *official* stances on it. E.g. this one describes it as "racially motivated propaganda", "destructive/dangerous ideology", and "revisionist history": Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tn) https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2021/7/why-is-critical-race-theory-dangerous-for-our-kids
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Yes, "hat"+infinitive means "must".
"The völkisch state must see science as an another tool to promote national pride" would be a fairly literal translation.

Hitler doubles down on this on the following pages, demanding of schools to select their curriculum to induce full national pride in the pupils instead of turning them into "half democrats".

From the 1939/1941 translation published by Houghton Mifflin:
Article:
Also in science the folkish State has to see a means for the promotion of national pride. [...]

Our translator came up with a fair bit of how-to-read-the-text (including a whole paragraph on the obvious word) background and a translation to "Furthermore, the [völkisch] state sees science as an additional means of strengthening national pride." which weakens the "only"/"has to" obligation. This is one of the joys of translations, I'm sure this could be debated for a thousand years.

Interestingly, the copy she had access too had a very curious text layout change for that paragraph. I presume that bold wasn't available to the printer at the time: http://fatphil.org/tmp/hitl.jpg (I clear the temp area on my website not even yearly, but that can't be considered a permanent link - if someone knows how to embed a copy here for later, go for it.)
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Pretty much every argument I've heard against it says that there's everything wrong with it intellectually.
Really? I figured the overwhelming historical record of racism/racial bias was the reason
they constantly resort to the "It'll make white kids feel bad about themselves" card...
since it's virtually impossible to argue against the huge pile of facts that inform CRT.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Really? I figured the overwhelming historical record of racism/racial bias was the reason
they constantly resort to the "It'll make white kids feel bad about themselves" card...
since it's virtually impossible to argue against the huge pile of facts that inform CRT.

And many would say that that card playing can be held up as evidence that there is something wrong with it from an intellectual perspective.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
the democrats and school boards and media are all adamant they aren't teaching CRT to school age children. so this discussion is kinda moot.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
And many would say that that card playing can be held up as evidence that there is something wrong with it from an intellectual perspective.
Yes!!! The fact that arguing against the historical facts behind CRT can not be done with a straight
face by anyone who passed 11th grade U.S. History, is thorough evidence that there is no serious
"intellectual perspective" in their argument...that's obviously why we keep hearing
the "It'll make white kids feel bad about themselves" whine...

And though am mocking their moral bankruptcy, I actually agree with them on strategy:
If maintaining white advantage is one's goal, you have a much better chance with Appealing to Pity,
(because, after all, white children didn't create or enforce the racism [though they did benefit from it]...
and there will surely be moments in classrooms in which it's less fun to identify as white, than usual)

than you do trying to pretend that we don't know anything about race history over the last 400 years.

So I totally understand why they're playing the "It'll make white kids feel bad about themselves" card...
it actually is closest to a legitimate argument that they've got. But it still needs to be called out.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
CRT isn't science. (and i disagree with your understanding of the argument against it)
Let me support my claim that CRT is science.
Britannica talks about "CRT scholars" repeatedly, and it is being taught in universities.
Article:
In fact, owing to its complexity, CRT in its fully developed form was being taught only in law schools, colleges, and universities [...].

CRT has influenced scholarship in fields outside the confines of legal studies, including women’s and gender studies, education , American studies, and sociology .

There's a textbook on it, by a law professor from UC Berkeley and Boston University's associate dean for equity, justice & engagement at BU Law. . I'm quoting from the blurb:

Critical Race Theory: A Primer, by Khiara Bridges, Foundation Press 2019

This highly-readable primer on Critical Race Theory (CRT) examines the theory's basic commitments, strengths, and weaknesses. In addition to serving as a primary text for graduate and undergraduate Critical Race Theory seminars or courses on Race and the Law, it can also be assigned in courses on Antidiscrimination Law, Civil Rights, and Law and Society. The book can be used by any reader seeking to understand the relationship between constructions of race and the law.
Content from External Source
And many would say that that card playing can be held up as evidence that there is something wrong with it from an intellectual perspective.
if card playing had academic merit, the theory of evolution would likewise be discredited.
You cite Senator Marsha Blackburn, who holds a Bachelor of Science degree in home economics, and links to the Heritage Foundation to support her opinion on CRT. At https://www.heritage.org/crt , I find a collection of headlines, including "Critical Race Theory Will Destroy the Fabric of Our Military", which exemplifies judging science by whether it serves a political goal or not, and not by whether it is true.

Jason Stanley said in the video in my OP: "Institutions that teach multiple perspectives on history in all its complexity are always a threat to the fascist leader." CRT is one of many perspectives on history. Its teaching is definitely a threat to American fascists.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
This is why debunking is, at times, political.
Political debunking? Is that using lies/fake science to debunk things? That is not debunking, that is bunk. (political bunking)

"My fight"," “My Struggle” - "Mein Kampf" is not a great source for more than an example of Antisemitism, or how to become an Anti-Semitic failure. ( Jew appears in some form 513 times in Mein Kampf - does this mean scapegoating is important to fascism. ) Blaming others for problems is a key for the fascist leader to push their agenda, like calling news sources "fake news".

CRT has become the scapegoat for some extreme right wing sources short on facts that paint CRT as bad due to ignorance of what CRT is.

wow... sad to see a Senator has no clue about CRT, using false information about CRT to frighten her constituents with nonsense.
https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2021/7/why-is-critical-race-theory-dangerous-for-our-kids "The last thing educators should be doing is encouraging our children to be ashamed of the color of their skin. That same Williamson County mom who warned about the dangers of CRT was left with no choice but to put her seven-year-old in therapy. Why? “She is depressed. She doesn’t want to go to school.” While parents struggle to help their children manage the mental and emotional damage inflicted by this dangerous ideology, the left will continue to re-write our education system to fit their woke agenda—and they won’t stop until CRT is in every classroom in America. I will gladly stand with Tennessee parents to demand an end to this latest, unhinged attempt to brainwash our nation’s children. "
CRT, amazing it is an issue, and now that it is, has some interesting issues, sort of.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Political debunking? Is that using lies/fake science to debunk things? That is not debunking, that is bunk. (political bunking)
Well, calling out a UFO hoax or debunking Flat Earth evidence is mostly non-political.
But there are some lies that serve political ends, and debunking them is in itself a political action.


"My fight"," “My Struggle” - "Mein Kampf" is not a great source for more than an example of Antisemitism, or how to become an Anti-Semitic failure. ( Jew appears in some form 513 times in Mein Kampf - does this mean scapegoating is important to fascism. ) Blaming others for problems is a key for the fascist leader to push their agenda, like calling news sources "fake news".
That last point is also something that "Mein Kampf" provides us with examples of. Hitler had a lot to say about journalists that sounds more familiar than I'd like.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
there are some lies that serve political ends, and debunking them is in itself a political action.
no it is not. Not all debunkers only "debunk" in order to attempt to prove that every opinion they hold personally is the right opinion. Most of debunk because we are naturally curious what the truth in any given matter is.

Blaming others for problems is a key for the fascist leader to push their agenda, like calling news sources "fake news".
But the OP is saying Nazi News was "fake news". Does that mean the anti-fascists are fascists? hhmm....
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Well, calling out a UFO hoax or debunking Flat Earth evidence is mostly non-political.
But there are some lies that serve political ends, and debunking them is in itself a political action.
no it is not. Not all debunkers only "debunk" in order to attempt to prove that every opinion they hold personally is the right opinion. Most of debunk because we are naturally curious what the truth in any given matter is.
You don't understand.
If your "natural curiosity" leads you to debunk a political lie (that was made purposely), posting that debunk is a political action, whether you want it or not, because it has a political effect.
 
Last edited:

Ashley Pomeroy

New Member
My copy of Mein Kampf is a PDF of a translation by James Murphy, published in 1939. The closest it comes to the OP's link's translation is "the People’s State must realize that the sciences may also be made a means of promoting a spirit of pride in the nation", or at least that seems to be the closest. I can't tell if James Murphy was trying to make Hitler sound more reasonable than he was.

It's part of a longer diatribe in which Hitler opines that nerdy weaklings cannot be trusted. He comes across as a demented PE teacher. I suspect he wasn't keen on smart people.

"The State which is grounded on the racial idea must start with the principle that a person whose formal education in the sciences is relatively small but who is physically sound and robust, of a steadfast and honest character, ready and able to make decisions and endowed with strength of will, is a more useful member of the national community than a weakling who is scholarly and refined."

As mentioned passim I recently polished off Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which also covered the German and Japanese bomb projects. The Japanese project went nowhere. The German project was doomed partially by a misplaced envelope - a secretary failed to send out an invitation to a key conference - but mainly by official indifference. Hitler himself assumed that atomic theory was just mumbo-jumbo that might come to fruition long after they were all dead. This paragraph of Mein Kampf reminded me of that:

"It is a characteristic of our materialistic epoch that our scientific education shows a growing emphasis on what is real and practical: such subjects, for instance, as applied mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. Of course they are necessary in an age that is dominated by industrial technology and chemistry, and where everyday life shows at least the external manifestations of these. But it is a perilous thing to base the general culture of a nation on the knowledge of these subjects. On the contrary, that general culture ought always to be directed towards ideals."

Meanwhile scientists in Austria, Germany, and latterly the United States were putting aside their ideals in order to investigate the fascinating possibility that certain isotopes of Uranium could be made to create a fireball hotter than the surface of the sun.

As for the rest of the original message I too remember The End of History. The last thirty years have reinforced the old saying that the market can remain irrational longer than you or I can remain solvent.
 

Woolery

Banned
Banned
You don't understand.
If your "natural curiosity" leads you to debunk a political lie (that was made purposely), posting that debunk is a political action, whether you want it or not, because it has a political effect.
I don’t agree. I don’t think you understand what a political act is.

Political action according to Merriam-Webster:
“An action designed to attain a purpose by the use of political power or by activity in political channels.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political action

For it to be political it has to be “designed” to be so.

If you were to poll across the political spectrum on whether it is right to correct a lie in general I think you’d find overwhelming support for a correction regardless of ideology. The lie you describe is a baldly political act—the correction is a depoliticizing act when done without political design. Intent is a quintessential part of an act or action being political.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I don’t agree. I don’t think you understand what a political act is.

Political action according to Merriam-Webster:
“An action designed to attain a purpose by the use of political power or by activity in political channels.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political action

For it to be political it has to be “designed” to be so.

If you were to poll across the political spectrum on whether it is right to correct a lie in general I think you’d find overwhelming support for a correction regardless of ideology. The lie you describe is a baldly political act—the correction is a depoliticizing act when done without political design. Intent is a quintessential part of an act or action being political.
I don’t agree. I don’t think you understand what a political act is.

I'm using your own words here, in lightness...to make a point...not to be insulting.

I used to advise folks--before ever using a dictionary to make their point--to find at least five other
dictionary definitions, that establish that to be the prevailing view...and not an outlier, or,
in the fallacy world: a "converse accident."

The Merriam-Webster blurb you posted struck me as inaccurate, and a quick google search on
"political action" found virtually zero (never mind five) dictionary definitions that implied "design."

Not that it necessarily matters: The OP claims "debunking is, at times, political,"
(it isn't a definition of "political action") and I took this to mean that sometimes unearthing facts
or correcting the record can significantly affect a political situation. Which seems obvious.

If prominent scientist Jane Smith
(who, for the purposes of this example, practically lives in her lab & knows/cares almost nothing of politics)
publishes solid research that demolishes some old misconceptions about transmissibility of disease...
that could decimate the chances of a politician who has made fear of disease from immigrants
the very cornerstone of his candidacy. Her debunking has indisputably "political" ramifications
of which she is not even aware, never mind "designing."

In other words, I don't see how a semantic turn helps us with the concept in the OP.
Especially when the one source cited does not seem to be well established.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Not that it necessarily matters: The OP claims "debunking is, at times, political,"
(it isn't a definition of "political action") and I took this to mean that sometimes unearthing facts
or correcting the record can significantly affect a political situation. Which seems obvious.
we were responding to comment #30. not the OP.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
we were responding to comment #30. not the OP.
Are you saying that Mendel is now talking about something different (in substance) in comment #30,
than in the OP...or is it just a semantic thing with the wording?

(and if so, do you believe that the lone Merriam-Webster quote is definitive?)
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
There's a difference between "political action" as a set noun phrase and "a political action", a noun modified by an adjective. @Mendel used the latter, and I agree with his use. He even demonstrated this by splitting the two words from each other.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
He even demonstrated this by splitting the two words from each other.
?

Are you saying that Mendel is now talking about something different (in substance) in comment #30,
than in the OP
yes i think the two statements are completely different. but i take his comment #30 to mean that maybe i gave his OP statement too much benefit of the doubt.

Trust me i am not taking a "political action" if i debunk something a conservative puts out. and i'm only taking a "political action" maybe 10-20% of the time if i debunk something liberal.

But then i don't think my friends owe me something if they ask me for a favor, (<that's a Trump Ukraine reference) and i think hiring someone for a job based on race is racist*, so obviously different people understand words differently.

If you want to believe activist debunkers are the same as normal debunkers, that's cool.
If you dont agree "political action" is the same as activism, that's cool too.



* i dont have problem with people getting hired "just because they are black", just saying it is demeaning and racist.
 
Top