Well, I sincerely doubt people in any western country were particularly fond of black people at the time. However, the country you are from is hardly important.

The point is, that the views that prompt you to call these people nazis were also held by people that dealt with the nazis.

80 years ago, most people in your country did not have a much more favourable view of black people.

The word “fascist” does not mean “person I do not like”.

This doesn’t make any sense. My person has nothing to do with this.

Leftists that support rehabilitative justice, oppose the police and prisons, turn into Hitler when someone commits a minor offence against a group they favour. How does that work?

Conducting that meeting in that place at such a time seems quite inappropriate and disrespectful.

Moral objectivism and Rand’s objectivism are two completely different things.

Rand’s philosophy is opposed to traditional morality.

Well, sorry for the accusation. AI usually gives these bullet points when prompted.

Are these AI bullet points, lmao?

They feel like it’s wrong so it needs to be illegal.

They believe it to be immoral, so they want it to be illegal, yes. Is that not how people usually decide what should be legal and what shouldn’t?

Also, it seems disingenuous to say that

No amount of death or suffering of real live people is as important as their idea of a person.

I would say one can be opposed to abortions, and still care about other people. Clearly.

The state already regulates which practices may or may not be performed by doctors. This is hardly different.

I would say people with principled political views are in the minority, whether they are on the left or on the right. Most people just parrot what everyone else and the politicians say. People don’t like to think about these matters too deeply and vague emotions can be used(by politicians) in many ways.

In any case, which extreme positions are you referring to specifically? Or rather, which positions are extreme and integral to their programme?

Did Northern Ireland adopt the Irish language from Ireland after the treaty then?

I assumed you meant the competent republican will be so successful, the party will win the next election and the dems will not be able to compete. So you would rather they fail and let you win.

But now I realise that you actually implied they will rig the elections, which makes me think you are dramatising even more, since I doubt that will happen.

Maybe you are right, but I would not underestimate how quickly things can change. The did change quickly with Trump, did they not?

Why would they not support him? A sizeable portion of their base love the guy. He has a lot of power.

And why would the situation not change if a more sensible person assumed leadership of the party? Things can change rather quickly, and if his term goes badly I doubt the conservative establishment will appreciate another idiot nominee with a god complex.

The democrats nominated a barely functioning senile man that can’t string a sentence together for president twice. That does not mean that every single nominee that comes after is going to have dementia, does it?

Would you say the americans adopted the ebglish language from the british?

Being more competent than Trump is hardly remarkable.

I believe you are being unfair to republicans. I understand the desire to caricature the other side, but this is unbecoming of Boddhisatva.

Would you rather not have a competent government? You are dramatising a bit I believe.

But when that happened, the americans were not a group distinct from the british, they were a part of the state that did that, so it is not the case that they adopted slavery from the brits, like it is not the case they adopted english from the brits for example.

1)The british did not invent slavery.

2)Americans did not adopt it from the british because they had been practising it since they emerged as a nation.

No, not really.