Senal

the majority of the population doesn’t identify this as being nazism.

That's a big claim for no citation.

Taxonomy.

• A cat is [animal]
• A dog is an [animal]

The nazi's did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.

So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.

I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category

As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]'s

• National Socialist German Workers' Party were [nazi]'s
• The American Republican Party are subjectively showing enough similarities (both in type and progression) that they get the provisional label of [nazi] as it's the closest existing definition.

Might turn out that they don't quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.

Even if they were just a direct descendent ( taxonomically ) rather than a sibling of the original nazi party there would still be an argument to claim they were nazi's

Like :

• animal -> mammal -> cat
• nazi -> nazi party -> republican

Come back in a few years and you'll probably get your definitive answer either way.

You don't have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.

Well, at least they aren't pretending to accept longer passwords but actually truncating it, like they used to in hotmail and live.

They were silently truncating the passwords to something like the first 16 characters, the rest was ignored.

Apologies, i cannot divulge that information as per the NDA i signed at the time.

/s

If people would realize that they try to leave out the terms autism and autistic for a wrong reason (and maybe they don’t) that would be a success

That's phrased in such a way that it seems you think that the only reason to use "on the spectrum" is to purposely leave out the word autism.

If that's what you mean then i disagree, It's only my own anecdotal experience, but it's still at least one instance where what you are possibly suggesting is not true.

Coming from a "my interpretation is the only interpretation" viewpoint is an easy way to get confusing input from the world, at least in my personal experience.

It’s not about choosing whether something is offensive to me or not, but whether it is, be it intended or not.

I also disagree with this, offense is inherently subjective, I'd put good money on me not being the only person who thinks that.

I will however concede that "choose" was a bad choice of word on my part, as it's not always as simple as "choosing".

I am aware that people don’t usually use it to purposefully be offensive, and in that sense I can understand it - but that doesn’t change that (depending on the unconscious reason) it is offensive anyway.

See my answer above about subjective opinion vs objective fact.

But it being offensive to you, regardless of intent, i can understand, which is what i was trying to address with :

You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.

I phrased that poorly, i think it would be better phrased as :

If you find the phrase itself offensive regardless of intent, you can let people know of your opinion, but you should probably at least try to understand the intent behind it so you can more accurately assess the social context and act accordingly.

for example, if you know they don't intend to be offensive and you react with hostility, that's a valid choice, but it does come with consequences, knowing about the potential consequences beforehand means you can better prepare yourself.

I don't personally consider this a language issue as much as a people issue.

IIRC the current evaluation methodologies are heavily tied to the idea of a spectrum of traits, each with their own scale.

As you say, there are other spectrum diagnoses including autism, so "on the spectrum" is technically correct.

Which is why i consider the issue you seem to be describing as a person issue, not a language one.

A person using a descriptor or label with the intention of being an arsehole could just as easily use a different word or phrase.

Using something that isn't inherently considered offensive however, gives them some plausible deniability.

You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.

A worldwide revolution in which everyone unites against the "ruling class" isn't a viable alternative in and of itself, that's like saying "world peace".

An example of an alternative would be something which could fill in the blank in this sentence and make sense.

"Don't boycott products/companies, that isn't how you achieve your goal, what you should be doing is "

This is not a war between nations but a war between class

The issue i have with this isn't that it's a marxist cliche (i'll take your word on that, I've no idea) it's that it presents a false dichotomy in which a class war and a national war can't both be occurring at the same time.

I suspect more people than you think realise this is a potential outcome.

Assuming it boils over before there is another election (also assuming that's a thing that happens), military action is 100% a playable card.

It's a toddler with a nuclear tantrum button.

It's honestly not that much different in type than most nuclear powered nations.

The difference is "absolute last resort, and only maybe then" vs "they won't let me annex Greenland and are being mean to me"

Hyperbolic ofc, but illustrative.

What are the reasonable good alternatives though?

a sequel is in the works : https://www.remedygames.com/games/control-2

Hah, 3 whole comments, all of them nuts.

Another bot for the blocklist.

ah, my bad, that was two different responses, only the first line was directed at you.

i've edited the response to be clearer.

edit: for clarity

That's a lot of assumptions about the poster but I can see how you got there.

Below is a response to the idea of supremacy in general, not a response to @chuckleslord@lemmy.world

That seems like a particularly stupid and relatively indefensible hill to die on, but I suppose if you are going to plant a supremacist flag, you haven't really used well reasoned arguments to get there in the first place.

Why not just go with "I disagree with them to such a degree that I wish them and any like them, dead" ?

No need to base it on utterly and stupidly false claims.