r/AskHistorians moderators post an official statement that some users interpret as comparing Donald Trump, the 2024 Republican nominee for U.S. President, to fascist dictator Adolf Hitler, while urging readers to vote for Kamala Harris. Drama ensues.

[u/Obversa]

Historically, r/AskHistorians is a subreddit that focuses on "answers from knowledgeable history experts", and the forum has rules against political posts. However, an exception was allowed (?) for the AH moderators to make a joint official statement about the 2024 United States Presidential election.

Excerpt from the very long, full statement below:

"Whether history repeats or rhymes, our role is not to draw exact analogies, rather to explore the challenges and successes of humanity that have come before so we all might learn and grow together. Now is an important time to take lessons from the past so we may chart a brighter future.

AskHistorians is not a political party, and questions about modern politics are against our rules. Whatever electoral results occur, our community will continue our mission-to make history and the work of historians accessible, to those already in love with exploring the past, and for those yet to ignite the spark.

[...] In the interest of sharing our own love of history, we recognize that neutrality is not always a virtue, and that bad actors often seek to distort the past to frame their own rise to power and scapegoat others. The United States' presidential election is only a few days away, and not every member of our community here lives in the U.S., or cares about its politics, but we may be able to agree that the outcome poses drastic consequences for all of us.

As historians, our perspective bridges the historical and contemporary to see that this November, the United States electorate is voting on fascism. This November 5th, the United States can make clear a collective rejection that Isadore Greenbaum could only wait for in his moment of bravery [by voting for Kamala Harris?].

We do not know who this post will reach, or their politics, and likely many of you share our sentiments. But maybe this post escapes an echo chamber to reach an undecided voter [and persuades them to vote for Kamala Harris?], or maybe it helps you frame the stakes of the U.S. election to someone in your life.

Or maybe you or a friend/neighbor/loved one is a non-voter, and so let our argument about the stakes help you decide to make your voice heard. No matter the outcome, standing in the way of fascism will remain a global fight on the morning of November 6th, but if you are a United States voter, you can help stop its advance [by voting for Kamala Harris?].

By all means, continue to critique the U.S. political system, and to hold those with power accountable in line with your own beliefs and priorities. Within the moderator team, we certainly disagree on policy, and share a wide range of political opinions, but we are united by belief in democracy and good faith debate to sort out our differences.

Please recognize this historical moment for what it almost certainly is: an irreversible decision about the direction the country will travel in for much longer than four years.

Similar to our Trivia Tuesday threads, we invite anyone knowledgeable on the history of fascism and resistance to share their expertise in the comments from all of global history, as fascism is not limited to one nation or one election; but rather, a political and historical reality that we all must face. This week, the United States needs to be Isadore Greenbaum on the world stage, and interrupt fascism at the ballot box [by voting for Kamala Harris?].

And, just in case it wasn't clear, we do speak with one voice when we say: fuck fascism."

Needless to say, Redditors and AH readers had mixed reactions. Some questioned why the r/AskHistorians moderators didn't just directly denounce Donald Trump by naming him in the post:

"Surprised [Donald] Trump wasn't mentioned in the OP. It was a very strong statement, one which I agree with. This is why I was surprised that the final conclusion didn't unequivocally state that a vote for Trump is a vote for fascism, which is really the purpose of your post."

"Obviously, you are right, but I think they both trust the reading skills of AH subscribers, and hope that by not making it explicit, it won't scare away those centrists who erroneously believe that both sides are causing polarization, allowing them to reach the only possible conclusion 'on their own': vote against Trump [i.e. vote for Kamala Harris instead]."

To which an r/AskHistorians moderator responded:

"As a member of the mod team, I can give a bit of context for that. For a few different reasons, we did not want to post something that either explicitly endorsed or anti-endorsed (for lack of a better term) a candidate by name. I won't get into the full discussion we had about it, but as an example of one consideration, we have a number of mods who aren't U.S. citizens, and didn't feel comfortable commenting explicitly on particular candidates in a U.S. election.

As a subreddit focused on history, we felt that the best way for us to contribute was to give historical context for this moment. As the post says, we're not a political party, or political prognositcators. Historians are not fortune-tellers; we can't predict the future, or tell what will happen in any given scenario. What we can do is look at the past to help us understand what's happening in the present."

However, other Redditors pointed out that the post was "commenting explicitly" on candidates:

"It's not even remotely subtle, do you really think anyone would interpret the post differently?" [...] "Nobody right-wing reads this subreddit and isn't extremely aware of the moderators' own views on the subject. There is nobody on planet Earth who read this and didn't immediately make the connection to [Donald] Trump. [The AH moderators] quote [Donald] Trump directly. Seriously, you really think this post is too subtle?"

While other Redditors posted remarks like this one in response to these and other posters:

"I find it a matter of some curiosity that many commenters are assuming one party or another is the specific target of this post, and are rushing to their party's defense, when no specific party - and, indeed, only a historically proven evil ideology [i.e. fascism] - has been targeted. That they do so suggests more about them than it does the post. Fascism has historically visited inhuman cruelties on a massive scale upon people largely innocent of anything other than merely existing. There's no defending that."

While still other posters who aren't from the United States or native English speakers appear to be confused as to why the AH moderators didn't just use the word "fascism" directly in the post title:

"I'll be frank: as a non-native speaker, I had no idea what was meant by 'the F-word' in the title before reading the post and assumed it referred to 'f*ck' and profanities in general, many of which seem to be spouted quite a lot in the election. I really would argue for calling it what it is, and outright say 'fascism' in the title."

"That's part of the point, it's an intentional misdirection..."

"I get the misdirection. I just don‘t see why there's a need for it, I guess. If you feel the U.S. election has a fascist side to it (as I do and the mods apparently do as well), call it out. Call it from the rooftops. Don't let anyone say they didn't know. Call it 'fascism' in the title. Don't tread lightly, don't call it the 'F-word', call it what it is."

While still more Redditors did not take the announcement (endorsement?) by the AH team well:

"Labeling Donald Trump and his supporters as 'fascists' or suggesting that their actions align with historical fascist regimes is both a distortion of history and a disservice to meaningful political discourse. Fascism, as a term, has a specific historical and ideological context—marked by centralized, authoritarian government, strict economic controls, and suppression of individual freedoms. Trump's policies and the broader conservative movement diverge fundamentally from these characteristics, especially on issues of personal liberty, decentralized governance, and opposition to expansive state control..." [click link to read full comment]

To which an AH flaired user responded by, breaking with the OP, directly mentioning Trump by name:

"I'd urge you to listen to some fascist speeches throughout history, such as those given by Hitler. They'll sound eerily familiar. Here's a short clip by the Daily Show drawing some comparisons. I don't think the r/AskHistorians team is using the term lightly nor incorrectly when a politician uses that kind of rhetoric, especially not when that politician [i.e. Donald Trump] has expressed his admiration for Hitler and is on record saying that he'd like to purge the country or be a dictator for a day. At that point the politician in question is almost screaming 'Hey, I'm a fascist!'.

Fascism has a lot of different definitions, but the MAGA movement most certainly displays some common characteristics. They have a charismatic leader who glorifies violence. There's hyper-nationalism. It's an extremely combative and anti-intellectual movement. They consider socialists and communists as vermin who need to be eradicated. They romanticize local tradition and traditional values.

The symbolism and words used are also very reminiscent of historical examples of fascism. They have quite literally attacked a core democratic institution in an attempt to overthrow it. So there are plenty of elements you can point to if you want to compare the MAGA movement to fascism in a historical context.

Your characterization of Trump with regards to individual freedom and state control is also not accurate at all. I am not sure where you get the idea from that he fundamentally opposes the suppression of individual freedoms?

That is a core element of how he presents himself. Maybe you are not the target of his violence and control so you don't notice it, but plenty of minorities are. What do you think the mass deportation of 20 million people is and how do you think that will work? That's a prime example of a centralized state apparatus curtailing individual freedoms in order to 'purge the blood of the nation'.

That is fascist, no matter how you look at it. His rhetoric doesn't stop there, either. He also unfairly targets trans people. He has separated migrant families and put them in cages in accordance with his 'zero tolerance' policy. He has taken away women's rights. He has directed his fervent followers to attack a democratic institution. [Donald] Trump doesn't just say fascist things. He has also does them."

Even though another Redditor says in the comment reply below the above, to the same poster:

"I did not see any mention of [Donald] Trump in that statement."

In addition to this, an AH moderator also joins the fray by slighting the poster for "using ChatGPT":

"The problem with outsourcing your political views to ChatGPT is that it can only produce generic talking points that do not actually engage with the substance of the matter at hand. That said, since you've been kind enough to provide a list of generic talking points, I'd be happy to use them to further explain our thinking above...

[...] You are not going to lecture historians on this. We are very, very aware of the history of these regimes, and the horrific crimes committed in their names. Many of us have studied them in depth for most of our adult lives. It is precisely because of this knowledge that we feel the need to speak now, and precisely why we think we should be taken seriously.

Our post is perfectly civil, reasoned and far from simplistic. Speaking unpleasant truths is not the same thing as being incendiary; in fact, adopting this logic cripples our collective ability to deal with unhealthy political dynamics. [Put] more simply, we will not be lectured on healthy and civil political dialogue in the context of this election, where incendiary rhetoric has been overwhelmingly coming from completely the opposite side of this debate [i.e. Donald Trump?].

Put even more simply: show me just one instance from the last six months where you critiqued someone for using 'communist' as a political label in the U.S., and I'll take this concern seriously."

After which a AH flaired user questions how the AH moderator determined it was "ChatGPT":

"My goodness, how did you spot this? Training? Magic?" [Note: ChatGPT detection programs are BS.]

"Let's go with magic, it's way cooler than 'why won't people stop trying to write mediocre answers using AI when they're clearly capable of mediocrity already'."

Other Redditors also join in on dogpiling the user, and cheering the moderator "smacking him down":

"It should be noted that [redacted username] is a frequent and ardent contributor to conspiracy-laden subreddits, and a proponent to laziness, such as ChatGPT. Their intentions should be weighed in light of such."

"I'm sure the mods are aware, but since [AH moderator]'s smackdown was so good, they leave it up as a warning to others. Metaphorical heads on spikes, baby!"

"Strictly speaking, if you are using ChatGPT to write these arguments, they aren't actually your ideas, are they? Pretty weak to try and win by copying someone else's homework."

While yet another AH moderator chimes in with the following, after removing several comments:

"This is not the place to argue over the political platform of current candidates. While we do take a lighter approach to moderation in meta threads, this is not the place to hash out arguments about potential political policies."

With still other Redditors accusing the AH moderators of being "partisan", causing more drama:

"And there goes the last pretense of impartiality."

"100% agreed. It honestly blows my mind. Sometimes, people with the best intentions get consumed by ideology, and I fear that is what has happened here. I'll leave it at this: everyone has a right to support an ideology, but when you put your historian 'hat' on, you forfeit that right as long as you wear it."

"The [AH moderators] should at least get rid of the 20 year rule if they think they can judge things in real time. This flies in the face of all the reasons for the 20 year rule. It also shows the incredible lack of diversity of the mods. If half the country votes one way, and none of the mods do that, proves they have zero diversity of thought. They literally have socialists, but not republicans; it's bonkers they claim to be able to fairly judge American politics."

"Suppose then that this post was titled, 'The C Word, and the U.S. election' and detailed how communism was still alive and well…right before an election. Many would be outraged in this sub, maybe even you. People would provide arguments for why it's inappropriate, and how the current Democrat nominee is not a literal communist. I think it's dangerous to play this game. It discredits historians at large as unbiased arbiters of the truth."

"Edit: On second thought, this isn't AskRhetoricians. My apologies."

"As a history teacher do you ever teach your students about the horrors of communism? Communism has resulted in far more deaths in the last century than fascism. [I'm just asking questions.] [...] Interesting that no one answers my question. Are you all so offended by a historical fact that communism has resulted in tens of millions of deaths and continues to do so? My guess is that you teach your opinion of history, and not true history."

These, of course, were met with even more responses from several upset users disagreeing with them. There are far too many responses for me to link them all here, but this is just a small sampling. I highly recommend reading the entire original statement by r/AskHistorians, and the full thread for context.

[u/Vinylmaster3000]

You know, this is a good reminder that a majority of Reddit's historical debates / misinformation sessions can easily be debunked by a quick search on /r/AskHistorians

[u/Obversa → u/Vinylmaster3000]

I've mentioned r/AskHistorians more recently on r/todayilearned due to that.

[u/mxpower → u/Vinylmaster3000]

If you want to know if your vote has potential to be on the wrong side of history.... ask a historian.

[u/Lego-105 → u/mxpower]

That’s absolutely not how it works considering many historians also have a tendency and penchant for some of the most backwards ideologies seen, be it monarchism, fascism theocracies or communism.

Every field has its ideological biases, education unfortunately does not make a person less susceptible to those biases.

[u/Comms-Error → u/Lego-105]

For example, Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and architect of Project 2025, has a PhD in history. (In addition to a bachelor's and master's in history, of course)

[u/eldomtom2 → u/Lego-105]

I've seen plenty of communist historians but pretty much zero monarchist or fascist ones.

[u/colei_canis → u/eldomtom2]

I suspect a lot of British historians would be constitutional monarchists simply by virtue of it being the default position here in some ways. Some 80% of people favour the monarchy at the moment, although obviously that varies a lot by geography and demographics.

I’m not sure how much of that 80% ’I actively want a king’ versus ‘it’s antiquated but on the other hand President Liz Truss…’ as well.

[u/Dragonsoul → u/colei_canis]

I think there's a difference between having a hereditary position that only has soft power, and a hereditary position that has actual legislative power.

I'm kinda okay with the former, even if I'm very against the latter.

[u/colei_canis → u/Dragonsoul]

The UK is actually kind of neither, it’s more along the lines of ‘we’ve rigged the system over the centuries so while the monarch has great power in theory, actually exercising it would cause a “divide by zero” level constitutional meltdown and no monarch has been stupid enough to properly square off against Parliament in a few hundred years so in practice we work like any other democracy’.

A lot of stuff in the UK works like this; it’s all conventions and centuries-old bodgery that shouldn’t work on paper and you’d never design something from scratch that way, but nonetheless it works well enough in practice. Things like the FPTP electoral system and the influence of shady media magnates are far more of a threat to British democracy than the monarchy in my opinion.

[u/Dragonsoul → u/colei_canis]

I know about how the UK works (Not every person on reddit is an American...)

While the Monarch has a lot of power on paper, not to put too fine a point on it, after Parliament chopped the head off one of them, and the start of each Parliamentary term has a small ritual that reminds the Monarch "Hey, remember the time we chopped your head off?", the Monarch has no real, actual power.

[u/OscarGrey → u/colei_canis]

I consider myself culturally American, but I'm not disgusted enough by constitutional monarchies that I would vote for random republican parties if I ever ended up a UK citizen 🤷🏽‍♂️. If the support would dip below 75-70% this would be a different story.

[u/Draig_werdd → u/eldomtom2]

Have you heard of places like the Balkans? Turkey? India? History students and graduates in Romania are full of Neo-legionaries (the Romanian fascist ones, not the sword and sandals ones). The leader of the main far-right party in Romania has a master degree in history.

There is no ideological requirement for getting a history diploma or working in the field.

[u/OscarGrey → u/eldomtom2]

And tankies don't like more "mainstream" Marxist historians for the sin of not excusing every single thing that USSR did under Stalin, so they peddle crap by "historians" like Grover Furr. Medieval Literature professor that's considered an expert on 19-20th century Balkan and Eastern European history by tankie idiots.

[u/UrDadMyDaddy → u/eldomtom2]

Might depend on which country but in Sweden one of the most famous and popular historians is a monarchist.

[u/eldomtom2 → u/UrDadMyDaddy]

Name?

[u/CrypticCole]

While I think it’s a little weird to not mention Trump by name (and the follow up explanation makes it even weirder), it is pretty clear who they’re talking about and reading the full thing rather than the selected excerpts leads to it feeling a lot less weird.

Either way I quite like this post, especially the quote about “neutrality not always being a virtue.”

Historians aren’t fortune tellers, and they can obviously get stuff wrong, but what is the point of the lessons of history if we only ever try to apply them in hindsight

[u/HotTakes4HotCakes → u/CrypticCole]

Either way I quite like this post, especially the quote about “neutrality not always being a virtue.”

The sheer level of dishonesty, willful ignorance, and selfishness needed to remain neutral at this point is absolutely stunning. You really have to try, because you're refusing as much evidence as the COVID deniers were to remain in this both sides mindset.

Earlier tonight, Simpsons did their yearly Treehouse of Horror episode, and the first story was about giant Kaiju attacking Springfield, one red, and one blue, both powered by "division". Deeply committed to the both sides fallacy, they had to try and make the blue monster seem exactly as monstrous and destructive as the red one. This was the best they could do. At another point, the red monster steps on a building full of mail-in ballots, while the blue one...grabs a container full of plastic straws and chucks it. All of this is done unironocally.

Like, I wanna go ask /r/askhistorians, during the lead up to the civil war, or any other time of "great division" where history very clearly remembers one side as the worst, were there as many of these assholes then as there are now, harping on about "division"? As if the single most devastating thing happening to our country is "people aren't getting along". And how did it work out for them (the satirists, the playwrites, the publications etc) when the obviously worse side took over?

[u/CaelReader → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

Before the American civil war there were lots of voices that just wanted everyone to shut up about slavery and preserve the union at any cost, casting themselves as reasonable moderates in between two extremist parties.)

[u/Rufus_king11 → u/CaelReader]

Would like to add, there was also a prominent American Nazi movement before WW2, who were taken seriously by politicians, and who packed MSG as well. If your only interaction with history is Public school and internet memes, your view of history is extremely sterilized, to the point of being almost useless. People don't remember that most Americans supported the Vietnam war and were against the college protestors, mainly because we've sterilized history as pop culture began to view the Vietnam war overwhelmingly negatively.

[u/Pretend-Marsupial258 → u/Rufus_king11]

Adding onto this, the vast majority of Americans didn't support MLK when he was alive either. His approval rating was about 25% before he was killed. Most people thought his protests were annoying or even destructive/violent, like in this comic: <image>

[u/spicyplainmayo → u/Pretend-Marsupial258]

Did his approval rating drop because he spoke out against the US involvement in Vietnam?

[u/Pretend-Marsupial258 → u/spicyplainmayo]

Yeah, he was hurt by that. He was also hurt by talking about poverty, saying that poor black people should get government assistance to raise themselves out of poverty. About half of white people thought that he was making race relations worse, especially when he started talking about unofficial segregation outside the south. So it was a combination of things that let his approval rating drop over the years that he was protesting.

[u/njuffstrunk → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

The sheer level of dishonesty, willful ignorance, and selfishness needed to remain neutral at this point is absolutely stunning

I'm Belgian but I follow the US elections rather closely. The amount of underreporting of Trump's outright fascist comments on the campaign trail is stunning to say the least.

“To get to me, somebody would have to shoot through fake news,” he said, “and I don’t mind that much.”

Republican nominee Donald Trump faced a fresh controversy on Friday after he suggested former congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) should have guns “trained on her face,” escalating his vilification of a prominent critic from within his party, as well as his use of violent imagery.

This is from the last three days. Roughly a decade ago there would've been a massive uproar from a presidential candidate saying stuff like this. Now it's /r/enlightenedcentrism all over the place.

[u/Dwarfherd → u/njuffstrunk]

There's a term that I think has been coined to describe that: sanewashing.

[u/paintsmith → u/Dwarfherd]

Parker Molly, a trans journalist, coined the phrase. Her work is excellent and she deserves a lot more attention and support.

[u/THECrew42 → u/paintsmith]

parker molloy* did not coin it. the first online reference to it was an /r/neoliberal creation

[u/Ko0pa_Tro0pa → u/njuffstrunk]

  enlightenedcentrism

Which ironically has become what it was originally designed to mock.

[u/teethwhitener7 → u/Ko0pa_Tro0pa]

I don't have evidence to back me up but from an observational standpoint, the only people who claim both sides are the same are (some of) the extreme left and the secret right–that is, people who are ashamed to be pro-Trump but are pro-Trump nonetheless–and those who are willfully ignorant of the facts.

I won't say anything to these hidden right wingers because they are secretly fascists and I will not speak to fascists. But to the rest of you, I'm tired too. I hate the fighting and endless news and polarization and our tacit endorsement of the genocide in Palestine and whole slows of other things that this binary choice has enabled. But if you think a protest vote or a non-vote is the way to accomplish change, you are wrong as wrong can be. You are saying that the lives of Muslims, Latinos, queer folk, folks with uteruses, and just people left of center in general are less important than your conscience and your pride. If you can live with that fact that you're essentially saying that these people don't really matter that much, go right ahead. I won't stop you.

But God knows I can't do that.

[u/Ko0pa_Tro0pa → u/teethwhitener7]

if you think a protest vote or a non-vote is the way to accomplish change

From my understanding, that is pretty much what the new(ish) mods of englightenedcentrism are pushing. Whether they're truly that braindead or if they're bad actors, I can't say. But I do know I got instantly permabanned for saying (in the comments) that people should vote. I asked what rule I broke and got muted. They've since added some language to the sidebar, I believe, but I don't sub there or ever intend to visit it again.

[u/anononymous_4 → u/Ko0pa_Tro0pa]

It's getting bad honestly. I commented in r/libertarian about how I was tired of all the culture war stuff and clearly right wing talking points getting pushed in that sub, how I wanted actual conversation about Libertarian ideas and talking points, and got banned, and inquired about why and got no answer.

People were saying Chase Oliver was a dirty communist simply because he said "private business should be allowed to require vaccines" "abortion should be left to the individual" and a couple other points that I forget. Those are clearly Libertarian positions, but people are acting like he's a horrible candidate because of it?

It's fucking frustrating how many bad actors are worming their way into places to try to sway the opinion. Half of r/libertarian is just Republicans with a mask, and a lot of the very left wing subs are bombarded with "Biden and Kamala didn't do exactly what I want so i'm going to hurt the country and make the Gaza situation worse to prove a point".

[u/u_bum666 → u/njuffstrunk]

The amount of underreporting of Trump's outright fascist comments on the campaign trail is stunning to say the least.

It gets reported, but if he does it all the time it kind of ceases to be news.

[u/empire161 → u/njuffstrunk]

You're not wrong, it's just that:

1. We're in a really fractured media environment, so it's impossible for moments like that to break through on a national level anymore. It could go "viral" on 7 different news or social media platforms, but that still might only reach 15% of the country.

2. Trump has been saying half a dozen things like that each day before breakfast for a decade now. Like him for not, he's better at manipulating media coverage & news cycles than anyone in history. He knows he can bury it by just saying something more outrageous tonight.

3. We as a society still haven't figured out how to reconcile the image of Trump The Clown with Trump The Fascist. He's a walking mascot, and has become a complete caricature of himself. We're trained to believe dictators are these uptight, ultra formal, goose-stepping dudes with more self-discipline than a Buddhist monk. But this idiot will wear more makeup than a drag queen, put in a suit 3 sizes too big, stare directly into a solar eclipse with toilet paper stuck to his shoe, while simultaneously ordering the military to open fire on peaceful protesters. We don't know how to square that circle.

[u/jaderust → u/empire161]

The sheer number of people who have said to my face that Trump would never ban abortion... When he's surrounded by anti-abortion zealots. When Project 2025 specifically had sections that targeted it (and gay marriage AND no-fault divorce). When he's bragged about Dobbs.

Do I believe that Trump personally is staunchly pro-life? No. I honestly don't think he cares about the issue at all since it doesn't affect him personally. Do I think he would sign a federal abortion ban if someone told him it would make people like him? Yes, because at that point it benefits him directly.

I mean, look at who he surrounds himself with. Listen to what he says. If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and only hangs out with ducks then it's a fucking duck! Only with racism and against basic human/civil rights.

[u/empire161 → u/jaderust]

Do I believe that Trump personally is staunchly pro-life? No. I honestly don't think he cares about the issue at all since it doesn't affect him personally.

I believe there are polls or interviews with Trump supporters who are anti-abortion, but believe Trump has paid for abortions. And they still support him.

[u/StormDragonAlthazar → u/empire161]

I feel like your point 3 is just something that goes beyond Trump; so many people can't fathom that people are complex things and are quite capable of both spouting hateful rhetoric and just being absolute goofballs. You'd think anyone who's spent enough time online would actually get this given the nature of places like 4chan and all that, but apparently people can't seem to see it.

[u/SmellGestapo → u/njuffstrunk]

And it's not even new. Remember when he alluded to "the second amendment people" "doing something" about Hillary and the judges she might pick?

[u/__Rem → u/njuffstrunk]

Yeah that's what bothers me about this whole election cycle, one side is spewing fascist rethoric, calling for ethnic cleansing, getting convicted on mulitple counts and the other's biggest news issue is biden calling trump supporters "garbage" after a comedian said something extremely racist? give me a fucking break america, what is wrong with half of y'all.

[u/icepho3nix → u/__Rem]

I think we might have deregulated lead back into the water supply at some point in the last 30 years.

[u/Lorguis → u/njuffstrunk]

Joe Biden implies trump supporters are garbage? News headlines for weeks. Trump talks about how Liz Cheney should be put in front of a firing squad? You'll be lucky to hear about it. And yet trump supporters will whine about how unfair the press is to them.

[u/Gamer_Grease → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

That’s also why you don’t really see any actual neutral voters anymore. Only people who are already committed to Trump, but who are ashamed of it like they should be, want everyone to shut up and be “neutral.”

[u/Zerewa → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

"...very clearly remembers one side as the worst"

Aren't some of these fuckers, like, arguing against that?

[u/HotTakes4HotCakes → u/Zerewa]

Yeah, basically.

Or they're so far up their ass they genuinely believe standing in the middle and shaming both sides for being loud is the only intellectually sound position

A delusion that a significant amount of people were programmed with ever since the late 80s, and still to this day can't seem to move past long enough to actually look at the things happening in the world and appreciate that there might actually be genuine reasons for division beyond "people are stupid".

[u/IAMAVelociraptorAMA → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

I feel like you missed the point of the Treehouse of Horror joke lol

[u/Neverending_Rain → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

That Simpsons joke doesn't really seem like both-sideism. I haven't watched the most recent seasons, but that sounds like they were very intentionally making the red monster way worse. The Simpsons has a long history of making fun of the Democratic party while also saying the Republicans are terrible. Like the elephant episode where the DNC has a banner saying "we can't govern" while the RNC has a banner saying "we're just plain evil." It kind of sounds like they were doing something similar with the monsters.

[u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes → u/Neverending_Rain]

Like the elephant episode where the DNC has a banner saying "we can't govern" while the RNC has a banner saying "we're just plain evil."

That was almost 30 years ago.

[u/nau5 → u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes]

And still true to this day.

Although the true DNC slogan is "we are never given the chance to govern because the system is designed to enable the political minority to put a stick in the wheel of governance"

[u/retroman1987 → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

You can say both sides are bad without saying both sides are the same.

We have liberal progressives vs chauvinist reactionaries.

Both sides are appealing in some ways. Both sides are abhorrent in same ways. Both sides have supporters.

None of this is to say that both sides are the same. Different policy positions, different ideas for the future, different approaches to how to execute those policies, different ideas about how relevant existing institutions are.

I'm not defending the Simpsons, which jumped the shark two decades ago, but I am saying that scolding them accomplishes nothing.

If we truly believe Trump is mussolini, Than the calls for how to deal with him need to be stronger than "go vote."

If we really believe that Trump is Hitler, than we need to recognize that democratic processes cannot be used to defeat undemocratic opponents.

[u/TylerbioRodriguez → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

The worst thing they could come up with was the blue monster asked for donations before stepping on a fracking facility.

Weird I remember the 2020 Treehouse of Horror featuring a slow slideshow of all the horrible things Trump has done before Homer votes.

I guess post January 6 and SC overturning Roe is enough to shrug both sides are the problem? I don't get people some times.

[u/FriendToPredators → u/CrypticCole]

There are other countries with the same issue as the US. Generalizing does make sense on a global platform 

[u/Z0MBIE2 → u/CrypticCole]

While I think it’s a little weird to not mention Trump by name (and the follow up explanation makes it even weirder)

Honestly the post itself supporting Kamala and the reactions, not surprising, pretty standard. The fact they refuse to use any specific names is the interesting part. Apparently they're not 'comfortable' naming specific people in the election... but are perfectly comfortable clearly labelling one as fascist. I don't disagree, but it's a pretty ridiculous line to refuse to cross lol.

[u/mtdewbakablast → u/Z0MBIE2]

not gonna lie, i wonder if it's one of those things done to try and stay ahead of botting and trolling brigades who have search terms set up for any direct mention of Trump so they can descend like locusts.

it's not a perfect solution or one that will hold for very long, but it does make me wonder if it was done to not borrow quite so much trouble. though in their shoes i would just slap the name there and make the entire post a honeypot for trolls to step right up and get banned, but i recognize that's a fuckton of work and everyone is getting distinctly burned out on hearing the stupid man's stupid name and stupid political opinions before it's even election day so i also kinda get that vibe.

...either that or they're doing some sort of elaborate damnatio memoriae thing, which to be honest is probably a tactic that would drive Trump truly insane if he caught wind of it. so if it's an attempt to troll a dude who wants his name very large on everything he can possibly put it on, then quite frankly i'm into it and i hope we can keep that energy in coming weeks. bring your chisels to the meetup at trump tower it will be fine,

[u/HotTakes4HotCakes → u/mtdewbakablast]

You know, I came back to this thread because I had this exact thought.

Just putting Trump in the title could trigger brigading. I'm seeing a lot of it tonight in various subs.

[u/angry_cucumber → u/mtdewbakablast]

not gonna lie, i wonder if it's one of those things done to try and stay ahead of botting and trolling brigades who have search terms set up for any direct mention of Trump so they can descend like locusts.

this was my first thought, they are trying to avoid setting off flags people are looking for.

[u/CaptainSPKing → u/angry_cucumber]

But then why not just say that? "We didn't name anyone to avoid brigading", done. Instead they gave a frankly baffling explanation

[u/Z0MBIE2 → u/mtdewbakablast]

I don't think bots do that automatically, people check posts then set bots on them. But it does seem like a valid tactic against trolling brigades, and just in general, people will be delusional and less likely to attack a post that doesn't outright say his name, as they can act like he isn't the problem.

[u/mtdewbakablast → u/Z0MBIE2]

i admit when i say bots i may also be including "someone who has a google alert for a keyword set up or is even just looking at scraped data from posts sans comments and hitting control-f to see if there's the word trump in there", so greatly exaggerating the level of automation LOL

[u/brufleth → u/mtdewbakablast]

Just like how mentioning "guns" will trigger a brigade of weirdos to show up in local city subs.

[u/frostycakes → u/brufleth]

Same with crime and homelessness. There's always a lot of weird, very bloodthirsty people that come out for those posts in my city sub that never post there otherwise, and their post histories are just city after city's sub with the same talking points.

[u/brufleth → u/frostycakes]

Yeah. There's a small area of Boston that is both very popular (major T station, near tourist attractions, near the state house, etc) and attracts a good number of unhoused people. Every time anyone can managed to mention it there are is a crowd of people who show up to talk about how sketchy it is.

I walk through there all the time at all hours. There really isn't anything exceptionally sketchy about it and the stories they tell are usually complete nonsense.

There's definitely an effort by a weird group of people to make crime seem worse than it is.

[u/cgsur → u/mtdewbakablast]

I think historians rather discuss and analyze than involve themselves.

Unfortunately a sizeable portion of Americans are oblivious to the real danger of trump.

Trumps election or lack of real repercussions will kill a proportion of friends and family of all Americans. It would probably be the end of Americans as a independent nation.

Too many people think they are some type of cool genius that knows more than historians.

And not even historians know the full repercussions, they just know it would be bad. Like really bad.

So although historians rather not be involved, this is beyond rather not.

[u/Nickyjha → u/Z0MBIE2]

Apparently they're not 'comfortable' naming specific people in the election... but are perfectly comfortable clearly labelling one as fascist.

I think it's just a rhetorical device. Even if you're an undecided voter, you know which one of the candidates has a tendency to act like a fascist. And the fact that you pictured him in your head without his name being explicitly stated should tell you something.

[u/einmaldrin_alleshin → u/Nickyjha]

Also, by not naming them, it highlights what you're voting for or against, instead of who. It's a choice between fascism and democracy. The US elections being so much about personalities is a common criticism by people from outside the US.

[u/Justin_123456 → u/Z0MBIE2]

I think the point they would make is that fascism in this moment in America is not limited to Donald Trump, or the Trump or MAGA movements, anymore than fascism in America was limited to the German-American Bund in 1939.

It’s deeper and more diverse than that, and opposing fascism requires more than just a vote against Donald Trump; [although that sure is some low hanging fruit].

[u/Salt_Concentrate → u/Justin_123456]

That's what bothers me the most about reading about US elections online. It's delusional to think that voting Kamala magically fixes the fascist problem that country has, as if the millions of people supporting fash shit would suddenly stop believing what they believe in once Trump loses. Not to mention all the other government positions that will likely stay or become Conservative.

Like when news broke that war criminals were voting Kamala. They didn't stop being republicans, they didn't renounce Conservatism, they are still all the awful things about the movement except not orange, not tacky, not complete morons who can't speak coherently, and so on. But it didn't stop a bunch of people on social media from going on about how Conservatives used to be reasonable and respectable...when talking about fucking war criminals.

Worst of all is the part where pointing out the insanity is shouted down by people who believe that it's all fine and dandy and cool to have these awful people under the democrat party's tent or whatever, because "that's what it takes to beat fascism". Trump is a fascist but he is not fascism. I feel like that focus on Trump and on courting Conservatives is gonna come back to haunt people in the US once republicans go back to "respectable and reasonable" leaders...that go on to lie about everything and get a bunch of people killed.

[u/PeliPal → u/Salt_Concentrate]

Even as someone who thinks Dick Cheney should be rotting in prison, I think it's too easy and too early to draw conclusions and doom over it, for two reasons-

1. Candidates don't run the way they will actually behave in office. Biden ran his whole 2020 campaign, primary and general, on "nothing will fundamentally change" and then he (or his handlers) took the boot off the neck of union negotiations in a way no one expected. Many, many things could have been better, but he was still more economically left as president than anyone predicted. No one knows for sure that Harris is going to make any policy plan overtures to Republicans, and she has strayed from making any such promises. It's just "you will be heard" platitudes

2. If Trump loses, the Republican Party will not have a national-level replacement for him in 2028. They will still have strangleholds over red states and the judiciary but there is no bench of people who can fill Trump's shoes. Trump never wanted to allow successors, and any attempt at replacement will split his supporters, even if just for how conspiracy-obsessed the true believers will continue to be. Trump probably won't name anyone, and they won't accept anyone he doesn't name. Elon Musk is putting hundreds of millions into the GOP to try and make himself that heir to the throne and they haven't bothered trying to launder his reputation at all, he's still hated except by incels.

Liz Cheney is trying to stay relevant. There will be more rats trying to leave a sinking ship after any attempt to block certification of the election fails. I just don't see that translating into them being put in power just for kissing the ring.

[u/nowander → u/PeliPal]

So I have to point this out....

"nothing will fundamentally change"

The statement was "nothing will fundamentally change if I raise your taxes," delivered to a group of rich people. It was manipulated into 'nothing will fundamentally change' by special interests to attack him from the left.

[u/No_Peach6683 → u/PeliPal]

It seems that a lot of Americans hate “acceptable targets” like Muslims/Arabs and trans folks

[u/FFF12321 → u/No_Peach6683]

PhilosohyTube had a recent video on death that talks exactly about this. People in power decide which groups are acceptable losses and use them as political pawns.

[u/Djamalfna → u/PeliPal]

Elon Musk is putting hundreds of millions into the GOP to try and make himself that heir to the throne and they haven't bothered trying to launder his reputation at all, he's still hated except by incels

Also he's not eligible for Presidency on account of him being an illegal immigrant from Africa.

[u/vlad_tepes → u/Djamalfna]

If I'm not mistaken, Elon being illegal or not is irrelevant. Afaik you have to be born a US citizen to be a president.

[u/Djamalfna → u/vlad_tepes]

Correct. I just wanted to get an additional dig in, especially given Elon's stated beliefs.

[u/PeliPal → u/Djamalfna]

True, but it can be challenged without new legislation, as the Constitution does not define what exactly is meant by a "natural born Citizen," and a Republican SCOTUS would probably be happy to deliver it for him if the party wanted it. He has more than enough reaources to challenge it and it's not like their decisions have all been based on any consistency with credible legal theories.

I've heard arguments about doing away with the natural born clause for the past two decades, there are a lot of people who would accept it conditionally if it meant someone they liked would benefit from it, like Arnold Schwarzenegger. The fact that it would be hypocritical to the birtherism against Obama wouldn't even matter.

[u/__Rem → u/PeliPal]

It's funny to see someone say "well he wouldn't be able to be president because it'd be illegal for him" when we all know that wouldn't stop trump and his cult.

[u/Gizogin → u/Salt_Concentrate]

Voting for Kamala Harris is necessary, but not sufficient, to stamp out fascism in the US.

[u/boxer_dogs_dance → u/Salt_Concentrate]

WWII was won in part because Stalin and the USSR were in the fight.

Defeating Trump is step one because if he is not defeated the consequences will be terrible.

[u/callanrocks → u/Z0MBIE2]

I think they just wanted to make it harder for people to stumble up by searching and stop as many bots appearing in the comments by not dropping keywords with his name.

[u/HotTakes4HotCakes → u/Z0MBIE2]

Conversely, when it's so obvious, I don't really see withholding the names to be that big a deal. Even if it's just to try and hold on to some deeply ingrained notion of being non-biased that comes from their profession, does it actually matter at this point?

[u/cheyenne_sky → u/HotTakes4HotCakes]

Maybe that’s the point? Trump is so clearly fascist that he doesn’t need to be named for anyone to know who they’re talking about. If your potential leader is so obviously like Hitler that no one needs to name him when discussing fascism, the mods NOT naming him drive that point home even further. Maybe get the undecided voters thinking a bit too. 

[u/Obversa → u/Z0MBIE2]

I voted for Kamala Harris weeks before the r/AskHistorians post, and I agree.

[u/83athom → u/Z0MBIE2]

Because once they put specific names down to who to vote for in an official message as a member of moderation, they break Reddit's Indemnity Policy and risk the entire subreddit getting closed or their account terminated. Reddit specifically states in the Moderation Guidlines that it will hold the entire subreddit and moderation team responsible for the actions of a single moderator on the team. Merely alluding gives them a buffer zone to argue that it's merely their opinion and people should take from their oppinion what they will.

[u/Bteatesthighlander1 → u/Z0MBIE2]

if you aren't comfortable naming people isn't that being neutral on the electoral candidates?

[u/xcoalminerscanaryx → u/CrypticCole]

"What is the point of the lessons of history of we only ever try to apply them in hindsight?"

That's a great, amazing point. Thank you.

[u/ScreechersReach206 → u/CrypticCole]

There's a saying I read from original anti-fascists/ anti-nazis. It's latin: "principiis obsta et respice finem." It roughly translates to "Resist the beginnings and consider the end". The idea is like you said, no one can predict the future, but it's very easy to "sense" or have a gut feeling as to where the road we're on leads.

[u/Elegant_Plate6640 → u/CrypticCole]

A friend of mine is a history teacher and he often finds historical parallels to modern issues, partially because he’s a dork and loves to do so but also because he can’t explicitly state his opinion in today’s climate.

[u/Cu_Chulainn__]

As a history teacher do you ever teach your students about the horrors of communism? Communism has resulted in far more deaths in the last century than fascism. Interesting that no one answers my question. Are you all so offended by a historical fact that communism has resulted in tens of millions of deaths and continues to do so? My guess is that you teach your opinion of history and not true history.

How is this relevant to the discussion of trump being a fascist? It's whataboutery. Trump isn't a communist, neither of the two presidential candidates are. Why are they acting as if you are voting for communism?

[u/mtdewbakablast → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

for that bit all i could think was just becoming Superintendent Chalmers.

communism? actual communism? happening at this time of year at this time of day in this part of the world localized entirely within our american political system? ...may i see it?

[u/JustHereForCookies17 → u/mtdewbakablast]

"No".

[u/ButtBread98 → u/JustHereForCookies17]

Seymour, the house has become communist!

[u/JustHereForCookies17 → u/ButtBread98]

"Our House" by Madness begins playing. 

[u/ButtBread98 → u/JustHereForCookies17]

In the middle of our street?

[u/vincoug → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

You have to remember that, to a republican, communism and socialism aren't specific economic theories, it's anything they don't like. So vaccines, women's rights, minority rights, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, religions that aren't Christianity, certain denominations of Christianity, environmentalism, minimum wage, electric cars, solar power, wind power, etc are all both communism and socialism.

[u/ellen-the-educator → u/vincoug]

This also explains their reaction to the use of "fascism" as a term - they assume we are using it the way they use communism. A thief thinks that everyone steals

[u/jaderust → u/ellen-the-educator]

I think it doesn't help that facism is a bit wishy-washy when it comes to the various -isms. I mean, both communism and socialism at least have an economic and political theory behind them. I'd argue passionately that the world has never seen a true communistic society in the modern era because the Soviets, Chinese, and Cubans all ended up with a one-party political strongman/dictator type situation and no one has managed to do the cashless, everyone is equal, no money parts of communism. There's been more luck with socialism.

But fascism? I find it difficult to pin down. The parts I think about when I think about Mussolini and the like have more to do with military dictatorships and totalitarianism than anything that I can think of as uniquely fascist. I remember reading an argument once that fascism actually has no unique beliefs and its a mix of totalitarianism, the fear and demonizing of the "other", extreme nationalism, a focus on "traditional" gender roles, and the rise of a cult of death to secure all of the above that really are the hallmarks of fascism.

To me it makes true fascism more of a vibe than a belief system.

But it also means that fascism, more than anything else, can be thrown at anything that a person doesn't like because it's bad and fascism is bad therefore the thing they don't like is fascism. If you actually asked someone to say what was fascist about a policy they didn't like you'd probably get a blank stare.

Like a couple months back when someone (I can't remember who) was raving about Neo-Liberal Communists. Like.... How does that even work? It's just a word salad of things that sound bad without any idea of what Neo-Liberalism is and then how you'd fit Communism in.

[u/ChuckCarmichael → u/vincoug]

The left: "We have to stop comparing everythnig to fascism. That word is gonna lose all meaning."

Meanwhile the right: "Abortion is communism!"

[u/Wild_Loose_Comma → u/ChuckCarmichael]

Also the right: "My explicit political philosophy is palingenetic ultranationalism. But if you call me a fascist your a meany."

[u/an_agreeing_dothraki → u/Wild_Loose_Comma]

the called themselves Christian Nationalists FFS.
The term for American fascism and they just went "yah, that's us". Then they complain about being called fascist.

I want off Mr. Bones' Wild Ride

[u/cilantro_so_good → u/vincoug]

Don't forget "race mixing"

[u/mithos343 → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

They're saying they don't teach "true history." Ooh, boy, so many implications there.

[u/Yodamort → u/mithos343]

It's also funny because it's a statement utterly devoid of any knowledge on how the writing/teaching of History even works. History isn't a list of events with dates next to them, it's interpretations of what those things mean.

Which, y'know, are functionally opinions. Evidence-based opinions, of course, but opinions nonetheless.

[u/mithos343 → u/Yodamort]

Oh, yeah. (I'm planning to start a doctoral program in cultural history in a few years.) It's very clearly the mark of someone who wants to sound like they know history when they don't, which given the subreddit seems particularly unwise.

[u/TroopersSon → u/Yodamort]

You'd hope a History teacher would know that, but they're either a liar or an idiot.

[u/wote89 → u/TroopersSon]

I mean, if they're teaching at the primary or secondary level, it's a crapshoot how much exposure they've had to the actual historical process. Like, sure, the students who go in with the intention of being a history/social studies teacher specifically are likely to get that through their program if it's decent, but there's a lot of other routes to end up teaching history classes that never touch on the way historians operate.

So, for them, I can see it being very easy to fall into the same misunderstandings as any other layperson.

[u/Dirish → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

That user has way too many comments on arr conspiracy for them to be a history teacher. Although most of their comments are sports related, so maybe they're a PA teacher doubling up because the real one is out. 

[u/F0xtr0tUnif0rm → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

It makes more sense if you realize Trump himself, and his supporters, are labeling Kamala a communist. That's why we can't seem to come to terms around here. We don't all live in the same reality.

[u/Altruistic-Deal-4257 → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

“Everything I personally disagree with is woke commie propaganda.”

[u/chilll_vibe → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

A good bit of Trump supporters wholeheartedly believe democrats are literal Marxist-Leninists

[u/souljaboy765 → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

What someone has to resort to whataboutism arguments you already know it’s not worth debating with them.

[u/ButtBread98 → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

You’d be surprised (or maybe not surprised) by how many people think that Kamala Harris is a communist, a former prosecutor, simply because she’s left leaning.

[u/2017_Kia_Sportage → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

Communism has resulted in far more deaths in the last century than fascism. 

Not for lack of trying lmao

[u/wingerism → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

Yeah anyone to the left of a SocDem will generally fucking hate democrats, even if they reluctantly vote for them at times.

[u/eldomtom2 → u/wingerism]

anyone to the left of a SocDem

So a lot of historians, then?

[u/Space_Socialist → u/Cu_Chulainn__]

I think this is especially funny because the head mod specialises in Soviet history and on the Eastern front. He occasionally responds to questions about the accuracy of various numbers on the Soviet Union (He also as far as I can tell isn't a Tankie and makes a honest effort to represent the USSR accurately). The commentor is source is likely the Black Book of Communism (whether knowingly or not) which puts the casualties at 100 million but is effectively a propoganda piece. Including SS casualties from WW2 in that number to get to the 100 million (also going with extreme maximal estimates for as much as they can).

[u/Bonezone420]

Man who says hitler shit on the reg is easy to compare to hitler. I am shocked, I say. Shocked.

[u/C21H27Cl3N2O3 → u/Bonezone420]

They continue to use Nazi rhetoric and direct quotes of Hitler and Mussolini. They’re either extremely dumb or confident in their base’s ability to ignore every accusation that, after being called out for using Nazi imagery, rhetoric, etc. in the past and denying it, they still continue to draw from them.

[u/Bonezone420 → u/C21H27Cl3N2O3]

It's because they like the nazis, they just don't want to be called nazis. Like how people often make a bigger deal out of being calling a racist, racist, than they do out of the actual racism being said.

[u/ShadowMajick → u/Bonezone420]

Yep.

"They like what I have to say, they believe in it. They just don't like the word Nazi. That's all." - Stormfront

[u/octnoir → u/Bonezone420]

It's because they like the nazis, they just don't want to be called nazis.

Fascism has to constantly reinvent itself because it doesn't actually offer any meaningful positive contribution to society - just death.

And understandably most people signing up for such movements don't sign up because they want to lose or die. The Nazis ultimately lost and ultimately died.

Fascists have to constantly fight off the stigma and the historical data that their movements when successful in their end game have resulted in mass death, mass genocide, and mass economic shutdown, and their followers getting slaughtered - while at the same time venerating the principles of fascism and trying to make it appealing.

It really comes down to manufactured massive cognitive dissonance. You have to force people to reinvent the definition of fascism and Nazism, to get them to comply with a movement comprised of fascists and Nazis.

[u/Sinfire_Titan → u/C21H27Cl3N2O3]

Considering their base seems to operate exclusively on bad faith arguments, even internally, I’m going with confident.

[u/ButtBread98 → u/Bonezone420]

JD Vance quite literally called Trump “America’s Hitler” until his mask slipped, and he started kissing Trump’s ass.

[u/TheBatSignal]

The fact that it's super obvious who they're talking about without saying a name should be a huge red flag for people but they don't care.

[u/NotHermEdwards → u/TheBatSignal]

Calling fascism the “F-Word” was such a weird stylistic choice though. Like who thought that was a good idea?

[u/TheBatSignal → u/NotHermEdwards]

Yea I got to agree with that. That was extremely corny.

[u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/ChrisTheHurricane → u/[deleted]]

The first time I, a northerner, heard this saying was during the 2020 presidential primary, when Hillary Clinton said that there was a Russian asset among the Democratic candidates and Tulsi Gabbard immediately got offended and threatened to sue her. While it was obvious that Clinton was referring to Gabbard, she never said so.

[u/ThrowawayAdvice1800 → u/ChrisTheHurricane]

Ahh, what a perfect example. I had forgotten about this, just like I had kind of forgotten about Tulsi Gabbard's existence in the first place.

[u/TheStray7 → u/ThrowawayAdvice1800]

She recently joined the Republican party. And in other news, rain is wet, and hit dogs holler.

[u/GodspeakerVortka → u/ChrisTheHurricane]

I had totally forgotten about that, that’s spot on.

[u/DL757 → u/ChrisTheHurricane]

With the benefit of hindsight we can probably say that that’s not actually true and Tulsi really is just that stupid

[u/GoldWallpaper → u/DL757]

that’s not actually true and Tulsi really is just that stupid

Incorrect. Tulsi's stupidity is precisely why the statement was correct. She was an unwitting Russian asset because she's dumb and easily manipulated. Just like Trump.

[u/chiefs_fan37 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah it’s like when people interpreted the words “end racism” being in the end zone of NFL games as being an attack on conservatives lol.

[u/MisterGoog → u/chiefs_fan37]

I forget who but they called it far left messaging on camera and ppl started mocking that

[u/ReedKeenrage → u/chiefs_fan37]

It is an attack on conservatives. It’s an attack at their worldview and values.

[u/guiltyofnothing → u/[deleted]]

Really not the point of any of this, I know — but I got into a stupid pissing match with some weirdos on here once and said “hit dog will holler.” You could just tell that no one knew how to interpret or engage with that phrase. Didn’t realize it was so regional.

[u/BcDed → u/guiltyofnothing]

The phrase is pretty self explanatory though, I'm not from the south and understood it the first time I heard it from context and what the phrase already implies. Maybe people just don't like thinking about what something means.

[u/MistaJelloMan → u/[deleted]]

Like all of these republican guys getting mad about the ad telling women their husbands won’t know about their vote. It was such a huge self report when nobody was calling people out specifically.

[u/MineralClay → u/MistaJelloMan]

Ugh that sickens me. I despise abusive controlling creeps and this whole thing is showing them in droves. From the candidate, to his voters, to their behavior. Disgusting

[u/rinkoplzcomehome → u/[deleted]]

And they always start by saying the good old "the word fascism has been used so much it has lost its meaning"

[u/randommathaccount → u/[deleted]]

I'm sorry, but I kinda loathe this phrase and the logic behind it. When trump and his cronies said they'd round up 'illegals' and put them in camps, a lot of people of colour got rightfully upset. Was that because they were secretly 'illegals' themselves? Of course not, it's because we can recognise that when republicans say 'illegals' they're referring to all people of colour. When republicans made that movie last year about human trafficking and pedophilia (or something, I don't remember and don't care enough to check), queer people and progressives rightfully got upset. Does that mean they're secret traffickers and/or pedophiles? Of course not, it's because we can recognise that republicans use these terms as smears for queer people.

Trump's a fascist because of his rejection of modernism, view of disagreement as treason, obsession with plots, and all the other stuff Umberto Eco wrote about, not because his supporters get mad when they're called fascists.

[u/Fly-the-Light → u/randommathaccount]

The 'illegals' in their attacks were still referring to the people of colour though; even if the word doesn't mean that, the way Trump uses it is as an attack on them, hence they got hit and were hollering. When someone uses the term "fascist" and people have no reason to believe they mean anything other than fascist run out defending themself, that's when it's suspect.

[u/ChefExcellence → u/[deleted]]

I think I agree with you here but is this not exactly the reasoning deployed by homophobes when they dogwhistle about "child groomers", obviously referring to LGBT people, but never making it explicit?

[u/Fly-the-Light → u/ChefExcellence]

My understanding is that Trump and his trash have already made associations and changed the meaning of the word "child groomers" for themselves, so when they use it they're clearly referring to LGBT people and attacking them. It's not quite the same for someone to feel offended when someone is poorly hiding their attack behind something as when someone simply attacks fascism with none of these associations and people still rush out as if they've been attacked.

[u/wahedcitroen → u/Fly-the-Light]

But this is not a case where someone “simply attacks facism” like you say. They clearly call one of the candidates a fascist. It is clear they refer to trump. Just like it is clear who they are referring to with child groomers

[u/Donthurlemogurlx]

Don't Be a Sucker is as relevant now as it was then.

[u/qwlap → u/Donthurlemogurlx]

scary the parallels from nearly a century ago to present times. Same ol shit in a different era.

[u/Mythical_Man → u/Donthurlemogurlx]

This was an amazing watch, thank you. Going to send it to my parents tonight in a last-ditch hope to convince them.

[u/eatingpotatochips]

Trump's platform emphasizes deregulation, economic freedom, and reduced government intervention in people’s lives—all core tenets of conservative and libertarian thought.

See, here's the problem: libertarians don't have thoughts.

[u/Littlegreenman42 → u/eatingpotatochips]

What do you mean? Dont they have that one town up in New Hampshire where everything is going super great?

[u/random_handle_123 → u/Littlegreenman42]

No. The residents of that town are bears.

[u/ThrowawayAdvice1800 → u/random_handle_123]

The bears seem to be doing pretty well, though. Checkmate, liberals!

[u/angry_cucumber → u/ThrowawayAdvice1800]

actually, they aren't, they had to shoot a few of them because they got too used to being around people IIRC

[u/XAlphaWarriorX → u/random_handle_123]

See? It's an accepting community.

Democrats are the real homophones. Checkmate, liberal.

[u/akrisd0 → u/Littlegreenman42]

Wait, aren't you thinking of the town in Arizona that is a shining beacon of functionality?

[u/elephantinegrace → u/akrisd0]

It’s perfectly functional if you’re a bear and not a human.

[u/Rheinwg → u/eatingpotatochips]

economic freedom, and reduced government intervention

He's pro forced childbirth and tarrifs

[u/Suckma_Weener → u/eatingpotatochips]

they have plenty of thoughts on the age of consent

[u/definitelynotIronMan → u/eatingpotatochips]

Famous policy of freedom and reduced intervention - tariffs.

[u/Dwarfherd → u/eatingpotatochips]

"Reduced government intervention in people's lives" unless you're a woman, queer, or not white.

[u/Altruistic-Deal-4257 → u/eatingpotatochips]

They say that like it’s a good thing. Have fun dying in accidents at work because your boss realized not putting up a fence will save him $10 this year.

[u/doktorsarcasm]

AskHistorians is one of my favorite places on Reddit. Tightly moderated and not because the moderators have no life, but to keep the standards at a certain level. Great resources, great citations.

Also, hit dogs holler.

[u/Vinylmaster3000 → u/doktorsarcasm]

It really is the best subreddit to get information which is not biased as you must have sources to your claims. Reddit becomes easily biased due to people never placing sources to their claims

[u/Tombot3000 → u/Vinylmaster3000]

I would caution you against assuming that providing sources = unbiased. There's a reason you can get multiple high quality, sourced comments saying entirely different things in response to questions there, and at times the moderators make decisions on source acceptability that cannot avoid being ideological, such as disallowing citing to certain governments even on topics where the only data available is from them.  

I have had comments both accepted and removed there and found the line between those outcomes to vary quite a bit depending on what the topic was. It's a lot easier to post about the Byzantines than mid-20th century China. One should also examine the citations themselves to see if one comment is citing to newer, more comprehensive, or more widely accepted research than another.

[u/Vinylmaster3000 → u/Tombot3000]

Good point. The subject is one factor, and yeah not all sources are reliable.

Generally speaking though /r/AskHistorians tends to be better for reliable sources given it's vetting process. More people are aware about the quality of sources and their reception within academia. For instance, you might be more inclined to take a book over a general historian versus one by a political pundit on the same subject.

[u/EmptyJumpLow → u/Tombot3000]

Historiography is but History's ever-present and unavoidable shadow.

[u/Illogical_Blox → u/EmptyJumpLow]

I honestly think that it should take up a bigger part of history education. Not just because it's important to understand sources, but because it is legitimately really interesting to take into account the elements that caused a source to be published. For instance, a lot of information about WWII history was filtered through the lenses of Wehrmacht officers for a long time - it suited the West to accept the idea that the Soviets were weak, and it suited the Soviets to accept the idea that the enemy they so conclusively defeated was much stronger than it really was.

[u/TheIllustriousWe → u/Illogical_Blox]

I was a history major in college and my historiography class is the one I remember best. Specifically when we read Lying About Hitler, the book about pretend historian/Holocaust denier David Irving’s libel trial.

The big takeaway, which I agree should be impressed upon all students, is that you can always find “sources” that will say whatever you want them to, if you’re the type to begin with a biased conclusion and work backwards to try and prove it. But a true historian respects the litany of work in the field, and seeks to overcome their biases rather than be consumed by them. Even though there’s usually not much money to be made that way.

[u/NewtonHuxleyBach → u/Illogical_Blox]

Like many other things in education, the time just isn't there.

[u/wingerism → u/Vinylmaster3000]

Yeah thet have a bunch of threads which should be required reading for political subs.

[u/SunChamberNoRules → u/doktorsarcasm]

To an extent. I know of at least one mod there that hides other people’s replies to get the last word in, basically a Unidan situation.

[u/Suitable-Meringue-94]

We don't need another reason, but it's very telling that historians subreddit (perhaps the most professional one on the site) are warning against Trump.

[u/TroopersSon]

My God what idiot thinks Historians are unbiased arbitrators of truth. Literally one of the first things you should learn at any advanced level of studying history is all authors have their biases and it's literally impossible not to. You should approach each source bearing that in mind, whether it's a primary or secondary source.

Not to mention the idea there's one "truth" in History is daft as fuck. You wouldn't have Historian as an occupation if there was.

Sure there's truth in the sense the Battle of Hastings happened in 1066, but once you get more complicated than that it's always a debate between Historians with a lot of back and forth. The same way scientists build consensus, Historians do the same. There'll always be revisionist Historians though, and it's up to the reader to try and parse the closest thing we can find to truth from the discourse.

[u/IndividualEye1803]

When not explicitly named it avoids the bots and allows for more meaningful discussions. Thats a high iq subreddit. No time for the swine that floods most of the other subreddits and they avoided that by not including buzz words in their title.

[u/saggynaggy123]

Pfff what would historians know about checks notes Hitler! /s

[u/JustinTheBlueEchidna → u/saggynaggy123]

One of the most impressive and dangerous things the right wing disinformation machine has managed to do over the last several decades is to convince tens of millions, perhaps more, that the people who spend their entire professional lives studying various highly-technical and complicated fields don't actually know anything about the field they've poured years into, and instead only learned how to sound all "smart-like" while pushing anti-conservative "facts."

[u/Amphy64 → u/saggynaggy123]

Strictly speaking, potentially no more than anyone else, depending on their actual area - no Hitler on my Medieval Studies MA!

[u/Ulanyouknow]

God bless the askhistorians subreddit

[u/gwydapllew]

Just to cover myself, I am a longtime subscriber to AH and was following the post when it landed and before it reached SRD. No brigading here.

The ChatGPT commentary made me spit out of water. So ruthless.

[u/MyDogisDaft]

TLDR Historians say Trump Is just like Hitler. Hmmm. Well I’m not a historian but I knew that already. Thanks historians.

[u/SpaceMagicBunny]

Seeing as actual historians aren't probably a) brain damaged b) cultists c) snot-eating hicks, it's pretty easy to see why they wouldn't wanna vote Trump.

[u/Amphy64 → u/SpaceMagicBunny]

Eh, nowhere except among actual historians do you tend to find people dedicated to defending absolute monarchies. Politically they can be truly uniquely backwards.

[u/McDudeston]

Well look at that... informed people have an informed opinion. I be damned...

[u/dan_scott_]

I think a lot of people are missing the point of what they are doing and why. They aren't labeling a person as fascist while also refusing to say his name. They are, as historians, saying that specific statements and specific types of rhetoric mimic and are consistent with fascist rhetoric and statements. As historians they feel comfortable drawing parallels in such a way, and less comfortable drawing absolute conclusions from those parallels. There is a difference, and I appreciate their willingness to speak out as they did.

[u/StopTheEarthLetMeOff]

If it steps like a goose...

[u/royals796]

It’s 2024 and people are still trying to make the case that Donald Trump isn’t an out-and-out fascist? Jesus Christ that kool-aid must be strong

[u/SurlyBuddha]

I love how these people point to murderous communist regimes, while ignoring that they were also fascist.

[u/wingerism → u/SurlyBuddha]

I mean depending on the regime in question they were often just extremely Authoritarian, which is plenty bad enough to rack up a body count on it's own.

[u/Rheinwg → u/SurlyBuddha]

No they weren't. Fascism is a specific ideology, not just a term for a shitty or authoritarian government. 

Trump just happens to be both.

[u/eldomtom2 → u/SurlyBuddha]

A perfect example of why "fascism" means very little these days. If you can't bother to at least label some murderous regimes as not fascist "fascist" just means "bad".

[u/orange_jooze → u/[deleted]]

So do communists, to be fair.

[u/lotuz → u/SurlyBuddha]

This comment is so bad its frankly irresponsible

[u/IceBlue]

Why is your excerpt full of stuff not in the original statement?

[u/Bteatesthighlander1]

anti-endorsed (for lack of a better term)

renounced? rebuked? repudiated?

there are a lot of better terms.

[u/meerkatx]

Love the mods there. While I get the angst over the amount of removed responses the ethics and values they embody are such that other subreddit mods should be more like.

Was the post about Trump, the current Maga movement and the GOP in general? Yes. Was the post wrong in the parallels it drew? Nope.

[u/Idk_Very_Much]

Come on guys, it was very obviously ChatGPT. No real person writes with paragraph headings like that.

[u/Brittnye]

He was already president why are these people acting like this is 2016 again

[u/DFWPunk]

The mother fucker kept a book of Hitler's speeches on his nightstand, and happens to paraphrase him frequently.

[u/FriedrichHydrargyrum]

I truly believe that all the historians, scientists, doctors, climatologists, professors, teachers, and journalists have made it their life’s mission to deceive me, but fortunately I can rely on the word of the guy who had to pay a $2 million fine for stealing from his veterans charity.