SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the will-provide-tattoos-for-right-applicant dept.
Seems someone got the whole thing seriously wrong, but evidently there was a casting call for actors for a Cadillac commercial that was looking for "alt-right" or "neo-nazi" types.
Cadillac caused a stir this week when a casting service put out a request on behalf of the American luxury brand looking to fill the role of an "alt-right (neo-Nazi)" in a new commercial. Cadillac denied it had ever authorized the notice and condemned it, while the casting company took responsibility, saying that it had been issued by mistake. Regardless of who did what, the idea had to have been hatched somewhere and by someone, which reveals something far more troubling than a mere streak of poor taste and even poorer judgement in corporate America: the marketability and mainstreaming of an alt-right population, or those "identified variously with anti-globalist and anti-immigrant stances, cartoon frogs, white nationalists, pick-up artists, anti-Semites, and a rising tide of right-wing populism," as Tablet contributor Jacob Siegel wrote in a profile of Paul Gottfried, the alt-right's "godfather."
Hmm, maybe now that the "alt-right" has become just another marketing demographic, we do not have to worry about them taking over the country? I mean, who buys Cadillacs as a status symbol anymore? Not like they are your father's Oldsmobile. Except that, really, it was your father's Olds. So that brand no longer exists. Are we at the point where we can say, "Brietbart: it's not your grandpa's fascism!"? Except, really, maybe it is?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30 2016, @08:31PM
Before anyone here starts labeling each other go read what a Nazi was. How they came about. Why did they end up where they were?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program [wikipedia.org]
Especially read the last one. It is basically the 'nazi manifesto'. You know how they convinced millions to follow them. Both of the current parties in the US have portions of these. All political parties do. We are human we are going to do similar things over and over. Out of their manifesto only point 4 would be considered verboten to do today. The rest all of the parties in the world either are open to or have done. After point 10 is pretty much straight up socialism with the party running the show with the workers seizing the means of production. 4 to 9 is usually considered anti Semitic as that was their intent. 1 - 3 is how the other countries where fucking germany over for money. 4-9 were put in place because the bankers were whom they decided to lay the blame of ww1 and the following recession. The banks in their view were controlled by 'the jews'. In modern times we call them 'the 1%'.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30 2016, @11:05PM
I want to add one more thing
This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum [wikipedia.org]
What one person does, does not mean they hold the beliefs of others just because they do some of the same things. In the past year I have seen a lot of this sort of argument. It is a logical fallacy. It is easy to fall for because our brains lie to us every second of the day and pick things that 'sound good'. Do not fall for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 31 2016, @04:42AM
It is a logical fallacy.
Interesting thing about logical fallacies: they are not always fallacies! We take for an example the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Sometimes a slight change will not lead to an irreversable slide into Armaggedon. But sometimes it does, as if when a society allows that some racist views are worth marketing to: almost always ends up with the country in ruins and der Trumpter eating a bullet in an undisclosed location. And the "ad hominem", often brought up here; but an "appeal to the person" is only a fallacy if facts about the person making the argument are not relevant to the argument being made. When the argument is whether these people are, or are not, actual Nazis, personal facts about them are in fact pertinent.
So, the reduction to Hitler is only a fallacy when the person/party/social movement it is being applied to is not Hitler, or by extention, fascist. This, of course, it what is in dispute, so to argue that alt-right is clearly not Nazi is to beg the question, in the correct usage of the phrase [begthequestion.info], and to argue that Reductio ad Naziarium is a fallacy is a blatant example of the Fallacy Fallacy. [wikipedia.org]