Literally Marxism 2.0 Redux: Race Edition

Fascism is state socialism.

Ideologically the statement of them being far right is correct
otherwise you are somewhat correct

I'm not sure what your point his. The Nazis never made any attempt to abolish private property. That was never part of their goals. It's true that they confiscated a great deal of private property, but only from certain minority groups.

Honestly just change Jews with capitalists or bourgeoisie and National Socialism sounds just like communism. Even modern day denialists and revisionists from both sides sound alike.

>The kulaks deserved it, they went against and betrayed the common proletariat
>The Jews deserved it, they went against and betrayed the German people

>they often privatized property that had previously been held by the state.

This is misleading. They may have privatized it, but the owners had little control over their businesses, given the de facto spread of leftist collectivism.
They had guns to their heads.

Call it Marxism, call it State Capitalism. It's still leftist in nature.

Marxism and National Socialism:
In theory, different.
In practice, basically the same thing.

>It's true that they confiscated a great deal of private property, but only from certain minority groups.
in a sense he's right then. private property today we consider a universal principle; anyone old enough can own it whether man or women young or old, except under certain circumstances like mental impairment. The nazis wanted to make private property an exclusive principle; only a certain group could own it. Had they succeeded in their conquest there is no doubt that they wouldn't have taken it away from Jews only but anyone they arbitrarily deemed subhuman. The nazis, in other words, wanted to effect a racial revolution which saw the redistribution of the wealth and the means of production to a racial caste, the so-called "aryan" germans. It was a kind of revolutionary principle whose ultimate goal was the empowerment of the german people above all others, and to them this meant the denial of rights to other races and one might even say turning inferior races into slaves (i.e. the private property of the germans, who would have an exclusive monopoly over the fruits of subhuman labor). It was a kind of really twisted type of racial socialism whereby the racial community, which the nazis anyway conceived as a type of collective hivemind whose health and purity was to be maintained by an authoritarian state, was to live in harmony, collectively benefitting from the subjugation of conquered peoples and the lands taken from them.

You mean like tankies, because the vast majority of commies don't say that.

I should also add in many ways their ultimate goal was similar to the khmer rouge. The ultimate Nazi victory, as they saw it, would also result in the overturning of the industrial urbanized society that they so loathed. They envisioned depopulating German cities and settling the people in conquered lands-- the "living space" idea. Germans were to have some kind of utopian agrarian empire wherein its people would fulfill their racial destiny, be ruled by a warrior caste composed of the most racially superior stock among the germans and who would no longer be tainted by the degenerate influences caused by urban industrial society.

Yeah, revisionists who deny history.

>literally Marxism 2.0 Redux: Race Edition
wtf? I love national socialism now.

Damn, did you just finish a thesis on this stuff?

That's a far stretch. He advocated for privatization of property and a free market. The governments role was to insure everything done economically contributed to making the fatherland strong.

i've read a few books on the third reich. i write in a stilted way that seems academic but i'm not one, apologies for that

Read what OP wrote you cretin. Marxism TWOOOO POINT OOOH.

Got it?

Not all socialists are Marxists.

thats a nazi flag though

I think we need to be clear about the definition of tankie from now on..

From a right-libertarian perspective we use it to mean any authoritarian lefty. (Including those that attempt to use linguistic trickery). So basically Nazis (which is the point don't you know!)

Is that acceptable to left libertarians and the religious?

The Strasserist wing yes but the Hitler wing which ultimately won was a far right dictatorship.

So /pol/ are idiots? Noone is denying that.

1.) Many (the Krupps for example) were given lucrative contracts and did it of their own volition
2.) "the state using businesses to make weapons for war" isn't what Socialism is and if it were literally every nation in history was Socialist

what the fuck does being leftist or right wing mean?

>fascism is extreme right
>but muh workers, everything is owned by the state. Also fuck tradition, yest to the future *builds hueg dome with weird columns*

>national SOCIALISM is extreme right
>same us above but muh tradition muh race

Also, fucking Hitler himself said it socialism was good, but the internationalist part ruined it, that's why it's called nationa socialism. It's in Mein Kampf. It seems that nobody has read it, not even stormfags since they claim "Hitler had nothing against slavs" shit.

>everything is owned by the state
>Nazis

That's what they wanted originally, then of course Hitler allied with the german high class.

"state socialism" really cannot exist in anything that isn't a democracy. And even the US, then or now, isn't sufficiently democratic to qualify.

They basically forbade certain classes from owning private property, didn't they? That would basically be similar to feudalism or a slave society, more than a typical capitalist system. And if the government has that much say in who can own property, then it might be private property ownership on paper, but it pretty much lacks all the features of private property ownership. Basically, if the government can get away with seizing property from Jews, they can probably also get away with seizing property from arbitrary citizens whenever they want.

That reasoning only makes sense if you subscribe to the juvenile notion that left-right is about individual freedom vs state power. The political compass has plenty of flaws, but at least it distinguishes the progressive-reactionary axis from the collectivist-libertarian one.

Nazis were fascists.

I'm reluctant to calling the Nazis "lefties" since the only leftist aspect was their economy (and even that only to an extent), while their social policy was pretty undeniably far right. I think it would be better to summarize as "advocates of an authoritarian government and centrally planned economy".

It wasn't Marxist, but it certainly was Socialist.

State socialist at that.

Stalinism and Nazism are practically identical.

>the irony of fighting to become everything the krauts envisioned about jews.

Tbh natsoc is just an aristocracy + industry, all that tech makes people think crazy shit. All of which alexis de toqueville wrote about in democracy in america.

This.

>"state socialism" really cannot exist in anything that isn't a democracy
>there is no such thing as socialism unless it works

I bet you barf up terms like "state capitalism" without batting an eyelash. You really think your pet system is incorruptible?

>at least it distinguishes the progressive-reactionary axis from the collectivist-libertarian one.
"Juvenile", Right. Refuse to use any metric which doesn't delay inevitable association communism has with state power.
Nazi Germany was a collectivist state, and very progressive for a select race. Marxism is a response to the class struggle, and in Hitler's system, class is tied to race.

>not a single line about social wealth distribution
>not a single line about clash of classes
>Marxism

In Nazism, the Estate IS the individual, everything goes to the Estate because you are the Estate. This the exactly opposite of what Marx proposes in his Manifesto, without even considering the privileged classes. While in Marx vision everything should go for the working class, in Nazi society, the military service is one of the highest honors, full of privileges, patents and all sort of powers

That said, dividing the world in left/right is a stupid approach, since it just explains how the Estate will handle the capital and it's distribution. Ideologies like Absolutism, Anarchy, Nomadism, Nazism and many others can't be classified as neither, since the Estate does not exist or have a very particular functionality.

I blame Cold War

The idiocy hierarchy:
>hitler's germany was leftist and a corruption of marxism, and that's bad
>hitler's germany was leftist and a corruption of (((marxism))), and that's good
>Marxism is incorruptible, which necessitates that hitler's germany be right-wing. Now I can claim capitalism and conservatism as racistsexistandhomophobic and incompatible with sexy progressive views.

/pol/ may be full of idiots, but at least they're sincere and consistent.

Nailed it.
Again, play pretend you own a business in Nazi Germany, and want to do something ideologically contrary to the state's goals.

As opposed to what? It's in the name so it CAN'T be socialism?
>lel it's so straightforward and simple it can't be true! i'm college educated!
>bernie sanders is a democrat because it says so right there on his pin!
>democratic socialism is democratic because it says so right there in the name!

National Socialism is Marxism 2.0 because instead of "Workers of the world, unite!" it's "Workers of Germany, unite!"

Not all collectivism is Marxism dummy.

>state ownership is exclusively left-wing
Feudalism is left-wing you heard it here.

That's right, just most of them.
The rest are "National Socialists", who want to sterilize you.

You cannot have Communism or Socialism without collectivism.

"National Socialism" is a marketing gimmick, a lie that right-wingers tell working rubes in order to get them to buy into their bullshit. They say "national SOCIALIST PARTY" to working rubes and "NATIONAL socialist PARTY" to the business elites.

It's ultra-conservative social and economic policy meeting expansionary militarism.

>"NATIONAL socialist PARTY" to the business elites.

Why would they do this? Are they only tricking socialists or are they also tricking capitalists?

>ultra-conservative social and economic policy
What's conservative economically about the Autobahn and the People's Wagon?

You really are an idiot.

Socialism literally means that the people own the means of production. If the means of production are owned by a non-democratic state, then it's really nothing like socialism. It could be run by a self-identified socialist party, but at that point you're basically arguing that the DPRK is democratic because it's right there in the name.

It's juvenile to insist that Communism is the ONLY path to state power. That's the whole point of the political compass.

Ancoms would say otherwise. Besides, their argument is not that "non-collectivist socialism" exists, but rather that "non-socialist collectivism" does. Which is certainly true. It's been common throughout history, long before socialism was even thought of.

>Why would they do this? Are they only tricking socialists or are they also tricking capitalists?
Take a wild guess as to whether it is the business elites or the working man making out like bandits when right-wingers ruthlessly take over the government and slaughter all the actual left-wingers in a bloody purge
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

>What's conservative economically about the Autobahn
A well organized,and interconnected series of highways is a major military asset.
> the People's Wagon?
Crony Capitalism, courtesy of the Volkswagen Company which would also get fat paychecks building military vehicles.

Having this attitude of "anything that has to do with the government is SOCIALISM! the post office and fire department are SOCIALISM!" is a distinctly American breed of conservatism.

Explain to me how the political ideology whose root word is "commune" is not collectivist.

>Socialism literally means that the people own the means of production.
How coy. I seem to remember the Manifesto having a few more lines to it. Some stuff about class struggle that is universal to socialists, even apart from Marx.

The pretense behind socialism is to dismantle the establishment where selfish capitalists are hoarding all the free shit.
It's that capitalism is about separating individuals and pitting them against each other, where the Marxist end-goal is about the community working WITH each other TO NO OTHER END than the collective welfare.
Well Nazi Germany operated on that same pretense. You might say it was aligned on the same side of the political compass.

Capitalism works with the free market - you can admit that a government can corrupt this concept, where you end up with a system called "state capitalism", but you cannot admit that government can corrupt your worker's paradise and still have primarily socialist goals such as providing universal healthcare/education/food and driving the economy on "manual"?

>It's juvenile to insist that Communism is the ONLY path to state power.
It isn't the only path. In fact Socialism is the path Hitler took, which makes National Socialism, "Marxism 2.0" and not "right wing".
It's blatantly leftist and instead of shunning the Nazi ideology the same way your kind coyly shuns Stalinism you propagate these willingly ignorant arguments. Because there is "no possible way" your precious unifying socialism could be hijacked by racists. That's exclusively a classist, capitalist result.

how can a social policy be "right"? If you mean "traditionalist".

Before the Light of the Long Knives the Nazi Party was nothing if not socialist

But obviously political movements abandon "true" socialism once they get into power

1.Jewish and Jewish-allied Business elites fail. Left-wingers who didn't agree with Hitlers brand of leftism fail. The fact is that right-wingers AND left-wingers are hindered under the custom-tailored National Socialist system.

2.Conservative economics has little to do with splurging public funds on military assets.

3.Nobody is making the argument that "anything to do with government is socialism". We are trying to get you to admit that leftists (like nazis) can be corrupt, leftists (like nazis) can be inequitable, and leftists (like nazis) can be racist. All shit that you happily accept in Stalinism.

You would agree that "the post office and the fire department" are indeed socialist in nature, and in fact necessary components to a functioning society. I wouldn't, but I'm not here to defend those things.

You only distance yourself from them here because you don't want to be associated with Nazis.

>ITT: people being purposefully obtuse and intellectually dishonest because they want "their team ideology" to win

I don't get why you indulge in this behavior. You're anonymous people on he Internet.

Did Nazism have anything to do with socialism or marxism?

Considering that the Nazis considered communists to be the biggest enemies, I would have to say, DEFINITELY NOT YOU HUMONGOUS RETARD.

>people being purposefully obtuse and intellectually dishonest
lel nice argument poseur

> Autobahn
it was built using forced and slave labor and the working conditions on it were awful. workers even revolted and protested but got btfo by the government.
>People's Wagon?
seriously? not a single one of those cars was made. it was a scam. people paid in installments in hopes of getting a car years down the line but all that money was instead funneled to war production.

I wonder why nazis disliked commies so much? Surely it was for hindering their blatantly capitalistic goals.

>seriously? not a single one of those cars was made.

lol

>the one and only characteristic of marxism and leftism in general is worker rights

Keep talking, Danny Dissonance.

"lol" what? read fucking pic related from wikipedia

A good indicator someone has barely opened a book in their lives is when they are a fucking Leftist

You're missing the point. The "proletariat" and "the German people" are vastly different ideas in different categories in socio-politics. The Nazi and marxist system of governance is vastly different.

i don't even know what you're arguing. i'm answering your question "what is conservative economically about...?". the problem comes down to the fact that you haven't even defined what "conservative" means.

>1.Jewish and Jewish-allied Business elites fail
The red meat that gets thrown to the conservative base. The national elites get their robber baronage, the common conservative gets his scapegoat to punish relentlessly, which is all the distraction he really needs from the grind of class warfare.

>2.Conservative economics has little to do with splurging public funds on military assets.
Sure, if you're one of those conservatives who take the Austrian School meme seriously. For the other 99.95% of conservatives, they love seeing more people in government uniforms, be it military, police, or prison.

>We are trying to get you to admit that leftists (like nazis) can be corrupt,
And I'm telling you that calling the Nazis "leftist" is a giant load of hogwash because all the really fucked up shit that took place during the Nazi regime came -after- the Night of Long Knives, -after- right-wingers stabbed their left-wing coalition partners in the back (literally) just to secure the support of the German business elite.

>All shit that you happily accept in Stalinism.
Now you're just projecting. Show me where I defended Stalinism.

Any time an Authoritarian strong man takes over your government, ideology becomes a tool to further the interests of the leader. I'm willing to concede that authoritarian leftism led to horrors under the Soviets, can you bring yourself to admit the same about the authoritarian right in Nazi Germany?

>THE NAZIS AND COMMIES ARE THE SAME CAUSE THEIR RHETORIC WAS VAGUELY FAMILIAR
and in the US the right blames Mexicans and the left blames wall street, but actually they're the same right? HURRDY FUCKING DUURRR

>they built a town around manufacturing the people's wagon
>picked out workers to design and test the concept
>it's not socialism because it didn't work

I've got news for you kid.

I thought you wanted people to be intellectually honest and "acute"?
You are being neither, my friend!

you have an infantile idea of what socialism and conservatism is

>US the right blames Mexicans
A myth. They blame the welfare state and illegal immigrants.

>it's not socialism because it doesn't work
No dude, you're the infant.
Full-on, baby-go-doodoo-in-his-pants, teacher-said, infant.

>A myth. They blame the welfare state and illegal immigrants.
Thanks for your buzzwords, cletus. You sure are fooling us with all those dog whistles

That was my first post in the thread, and it was just as analgous. You've made almost no claims showing that the Nazi policies were leftist other than vague similarities between the rhetoric/propoganda used to trumpet Marxist and Nazi ideologies. The "intellectually honest" evidence you brought forth is simply propaganda tactics that nearly everyone uses. You've given no proper rebuttal to any of the people who pointed out how far you were reaching and yet you call me "intellectually dishonest." Cute.

Also, the opposite of "obtuse" in the context it was being used is not "acute" lol

.Conservative economics has little to do with splurging public funds on military assets.
>Sure, if you're one of those conservatives who take the Austrian School

Yeah dude, everyone knows the REAL definitions of socialism and capitalism are whatever is most convenient for you, personally.
But let's pretend they aren't.
Considering this "fake" definition of conservative economics, is Hitler's Germany left wing or right wing?
Is it closer to Stalin or Calvin Coolidge?

>Well Nazi Germany operated on that same pretense. You might say it was aligned on the same side of the political compass.
Both the Third Reich and the USSR would be on the "totalitarian" side, though one would be right-totalitarian and the other would be left-totalitarian (no points for guessing which one is which). However, anarcho-communists would be in the OPPOSITE corner from the Third Reich, since they're left-libertarians, basically opposite in all respects. As defined by the political compass, leftist economics are essentially orthagonal to the totalitarian-libertarian spectrum, the moral/philosophical FOCUS might be on the collective, but the totalitarian-libertarian spectrum is about state power specifically. Anarchists, for example, oppose all forms of hierarchy but nonetheless tend to have a moral focus on the "collective" and the common good.

>Capitalism works with the free market - you can admit that a government can corrupt this concept, where you end up with a system called "state capitalism", but you cannot admit that government can corrupt your worker's paradise and still have primarily socialist goals such as providing universal healthcare/education/food and driving the economy on "manual"?
I think it's more correct to say that "state capitalism" is a corruption of socialism and "crony capitalism" is a corruption of capitalism. Both include "capitalism" in the name of course, because capitalism is the "default" system they are both emerging from. State capitalism occurs when the state runs the economy as a purported representative of the people, but isn't a very GOOD representative of them, whereas crony capitalism occurs in a notionally capitalist society where interactions between the state and private market actors results in the elimination of competition. Both lead to the same fundamental problem: the economy being disproportionately controlled by a small minority.

Because you cannot possibly conceive of a world where your political opponents are not single-minded racists who believe in things for amoral reasons.
It's much easier when the "bad guys" are so easily taken down.

>the right blames Mexicans
you knew what I meant
The right blames illegal immigrants, the welfare state, and yuppies for their problems even though most of them are welfare babbies and yuppies and the left blames Wall Street and the old-guard even though they elect those that staunchly defend conservative fiscal policy and the status quo. Both are scapegoats and both are not even remotely proof that American Republicans and Democrats occupy the same political space.

>Also, the opposite of "obtuse" in the context it was being used is not "acute" lol
That's the joke, my friend.

You're being intellectually dishonest if at first you defend socialism purely from one marxist standpoint, then claim that not all socialists are marxists when that standpoint is rendered moot.
You are being intellectually dishonest when you claim that national socialism is closer aligned to capitalism than socialism purely because workers were abused.
You are being intellectually dishonest when you claim that the whole of socialist policy can be reduced to a single sentence "workers control the means of production" and ignore all the pretense which led to that conclusion.

he was trolling you dipshit

>It isn't the only path. In fact Socialism is the path Hitler took, which makes National Socialism, "Marxism 2.0" and not "right wing".
>It's blatantly leftist and instead of shunning the Nazi ideology the same way your kind coyly shuns Stalinism you propagate these willingly ignorant arguments. Because there is "no possible way" your precious unifying socialism could be hijacked by racists. That's exclusively a classist, capitalist result.
The ONLY leftist aspect of the Third Reich was it's economy, and it doesn't seem to have been more than moderately leftist in that regard, especially considering that MOST countries in those days were allowing government intervention in the economy both due to the Great Depression and the war economy. They didn't do a particularly good job of universally protecting private property rights, that's for sure, but by that logic ANY government sufficiently totalitarian to result in a restriction of economic freedom is leftist, which kind of makes sense at first glance but it seems silly when you consider that totalitarian governments existed long before "leftism" was even a thing. I'd say that there has to be some kind of ideological continuity before you can reasonably call something leftist economics.

And the "Nazi Germany was right-wing" argument is not about economics in the first place, it's based on considering their social aspects a more important and definitive part of what makes Nazi Germany Nazi Germany. And when talking about social policy, "right" and "left" are really about "traditional" versus "progressive" values. Both Nazi Germany and the USSR would be towards the totalitarian side of the political compass, but the Nazis would be more to the right both socially and economically. Again, this is a demonstration of the inadequacy of a two-axis system, though even that is clearly better than a single-axis system.

>you knew what I meant
No, I really didn't. It's way harder to talk about shrinking the welfare state than it is to just claim everything is about race. Which is exactly what you did, in order to paint the american right as intolerant, specifically.

He was clearly buttrustled.

I think you need to refer to my first sentence. "This is my first post." I never made any of those claims whatsoever however its ironic that you say that you can't reduce socialist politcy to "blah blah blah" because thats exactly what was done by the OP and the various people who have supported his position, who I assume you are apart of.

>Yeah dude, everyone knows the REAL definitions of socialism and capitalism are whatever is most convenient for you, personally.
Or, you know, what aligns with demographic reality.

> Hitler's Germany left wing or right wing?
We've been over this before

right-wingers love the military. It's only a tiny fraction who disagree, even in America in 2016 where the libertarians got their lunch eaten by a guy running on a nationalist platform who promised that he was going to bulk up military spending. Hitler not only bulked up the military, he put it to use, something right-wingers also generally approve of (except the outliers, of course)

Hitler's regime also encouraged social conservatism, which even you have to admit is not a common behavior of left-wingers.

>Is it closer to Stalin or Calvin Coolidge?
Have you ever actually seen a political compass?

Besides, Calvin Coolidge is just one example of a distinctly American breed of right-winger, a flash in the pan which only held power for about 10 years before being widely blamed for causing the depression and thrown out in a historically crushing loss.

You can look all over Europe and find examples of right-wingers who vote readily for nationalist parties.

The overall percent of right-wingers who share your opinions is very small, and most concede that the Nazis were a right-wing authoritarianism which needed to be stopped, and recognize that the common problem is "authoritarianism"

haha no, I'm just not fooled by your vague half-truths, anymore

I'm not trying to say any of those things though and calling it a "corruption of Marxism" is retarded because the only vaguely Marxist part was killed off on the night of the Long Knives.

>but it seems silly when you consider that totalitarian governments existed long before "leftism" was even a thing.
And "rightism".

>it's based on considering their social aspects a more important and definitive part of what makes Nazi Germany Nazi Germany.
Which is this: freedom and unity and workers rights for true nationals, subjugation for the rest. Nazi germany's draconian organization of society was based 100% around absolving class struggle, a 100% marxist goal. But they tied economic elitism to one race and predicted degeneracy as its outcome, which is where they diverge.

The only point you've effectively illustrated to me at this point is that Nazi Germany cannot be considered predominantly right or left. Since its goals were so obviously influenced by marxism but its methodology was so inspired by conservatism.

>Which is exactly what you did, in order to paint the american right as intolerant, specifically.
You're projecting hard. I was obviously referring to American Republican rhetoric, which is where my point lies, and you decided to side-step it. "Mexicans" can easily be equated with "illegals" in this context, especially when many (not all...you happy?) people on the American right don't bother to differentiate between them properly in their rhetoric and rallies. I never even made a vague mention of race or racism and even then it wouldn't have meant anything because its completely irrelevant to my point....that the right has rhetorical scapegoats that are analogous to the scapegoats of the left and that doesn't have much significance. Got it?

Yes, that's how "right-left" is typically defined in terms of social policy. I mean, have you ever heard a group described as "far-right extremists"? That's usually describing their regressive/reactionary social views, rather than saying they really love free markets.

They felt Communism rewarded weakness, and also didn't like it's globalist focus. The Nazis were collectivists, but their collectivism was national rather than global in scope, and was based on culture rather than economics.

The (industrial) working class was Marx's main focus, and has been a major emphasis of leftism ever since. Very early on, (like in the French revolution) it was more focused on the (non-noble) middle class, but acting like worker rights is merely an incidental aspect of leftism is just plain silly.

Seems to me that the "volks" in volkswagen was more about something being available to the "common man" than to being developed and produced in a "socialist" way. I mean, building a town around a factory isn't socialist, that's just what happens when you desire a large open area for your new factory but don't want the workers to have to travel far to get there (especially considering that the whole motive behind the VW project was that automobiles weren't affordable for the common man).

They're not arguing that "it isn't socialism because it didn't work". That's literally a textbook case of a strawman argument. The reason it's "not socialism" is because the workers did not own the means of production. That's basically the fundamental characteristic of socialism. State-owned companies are not magically "socialist" unless actually operated in a socialist manner (which any private company has the potential for).

>Again, play pretend you own a business in Nazi Germany, and want to do something ideologically contrary to the state's goals.

Every country uses weapons manufacturers during war. Nazis gave those businesses lucrative contracts that expanded their private wealth.

>And "rightism".
Of course, the term didn't exist back then. But those terms originated in the French Revolution, where "right" meant supporting the old order, and "left" meant supporting the revolution. Basically, the purest expression of "rightism" would be an absolutist monarchy with strong support from the Church.

>Which is this: freedom and unity and workers rights for true nationals, subjugation for the rest. Nazi germany's draconian organization of society was based 100% around absolving class struggle, a 100% marxist goal. But they tied economic elitism to one race and predicted degeneracy as its outcome, which is where they diverge.
Seems that you're using a rather broad definition of "class struggle" here though. Is there ANY sort of "us and them" attitude that you would not consider to be a form of the class struggle?

It's funny because in America the opposite is probably true.

>literally Nazism 2.0 Redux: Corean Edition
>people still call them "far-left"

Don't be hard on him dude, he's clearly too buttrustled by other posters to refute you're actual argument. He got tied up on one word, nomenclature, semantics by Veeky Forums standards, and even then he got it wrong..many Republicans are in fact intolerant, they always get assblasted when a someone speaks spanish and uses an EBT card