Because the right has all the facts in its corner.
I'm not talking "preponderance of evidence." I'm talking people who come over to the right shaking their heads, like someone awaking from a dream and saying, bewildered, "How did I never see all this, right in front of my eyes?"
Every molecule of oxygen in the debate arena belongs to us. We own the realm of reasoned discourse. That's why the left must break so many of its own rules to continue the fight.
> hurrr nazis ps my worldview requires me to remain this uninformed
Hey did you hear that 13 people died to a jihadi truck in Barcelona today? How many Muslim websites did Google knock offline in response? Or Cloudflare? How many Muslim accounts did Facebook and Twitter shut down?
I'm sure they're all scurrying to do just that, now that The Gloves Are Off in The War on Hate. Let's just wait and see.
No, it's because the dominant ideology cannot survive debate.
There's a reason why ethnic nationalism and race realism have exploded in popularity in the past five years, and it's not because the ringleaders are a bunch of trained hypnotists.
If we're going to speak meaningfully about where Europeans come from, we need to include wherever they picked up Neanderthal DNA (hint: not in Africa; no African population has it).
> nothing, what so ever to do with the laws against being a Nazi
You are very poorly informed. The laws against "being a Nazi" are generic "no bad speech" laws. Nazism is just their most well-known application. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
> Spoiler: it's a lie.
A lawyer went to prison, for statements she made, in court, in defense of her client. That's not supposed to happen. It's not a feature.
Oh it was ILLEGAL. Why didn't you say so? That makes it totally palatable that a lawyer might be imprisoned for doing his job, and doesn't AT ALL impeach the entire concept of a "trial."
> would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.
You have it backwards, friend. The inside of a courtroom needs MORE protections for speech, not fewer, than the outside. Laws like libel simply don't apply there (disclaimer: in the US. Can't speak for how they do it in failed states like Germany), and for very good reason.
> the slippery slope that is always brought up never materialized.
Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism. That kind of sucked.
Jewishness is a religion of ethnic nationalism. As in, there's a DNA test to join. Whether they actually practice genocide today depends on what definition you're using, but count up the deaths from pogroms that Jews are responsible for and the toll far exceeds Hitler's.
Are you saying that white ethnic nationalism is inherently violent while Jewish ethnic nationalism is not?
> Marxist-Leninist governments don't have a great track record,
What a coincidence - the supposedly inextricable link between Nazism and violence is also entirely a posteriori. Hitler certainly never mentioned ethnic cleansing in any speech or writings.
> but there are plenty of individual pacifist hippie commies
So intent does matter now, so long as the ideas align with your own? Almost all neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust. To them, the inherent violence (that you say justifies preemptive violence) doesn't even exist.
When the left's pets - Muslims, immigrants, Communists, minorities - kill someone, that's a loner acting alone.
When someone dies in the vicinity of the left's opponents, that's a manifestation of inherent violence.