It's bad, but a more neutral way to put it is that they got rid of the "hate" framing altogether and replaced it with a (mealy-mouthed) "divisiveness" framing.
I agree with a friend online who said this reads actually somewhat like malicious compliance from USCG (you still can't hang a swastika; they just got rid of the normative language about why).
Not really sure what's interesting about this story for HN, though.
There was an article recently that said 30-40% of young Republican staffers under the age of 30 in Washington were followers of Nick Fuentes. This really does not seem like it's going somewhere great, and I can't imagine conservatives are unified in the idea they should normalize the swastika. The weird thing is it just feels like it's bad for everybody.
There was a recent youtube video by Kostantin Kisin (I can't find it now but) and I don't love that he compared Zohran Mamdani to Groypers, but his basic point was this quote or idea someone said which is that the reason history repeats itself is that we only are really influenced by the lessons of our parents and grandparents. That this rise of anti-semitism and backing down from our taboo's about racism come at a time when there are far fewer people growing up with relatives who were alive during the holocaust. (Just for good measure, the comparison between Zohran Mamdani and Groypers was that the left was forgetting the murders and human rights tragedies that came out of communism)
This isn’t a critique of your overall point, but regarding the video you referenced, Trump’s own actions to date have been more communist than any policy Mamdani has proposed.
I can't help but see this as a solution in search of a problem. Are we so optimized in our speech designations that solves and actual problem here that's not "We're too hard on racists?" I can get around the whole "how do you define hate speech" thing, but like, who's getting unfairly caught in the trap of using a noose in a neutral way. Does defining a swastika as "potentially divisive" help Buddhists?
Eh. You can't see it, because you are not affected, which, to be fair, is a common human condition. The fascinating part about it is that you are even able to pin point obvious false positive and still fail to understand the implications. I suspect, though I do not know, that should your personal belief ( that happened to be associated with a semi-random object ) was somehow outlawed, you would feel differently. If you do not know, you don't. Nothing to be seen. Why won't those people just let go of their outmoded belief systems:D
Of course I can understand why people who want to hang a swastika feel unfairly treated; i'm just curious why their belief system seems to be more important than a stable society.
Interesting. Most reasonable people would agree that things do not exist in a vacuum and that competing values, such as they are, may need to be preserved. This can mean a lot of different things across societies as consensus is established ( because it will vary and vary wildly ). Now, there absolutely is value in a stable society, but if it is the main value that we optimize for then minimizing that belief system is a surefire way to undermine it. Naturally, if you are telling me belief systems don't matter, please say so. If you believe only some belief systems matter, please list that ones that meet your acceptable threshold.
I am not a religions scholar or social academic, but that sounds to me a bit counter productive.
If all this stuff that happens during Trump’s presidency gets normalized, and not reversed and severely punished, it’s going to get worse. They’ll push the Overton Window as far as they can in their pursuit of power.
They are increasingly revealing their ugly face. We had Sieg Heils on Republic and conservative public events. We have Miller in power. The groypers are being enabled to push out the old guard.
It is all necessary as Trump can't be the future. For it to survive, they will have to double down, and so extreme ideological idiocy will take its place.
But people still think they can wait it out. But alas, that is not how fascism works. Those concentration camps will never become vacant.
> They are increasingly revealing their ugly face. We had Sieg Heils on Republic and conservative public events. We have Miller in power. The groypers are being enabled to push out the old guard.
You list all those things like they're part of the same thing, but isn't Stephen Miller Jewish? It's easy to lump people together into an undifferentiated "enemy," but there's a tension there that needs some explanation. I don't think a Jewish guy could ever be an unironic neo-Nazi.
Noted Nazi Richard Spencer was Stephen Miller's mentor while they were both at Duke [1]. Miller repeatedly pushed Breitbart News editors to promote content from explicitly white nationalist sources such as VDare and American Renaissance [2]. He recommended The Camp of the Saints, a notoriously racist novel beloved by many white supremacists and some neo-Nazis, which features "white genocide" themes [3].
At this point, asking whether Miller is a card-carrying Nazi, or just pals around with them and espouses their beliefs, is a distinction without a difference. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
> At this point, asking whether Miller is a card-carrying Nazi, or just pals around with them and espouses their beliefs, is a distinction without a difference. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
I think you're conflating white supremacy with Naziism. They're not the same thing. All Nazis are white supremacists, but not all white supremacists are Nazis.
The defining feature of pre WWII era German National Socialists (literal Nazi's by definition) was ultranationalism originated in pan-Germanism coupled with an ethno-nationalist faction. (Also, politically, a strong anti Marxist streak expressed via redefining socialism).
The specific focus on antisemitism in that first iteration was something that worked, something that struck a chord, and something that grew with wider support from Germans at large.
In any reuse of Nazi, as in central north american post Cold War Nazi 2.0's it's the ultra nationalism and "USA culture nationalism" that again comes as a core feature. There are strongly anti jewish factions, sure, but the strong binding "fear and hatred of outsiders" is well satisfied by brown people, immigrants, Latin X non english speakers, etc.
Miller draping himself in a US flag as he unironically recreates pogroms his grandparents escaped doesn't erase his actions
As noted by others, the deportations, the smash and grab storm trooper tactics, the Us v. them attitudes and camps on US soil and off all fit the patterns of behaviour set by original OG Nazi's. This time around jewish people by descent can clearly fit in and lead pan-USAism actions.
Post Y2K USofA identity isn't the same as 1930s German identity, but ultranationism is still kill the outsider.
Because the sine qua non of Naziism is antisemitism of a particularly virulent type. One could imagine a Jewish white supremacist, but that's not the same as a Nazi. A Jew, for obvious reasons, isn't going to be an antisemite let alone a particularly virulent one.
If you find yourself trying to downplay this, at a symbolic level, will you accept anything? The administration is clearly trying to find the most nazified guys they can to do horrible things.
They already are doing a genocide in Gaza (hint: that's not over). What new evil are they preparing?
It's bad, but a more neutral way to put it is that they got rid of the "hate" framing altogether and replaced it with a (mealy-mouthed) "divisiveness" framing.
New policy:
https://media.defense.gov/2025/nov/14/2003820615/-1/-1/0/CI_...
Old policy:
https://wow.uscgaux.info/Uploads_wowII/O-DEPT/CG__Harassing_...
I agree with a friend online who said this reads actually somewhat like malicious compliance from USCG (you still can't hang a swastika; they just got rid of the normative language about why).
Not really sure what's interesting about this story for HN, though.
There was an article recently that said 30-40% of young Republican staffers under the age of 30 in Washington were followers of Nick Fuentes. This really does not seem like it's going somewhere great, and I can't imagine conservatives are unified in the idea they should normalize the swastika. The weird thing is it just feels like it's bad for everybody.
There was a recent youtube video by Kostantin Kisin (I can't find it now but) and I don't love that he compared Zohran Mamdani to Groypers, but his basic point was this quote or idea someone said which is that the reason history repeats itself is that we only are really influenced by the lessons of our parents and grandparents. That this rise of anti-semitism and backing down from our taboo's about racism come at a time when there are far fewer people growing up with relatives who were alive during the holocaust. (Just for good measure, the comparison between Zohran Mamdani and Groypers was that the left was forgetting the murders and human rights tragedies that came out of communism)
This isn’t a critique of your overall point, but regarding the video you referenced, Trump’s own actions to date have been more communist than any policy Mamdani has proposed.
because it looks like the US is falling to fascism swastika(1) which are symbols of genocide due to hate are no longer "hate symbols"
what fucked up times do we live in when we can't even agree anymore that literal nazis are evil and people in power can force it to be "just divisive"
[flagged]
Literally, what the fuck are you talking about?
Just flag troll comments.
cool cool now how do i flag your tripe?
[flagged]
I can't help but see this as a solution in search of a problem. Are we so optimized in our speech designations that solves and actual problem here that's not "We're too hard on racists?" I can get around the whole "how do you define hate speech" thing, but like, who's getting unfairly caught in the trap of using a noose in a neutral way. Does defining a swastika as "potentially divisive" help Buddhists?
I think the problem they are trying to fix is hoaxes.
Eh. You can't see it, because you are not affected, which, to be fair, is a common human condition. The fascinating part about it is that you are even able to pin point obvious false positive and still fail to understand the implications. I suspect, though I do not know, that should your personal belief ( that happened to be associated with a semi-random object ) was somehow outlawed, you would feel differently. If you do not know, you don't. Nothing to be seen. Why won't those people just let go of their outmoded belief systems:D
Good grief.
Of course I can understand why people who want to hang a swastika feel unfairly treated; i'm just curious why their belief system seems to be more important than a stable society.
Interesting. Most reasonable people would agree that things do not exist in a vacuum and that competing values, such as they are, may need to be preserved. This can mean a lot of different things across societies as consensus is established ( because it will vary and vary wildly ). Now, there absolutely is value in a stable society, but if it is the main value that we optimize for then minimizing that belief system is a surefire way to undermine it. Naturally, if you are telling me belief systems don't matter, please say so. If you believe only some belief systems matter, please list that ones that meet your acceptable threshold.
I am not a religions scholar or social academic, but that sounds to me a bit counter productive.
> I can't help but see this as a solution in search of a problem.
The problem was that racists couldn't openly be racist and intimidate non-white members of the Coast Guard.
Good time to finally get that double lightning tattoo you always wanted sailor.
https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-s...
https://archive.is/40h3d
If all this stuff that happens during Trump’s presidency gets normalized, and not reversed and severely punished, it’s going to get worse. They’ll push the Overton Window as far as they can in their pursuit of power.
They are increasingly revealing their ugly face. We had Sieg Heils on Republic and conservative public events. We have Miller in power. The groypers are being enabled to push out the old guard.
It is all necessary as Trump can't be the future. For it to survive, they will have to double down, and so extreme ideological idiocy will take its place.
But people still think they can wait it out. But alas, that is not how fascism works. Those concentration camps will never become vacant.
> They are increasingly revealing their ugly face. We had Sieg Heils on Republic and conservative public events. We have Miller in power. The groypers are being enabled to push out the old guard.
You list all those things like they're part of the same thing, but isn't Stephen Miller Jewish? It's easy to lump people together into an undifferentiated "enemy," but there's a tension there that needs some explanation. I don't think a Jewish guy could ever be an unironic neo-Nazi.
Noted Nazi Richard Spencer was Stephen Miller's mentor while they were both at Duke [1]. Miller repeatedly pushed Breitbart News editors to promote content from explicitly white nationalist sources such as VDare and American Renaissance [2]. He recommended The Camp of the Saints, a notoriously racist novel beloved by many white supremacists and some neo-Nazis, which features "white genocide" themes [3].
At this point, asking whether Miller is a card-carrying Nazi, or just pals around with them and espouses their beliefs, is a distinction without a difference. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
1. https://www.businessinsider.com/richard-spencer-says-he-knew...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/12/trump-adviser-...
3. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/bigoted-belief...
> At this point, asking whether Miller is a card-carrying Nazi, or just pals around with them and espouses their beliefs, is a distinction without a difference. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
I think you're conflating white supremacy with Naziism. They're not the same thing. All Nazis are white supremacists, but not all white supremacists are Nazis.
The defining feature of pre WWII era German National Socialists (literal Nazi's by definition) was ultranationalism originated in pan-Germanism coupled with an ethno-nationalist faction. (Also, politically, a strong anti Marxist streak expressed via redefining socialism).
The specific focus on antisemitism in that first iteration was something that worked, something that struck a chord, and something that grew with wider support from Germans at large.
In any reuse of Nazi, as in central north american post Cold War Nazi 2.0's it's the ultra nationalism and "USA culture nationalism" that again comes as a core feature. There are strongly anti jewish factions, sure, but the strong binding "fear and hatred of outsiders" is well satisfied by brown people, immigrants, Latin X non english speakers, etc.
Miller draping himself in a US flag as he unironically recreates pogroms his grandparents escaped doesn't erase his actions
As noted by others, the deportations, the smash and grab storm trooper tactics, the Us v. them attitudes and camps on US soil and off all fit the patterns of behaviour set by original OG Nazi's. This time around jewish people by descent can clearly fit in and lead pan-USAism actions.
Post Y2K USofA identity isn't the same as 1930s German identity, but ultranationism is still kill the outsider.
> I don't think a Jewish guy could ever be an unironic neo-Nazi.
I suppose it would be confusing if the only thing you ever learned about Nazis was that they didn't like Jews.
> I don't think a Jewish guy could ever be an unironic neo-Nazi.
Why would you think that?!
Because the sine qua non of Naziism is antisemitism of a particularly virulent type. One could imagine a Jewish white supremacist, but that's not the same as a Nazi. A Jew, for obvious reasons, isn't going to be an antisemite let alone a particularly virulent one.
WTF timeline are we living in? I didn't choose any of this.
we didn’t win World War Two for this shit
If you find yourself trying to downplay this, at a symbolic level, will you accept anything? The administration is clearly trying to find the most nazified guys they can to do horrible things.
They already are doing a genocide in Gaza (hint: that's not over). What new evil are they preparing?