There's a dangerous game of verbal gymnastics being played out in the public sphere, and it's high time we called it what it is: a steaming pile of intellectual horsehit. I’m talking about the insidious trend of labeling rioting, book burning, immigrant stabbing neo-Nazis as "protestors."
It's a full-frontal assault on common sense and decency.
I'm not here to coddle your beliefs or gently nudge you towards enlightenment. I'm here to slap you with a cold, hard dose of reality. Because sometimes, that's exactly what we need to shake us out of our collective stupor.
The word "protestor" carries weight. It evokes images of brave souls standing up against injustice, of voices raised in unified dissent against oppressive systems. It's a term that's been earned through blood, sweat, and tears by generations of activists who've fought for civil rights, union rights, gay rights, women's suffrage, labor laws, and countless other causes that have shaped our society for the better. And now, we're seeing this hard-earned label casually tossed around to describe assholes whose ideological roots trace back to one of the most horrific, loser, inhuman, failed regimes in human history. It's not just wrong; it's a punch in the dick to every legitimate protest movement that has ever existed.
This isn't semantics. Language shapes our perception of reality. When we use the term "protestor" to describe neo-Nazis, we're granting them a veneer of legitimacy. We're placing them on the same moral plane as people fighting for actual human rights and social justice. It's like calling a bathroom wall sharpie scribble "art" and hanging it next to a Georgia O'Keeffe.
A protestor, by definition, is someone who's expressing dissent or objection to something. Fair enough. But in a democratic society, we generally understand that protestors are operating to shape democracy, and exercising their democratic rights. They might break the law. But they still acknowledge the rule of it.
Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, are not playing by these rules. Their entire ideology is predicated on the rejection and wholesale destruction of democratic values. They're not interested in dialogue or debate. They're not trying to improve society or fight injustice. Their endgame is the systematic oppression and elimination of entire groups of people based on race, religion, and other inherent characteristics. It's not a difference of opinion; it's a fundamental fucking rejection of the very principles that allow for peaceful protest in the first place.
"But who gets to decide who's a Nazi?" some might ask, their voices dripping with faux intellectual curiosity. To which I say: anyone with a functioning brain stem and a shred of historical awareness, that's who. This isn't some philosophical thought experiment or a question of subjective interpretation. We're talking about people who openly espouse Nazi ideology, who wave swastikas, who chant slogans calling for ethnic cleansing, who try to burn down fucking libraries. If it looks like a Nazi, talks like a Nazi, and goose-steps like a Nazi, guess what? It's a fucking Nazi.
The attempt to muddy these waters is intellectually dishonest; but it's also existentially dangerous. It's part of a broader strategy to normalize extremist ideologies by cloaking them in the language of legitimate political discourse. It's the same tactic that's been used to rebrand white supremacists as "the economically anxious" or "identitarians." It's a cynical ploy to exploit our society's commitment to free speech and open debate, using our own values as a Trojan horse to smuggle in ideas that are fundamentally antithetical to those very principles.
I can’t believe this still needs to be said in 2024: freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. It doesn't mean that all ideas deserve equal consideration or respect. And it certainly doesn't mean that we have to play along with this charade of treating neo-Nazi ideology as just another point of view in the marketplace of ideas.
Let's be crystal clear: neo-Nazism is not a legitimate political stance. It's not a quirky alternative viewpoint or a edgy counterculture movement. It's a virulent ideology that has caused untold suffering and death. It's a cancerous idea that, if left unchecked, threatens the foundations of a liberal, democratic society. And every time we use the term "protestor" to describe its adherents, we're giving it room to grow.
Some of you reading this will be squirming in your seats, uncomfortable with the idea of drawing such a hard line. "But what about free speech?" you might be thinking. "Aren't we supposed to defend everyone's right to express their views, no matter how abhorrent?" And to that, I say: absolutely. The right to free speech is fundamental to a functioning democracy. But Karl Popper was on the fucking money – that right doesn't extend to providing a platform, legitimacy, or a friendly euphemism to those who would use that very freedom to destroy it for others.
Think about it this way: if someone broke into your house and started smashing your belongings, you wouldn't describe them as an "interior design critic." You'd call them what they are: a criminal. So why the fuck are we bending over backwards to find polite terms for people who are, quite literally, advocating for the destruction of entire communities?
This is calling a spade a spade, and a Nazi a Nazi. Language matters, the words we choose shape the way we perceive and interact with the world around us. When we use euphemisms like "protestor" to describe rioting, rabid, dogshit neo-Nazis, we're not just being inaccurate – we're actively contributing to the normalization of their ideology.
This tendency to soften our language when it comes to extremist ideologies isn't evenly applied. We don't hesitate to use harsh, condemnatory language when talking about other forms of violent extremism. We don't call ISIS members "religious freedom activists" or refer to cartel enforcers as "pharmaceutical distribution protestors." So why the kid gloves when it comes to neo-Nazis?
Part of it, I suspect, comes from a misguided attempt at journalistic objectivity. There's this idea that by using neutral language, we're somehow being more fair or balanced in our reporting. But when one side is literally advocating for genocide, there is no "neutral" position. Pretending otherwise isn't objectivity; it's moral cowardice.
Another factor at play is the insidious creep of "the Overton window" – the range of ideas considered acceptable in public discourse. By repeatedly exposing people to extremist ideologies under the guise of legitimate protest, we gradually shift that window. Ideas that were once rightly considered beyond the pale start to be seen as just another point on the political spectrum. Before you know it, we're seriously debating the merits of ethno-nationalism on prime-time television.
But the most infuriating aspect of this whole debacle is the way it trivializes the concept of protest itself. Real protest movements – the kind that have driven social progress throughout history – are built on a foundation of shared humanity and a vision for a more just world. They seek to expand rights, not restrict them. They aim to lift up the marginalized, not further oppress them. By lumping neo-Nazis in with human-centric protestors, we're not just legitimizing the former; we're delegitimizing the latter.
Think about the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, the labor movement. These were protests that changed the course of history, that expanded the circle of human dignity and rights. They were met with violence, oppression, and yes, attempts to delegitimize them by painting them as extremists or troublemakers. And now we're using the same term to describe people who want to roll back all of that progress? It's not just wrong; it's a fucking perversion of everything protest stands for.
We need to grow a collective spine and call things what they are. Neo-Nazis are neo-Nazis. White supremacists are white supremacists. Fuckwits are fuckwits.
They're not protestors, they're not activists, and they're certainly not "very fine people on both sides." They're adherents to a hateful, violent ideology that has no place in a civilized society.
Some ideas are, in fact, beyond the pale. And tolerating intolerance is a one-way ticket to the destruction of tolerance itself. We need the moral clarity to stand up and say, "No, this is not okay, and we will not pretend otherwise."
Does this mean we should ban neo-Nazi gatherings or criminalize their speech? Fucking right we should. They’re counting on our bleeding hearts stopping us. But we absolutely can and should refuse to play their game. We can decline to use euphemisms that obscure the true nature of their ideology. We can call them what they are, every single time, without flinching or hedging.
Because words matter. The language we use shapes the way we think, the way we perceive the world around us. When we use soft, neutral terms to describe extremist ideologies, we're actively contributing to their normalization. We're making it easier for these ideas to slither into the mainstream, to present themselves as just another point of view in the marketplace of ideas. I’m not being facetious and I’m not exaggerating when I say, that way lies genocide.
Neo-Nazism isn't just another point of view. It's a virulent, hateful ideology that has caused untold suffering and death. It's a cancer.
Let's call things by their names. Let's reserve the term "protestor" for those who are actually fighting for justice, equality, and human rights. And let's call neo-Nazis what they are: dangerous, half-baked, wankstained, edge-lord, skidmark extremists pushing a hateful, discredited ideology that has no place in our society.
It's not always comfortable. It might not feel "neutral" or "objective." But you know what? Sometimes neutrality is just another word for complicity. Sometimes, taking a stand is exactly what's needed. Because if we can't even muster the fucking courage to use accurate language, what hope do we have of actually confronting and defeating these dangerous ideologies?
When someone refers to neo-Nazis as "protestors," don't let that shit slide. Call it out. Push back. Demand better from our media, our leaders, and ourselves. Because this isn't just about semantics – it's about the kind of society we want to live in. And I, for one, am not willing to live in a world where we tiptoe around the feelings of hateful dumbfucks who would deny the humanity of others.
It's time to grow a backbone, people.
It's time to call a Nazi a Nazi.
And then call those Nazis wankers.
