[JumpCrisscross]

> How do you define who is a Nazi?

The article answers this efficiently:

“What does ‘Nazi’ mean, or signify? Many things, but among them is ‘Kill all Jews.’ This is not an opinion. It’s a call for actions, such as blowing up a synagogue with people inside or murdering 6 million people who are Jews.”

Put another way, I don’t see Atwood calling for banning Nazis per se. She’s calling for doing something about people calling for the extermination of Jews. That is precise and narrow.

[atdrummond]

That is not at all a reasonable conclusion or a sufficient criteria.

I am frequently called a Nazi (despite being on, and identifying as left wing, my entire life) on X simply for having the temerity to challenge certain orthodoxies.

Denying that the term has been stretched to its breaking point, especially in light of its use by Russia in justifying the SMO in Ukraine, strains any kind of reasonable credulity.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I am frequently called a Nazi

Are you calling for the extermination of Jews? No? Then you are fine.

> Denying that the term has been stretched to its breaking point

This is a straw man. Nobody is denying this. It’s not even relevant—the article never calls for banning anyone anybody considers a Nazi.

[The_Colonel]

How about putting Jews into ghetto, making them second-class citizens, calling for abolishment of Israel? The lines can get pretty blurry.

I don't think outright censorship is a good thing, but monetization / not putting them into suggested content (not sure what's the proper term) should be used. There will be judgment calls made, but that's IMHO OK.

[JumpCrisscross]

> How about putting Jews into ghetto, making them second-class citizens, calling for abolishment of Israel? The lines can get pretty blurry.

We can have that discussion separately. The beauty of this article is the simplicity of its argument. If you're calling for the extermination of Jews (or any protected class), you're in a category of your own.