clwnuke

I don't see what you're seeing, but I'm happy to let it go. It's not my preference to make comparisons to Nazis, but as it was already done by others, I felt to simply point out that the comparison was not necessarily the same default Nazi calling as is so common as there are actually similar tactics in play and not just someone being butt hurt and thinking up a term to make an opposing party sound like the bad guy. Thanks for trying to help me understand. The closest I can come to seeing what I think you see is in the potential to reopen wounds among those with lived experience, but I don't suspect we have any of those in this discussion or who would see it. While I see some of the articles make the same assertions you have, they fail to expound any reasoning aside form saying so beyond the aforementioned lived experience piece.

Either way, no further discussion of the matter will be useful for anyone, so let's end it amicably. Thanks again.

You're entitled to seeing it that way, but to me this is akin to taking the position that when a gunman walks onto a campus with loaded weapons we can't draw parallels from previous shootings until after people have become victims and are shot down. It makes more sense to me to recognize troubling indicators and take steps to prevent history from repeating itself as opposed to claiming there is no way a comparison should be made until an equal or greater cataclysm has taken place.

It isn't at all suggesting that the holocaust victims didn't suffer immensely, nor diminish their stories. It is simply a comparison of how people were manipulated into going along with atrocities in relatively recent history to how similar tactics are being used now. Is it entitled whining to point out to a friend that her partner is using manipulative tactics that suggest he's an abuser and she should get out of the relationship before things get worse? Does it minimize other victims of abusive partners? No. It simply points out key indicators worth knowing to avoid that cycle being repeated if the warning is heeded.

@NeuroTypical Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I appreciate when one cares enough to respond even when we see it differently.

I understand your sentiment, and I also find some Nazi comparisons distasteful for the same reason.
But I believe the greater disrespect to the victims would be to allow similar government policies and movements to occur again without calling them out and opposing such actions. That's where I am coming from on this.

Hey-o, now you're speaking my language.   I've researched a bunch of religions.   This year I've spent a considerable amount of time looking at Catholicism due to some questions I had.   As I said in another thread, everything in its time.   I'm so behind the curve being a convert, but the advantage is I had to fight for every sliver of testimony.

Which is such a weird thing. Essentially, you can live with and brown-chicken-brown-cow 30 women (or men) as much as you like and you're fine. But declare yourself committed by marital vows and...CRIME! Just weird.
Sure...the "other" crimes should be crimes. As in applying for multiple benefits for multiple marriages or the like where the law doesn't allow. And the obvious underage or forced or other similar issues. But that declaring yourself married sans these other problematic issues should be criminal is just baffling to me. Get it on with whoever you like. But don't you dare call it a marriage!

Since we've gone head first into Godwin in this thread...
IT IS interesting that there is a small connection between NAZI's and vaccinations.  In fact, it may be a little stronger than people actually expect.  There is a story where actions against vaccination and blaming those who were not vaccinated or were vaccinated or took medications or spread disease all came together in a small way to influence the NAZI's and their later actions.
Anti vaccination Germany anti semitism
This history has caused some dissension and problems in Germany presently in relation to COVID-19 as well as both sides bring it up...though it really isn't a reflection of the US situation.
It IS interesting that recently there has been a small movement among conservatives to blame the spread of the virus on foreigners coming into the US across the border illegally and such things which COULD be seen as a shadow of what occurred in Germany...IF we are going that direction...but hopefully we are not traveling in that same direction yet.  In a similar manner I've heard others say that those who catch and die from Covid would have died anyways, which is reminiscent of the above a little, and as an older individual, slightly disturbing to hear others so willing to write me off if I die of something preventable, but that's more of a personal thing I find disturbing than a public thing.

No, you don't understand.  Yes, there are some parallels.  Yes, we can look at the step-by-step rise to power and discuss those parallels.  
But that's not what you were doing, now was it.  
You started with just throwing out the schoolyard-namecallingly immature phrase "Vazi authorities".   As if your point had already been made, because you tossed out the insult.  That's different than a discussion about troubling trends that we've seen before in history.  Don't you think?
When called on the phrase, you doubled down with this:
"Once those threats started, Vazi authorities became an accurate description IMHO. I would use something much stronger against those that have suggested that the unvaccinated be rounded up and shot (pun?)."
Again, you weren't discussing step-by-step parallels, you were claiming certain people here, today, deserved an even worse appellation.  And drew an analogy, not with the step-by-step rise-to-power Nazis of 1933, but with the in-power Nazis who were rounding up and shooting people.
That makes you that guy.  Such horrible tactics lose you the discussion before you even started with your reasoning and points.   That is what I want you to understand.  Namecalling only persuades or convinces people that it's not worth their time listening to you.  Kind of like the poisoning the well fallacy, except instead of attacking something someone is about to say, you're holding up a strawman as if they were already the most extreme version of horrible imaginable.
 
So again, you wanna hurl schoolyard insults and not be taken seriously by anybody?  Just keep tossing around immature insults.  If you want to actually make a difference, perhaps consider starting with your latest posts.
Have I clarified enough so you understand?

Just to keep it real,
Folks who believe in and support the constitution of the United States, as a divinely inspired document worth protecting and preserving, have a series of hoops to jump through before yellin' about Nazis.  (I'm not saying many/most of these hoops can't be jumped through, or that there's nothing to be concerned about.  I'm just trying to keep it real.)
- The constitution takes some powers for the federal government, and leaves all other powers to "to the States respectively, or to the people".
- The states, counties, parishes, cities, and towns, all have governing documents, which the states/people came up with and voted into effect.  State constitutions, county charters, city codes and ordinances, stuff like that.
- Just about every state talks about matters of public health, and government powers in regards to them.  Laws on the books, governor's public health orders, county commission orders, etc.
- Yes, in a crapton of places throughout the US, it's totally and perfectly legal for this or that government entity to issue this or that emergency health order, which forces citizens to comply under the penalty of law with whatever goes into writing.
 
So yeah, our news is full of this or that govt organization or official, tweeting celebrity, CEO of a company, national organization, etc, going too far.  Talking about stuff that shouldn't fly.  Claiming authority they don't have.  Trying to infringe on rights in ways outside of the structure put in place that a govt must follow in order to infringe on it's citizen's rights.  The news is also full of fools, ignorant people, and agenda driven people, claiming these unlawful usurpings are lawful and good.  And demonizing them what disagree.  And all that.  That's always happening, was going on long before COVID, and needs to be fought as much today as it ever was.
But when it comes down to this or that order impacting you and yours directly, do you actually know enough to say whether the order is lawful or not?
You should at least know that, before starting to toss around comparisons to Nazis.  
IMO.
 

One other item if we go further into the issue of the Holocaust.  This actually was a large issue in some parts of Europe recently, though most media was still focused on the US's situation (and why...when one is overseas?  I suppose it's easier to focus on another nations troubles than what is happening closer to home?).
I found an article with an actual Holocaust survivor's thoughts which is interesting to bring out on this subject I suppose.  They had an interesting slant to it regarding France...
I am not endorsing this view, but I find it interesting that a Holocaust survivor would say this...
Anger as French vaccine rule protestors draw Nazi Era Comparison
 

Understand, I just see it very differently. To be clear, I do not think you are dismissing or downplaying the horrors their victims went through. 

I understand your sentiment, and I also find some Nazi comparisons distasteful for the same reason.
But I believe the greater disrespect to the victims would be to allow similar government policies and movements to occur again without calling them out and opposing such actions. That's where I am coming from on this.

Thanks. I’m not picking on you bro, it’s just a major pet peeve of mine when people throw around comparisons and terms like “Nazi”. I find it incredibly insulting to their victims. 

I can't disagree with that. Hitler certainly wanted world dominion, but their anti-Jewish policies were designed to push Jews out of Germany.

Wrong. Their goal was world domination. Hence why Hitler invaded Poland and France. So there’s that. 

I just saw this article, a bit long but worth the read IMHO.

https://trialsitenews.com/get-sicker-anatomy-of-a-failed-policy/
“All governments lie” was the mantra of investigative reporting legend I.F. Stone. As a journalist, I have exposed some serious lies in my career. But my reporting on the management of COVID-19 has transformed my view of government, and my profession, in a way that 25 years of investigative reporting did not.
It was a lie when the FDA trotted out a six-month-old web post recently, warning of “serious harm,” “seizures, coma and even death” from ivermectin. The March post was spurred, it said, by “multiple” reports of people harmed by an animal formulation. In response to my question – how many is “multiple”? – the agency told me four, with some “lost to follow-up.” This is how governments obfuscate, confuse and, yes, lie when discussing a drug that the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology said in 2016 “continues to provide a high margin of safety for a growing number of indications.”
FDA-sanctioned remdesivir, meanwhile, was associated with more than 500 deaths in its first year of use. Ivermectin was linked to 20 deaths in 19 years of WHO VigiAccess record-keeping. You won’t find that on the FDA web site.
In the same vein, on Aug. 26, the CDC reported a “three-fold increase…from the pre-pandemic baseline” in ivermectin calls to poison control centers. I asked the CDC press office four times: How many calls were received, and what was the baseline?
It finally answered, gave no figures, and referred me to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. I’m waiting."
 

I just saw this article, a bit long but worth the read IMHO.

https://trialsitenews.com/get-sicker-anatomy-of-a-failed-policy/
“All governments lie” was the mantra of investigative reporting legend I.F. Stone. As a journalist, I have exposed some serious lies in my career. But my reporting on the management of COVID-19 has transformed my view of government, and my profession, in a way that 25 years of investigative reporting did not.
It was a lie when the FDA trotted out a six-month-old web post recently, warning of “serious harm,” “seizures, coma and even death” from ivermectin. The March post was spurred, it said, by “multiple” reports of people harmed by an animal formulation. In response to my question – how many is “multiple”? – the agency told me four, with some “lost to follow-up.” This is how governments obfuscate, confuse and, yes, lie when discussing a drug that the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology said in 2016 “continues to provide a high margin of safety for a growing number of indications.”
FDA-sanctioned remdesivir, meanwhile, was associated with more than 500 deaths in its first year of use. Ivermectin was linked to 20 deaths in 19 years of WHO VigiAccess record-keeping. You won’t find that on the FDA web site.
In the same vein, on Aug. 26, the CDC reported a “three-fold increase…from the pre-pandemic baseline” in ivermectin calls to poison control centers. I asked the CDC press office four times: How many calls were received, and what was the baseline?
It finally answered, gave no figures, and referred me to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. I’m waiting."
 

I just saw this article, a bit long but worth the read IMHO.

https://trialsitenews.com/get-sicker-anatomy-of-a-failed-policy/
“All governments lie” was the mantra of investigative reporting legend I.F. Stone. As a journalist, I have exposed some serious lies in my career. But my reporting on the management of COVID-19 has transformed my view of government, and my profession, in a way that 25 years of investigative reporting did not.
It was a lie when the FDA trotted out a six-month-old web post recently, warning of “serious harm,” “seizures, coma and even death” from ivermectin. The March post was spurred, it said, by “multiple” reports of people harmed by an animal formulation. In response to my question – how many is “multiple”? – the agency told me four, with some “lost to follow-up.” This is how governments obfuscate, confuse and, yes, lie when discussing a drug that the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology said in 2016 “continues to provide a high margin of safety for a growing number of indications.”
FDA-sanctioned remdesivir, meanwhile, was associated with more than 500 deaths in its first year of use. Ivermectin was linked to 20 deaths in 19 years of WHO VigiAccess record-keeping. You won’t find that on the FDA web site.
In the same vein, on Aug. 26, the CDC reported a “three-fold increase…from the pre-pandemic baseline” in ivermectin calls to poison control centers. I asked the CDC press office four times: How many calls were received, and what was the baseline?
It finally answered, gave no figures, and referred me to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. I’m waiting."
 

So I mean no offense, but here is the flaw in your first sentence based on recent data: A vaccinated person is just as much a potential Covid transmission vector as an unvaccinated person. So to be fair to all, you will need to fire all your employees to stop the spread or refuse to serve all. Again, we are all equal walking petri dishes for Delta. The CDC admits that and that is why they changed their guidance for masking.
As for the freedom of companies to make that decision, we are agreed. I'm a conservative libertarian. But government mandates are a different category - they must not discriminate, and based on the data, any government or public mandate against the unvaccinated is discriminating without a basis at this point.
My freedom doesn't trump yours.

It is the recent data sets from the US and around the world that have changed almost all of these narratives, and yes we probably won't change each other's minds but the recent changes in CDC guidance on masks for vaccinated individuals was entirely prompted by the new data which does support my statements above.
1. The issue is pretty settled at this point. Satellite data and hospital reports do not support the Chinese narrative that it started in the wet markets. It started in the lab, but without further cooperation and data from the Chinese, which is intentionally being withheld or has already been destroyed, we will only be 99% sure.
2. That was believed but was recently shown to be false. Vaccinated individuals carry just as large  viral load as unvaccinated. We are all walking Petri dishes. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2021/08/evidence-mounts-that-people-with-breakthrough-infections-can-spread-delta-easily
3. This is also supported by the above study, and by data from Israel and other highly vaccinated countries (which should have reached herd immunity if it was possible). Vaccinated individuals are just as likely to be infected with the Delta variant as the unvaccinated. And because of the higher numbers of vaccinated people, the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected by an asymptomatic vaccinated person than an unvaccinated person.
4. It was believed that was the case, but real world wisdom came through again when the data came back.  https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital  Getting Covid confers far better protection than the vaccine, but the data also shows that together is better than just Covid. 
5. Herd immunity is now a pipe-dream now that we know the vaccinated carry just as much viral load and are easily infected with Delta.
6. The reasoning here relied on the assumption that vaccinated people would not be walking petri dishes, but the unvaccinated would be transmission vectors. Now that we know we are all transmission vectors for Delta, there is no expected reduction in mutation rates. Prior to Covid, the conventional virology wisdom was that you never vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic because it forces the virus to mutate faster. That was tossed aside, but many virologists spoke up to recommend against it.
7. We agree on that. Vaccination reduces symptoms of infection, but not the viral load.
Hope that helps.

No offense taken. It’s not personal. 
 
Correct. 

Take some time to listen to the critical care physicians in the hospitals that use it as an essential treatment protocol. If all you have done is read the headlines from doctors and researchers who don't actually use it to treat patients, but who still confidently say it doesn't work, then you are missing essential information on the subject. Your news and your searches are being unjustly censored.
https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/04/23/one-dose-of-ivermectin-was-all-it-took-to-get-81-year-old-john-swanson-off-the-ventilator/
 

https://www.deseret.com/2021/8/30/22648358/byutv-byu-sports-nation-host-spencer-linton-shares-experience-with-severe-covid-19
Today I read yet another of what has recently seemed to be an endless series of Covid-19 victim stories in the Deseret News. What frustrates me about each of these stories is that nowhere is it mentioned that the unfortunate patients could have easily been treated with Ivermectin, which carries a risk profile roughly on the order of a doctor telling you to take two ibuprofen and call them in the morning. Most Covid-19 patients are told by their doctors to go home and head to a hospital if things get worse. Why not at least offer some possible low-risk help in the interim?  I can't guarantee it will work, but who wouldn't take some aspirin each day if it might help?
Even if you are a doctor that doesn't believe it works, isn't it enough that critical care doctors at hospitals all over the United States use it to treat Covid patients every single day, and they swear by it?  ( FLCCC Alliance )  If there is little to no risk, and your patient is suffering, doesn't your Hippocratic Oath at least motivate you to try something that other doctors use to successfully treat their patients? What's the worst that can happen? Maybe it doesn't work, but by day 15 shouldn't you have tried it?
Patients all over the country have sued their hospitals to get access, and have won the right to take Ivermectin. Then they get better, and post their stories in videos that are censored as "misinformation". But even more frustrating is that the hospitals rarely acknowledge they were wrong, turn a blind eye to the patients getting better, and keep denying patients the right to be treated with this simple and safe medicine.
To me, this dereliction of medical duty almost borders on abuse! You don't have to believe that something works in order to try it, especially when you have no other options to offer your patients and the health risk is near zero.
Sometimes I have to remember that the medical establishment ridiculed Australian doctors J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall for decades before admitting that Helicobacter pylori was the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer disease and began prescribing antibiotics. Unfortunately, IMHO the media is needlessly helping to inflict suffering upon Covid-19 patients by actively censoring the patient successes of Ivermectin treatment. It's not hard to find successes - if the media would seek, they would find. Then they could present a more balanced view to the public.

It is the recent data sets from the US and around the world that have changed almost all of these narratives, and yes we probably won't change each other's minds but the recent changes in CDC guidance on masks for vaccinated individuals was entirely prompted by the new data which does support my statements above.
1. The issue is pretty settled at this point. Satellite data and hospital reports do not support the Chinese narrative that it started in the wet markets. It started in the lab, but without further cooperation and data from the Chinese, which is intentionally being withheld or has already been destroyed, we will only be 99% sure.
2. That was believed but was recently shown to be false. Vaccinated individuals carry just as large  viral load as unvaccinated. We are all walking Petri dishes. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2021/08/evidence-mounts-that-people-with-breakthrough-infections-can-spread-delta-easily
3. This is also supported by the above study, and by data from Israel and other highly vaccinated countries (which should have reached herd immunity if it was possible). Vaccinated individuals are just as likely to be infected with the Delta variant as the unvaccinated. And because of the higher numbers of vaccinated people, the unvaccinated are more likely to be infected by an asymptomatic vaccinated person than an unvaccinated person.
4. It was believed that was the case, but real world wisdom came through again when the data came back.  https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital  Getting Covid confers far better protection than the vaccine, but the data also shows that together is better than just Covid. 
5. Herd immunity is now a pipe-dream now that we know the vaccinated carry just as much viral load and are easily infected with Delta.
6. The reasoning here relied on the assumption that vaccinated people would not be walking petri dishes, but the unvaccinated would be transmission vectors. Now that we know we are all transmission vectors for Delta, there is no expected reduction in mutation rates. Prior to Covid, the conventional virology wisdom was that you never vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic because it forces the virus to mutate faster. That was tossed aside, but many virologists spoke up to recommend against it.
7. We agree on that. Vaccination reduces symptoms of infection, but not the viral load.
Hope that helps.

It is strong, but I only adopted it recently once the civil discussion ended and government/healthcare authorities started threatening people's careers, jobs, travel, education, and basic freedoms. Once those threats started, Vazi authorities became an accurate description IMHO. I would use something much stronger against those that have suggested that the unvaccinated be rounded up and shot (pun?).
The modern day Vazis are acting in a very similar manner as the National Socialists in Germany did when they created fear and hysteria regarding non-pure races. That type of hate and fear leads people to do things they otherwise would never do in a free country to their fellow man. It needs to be labeled for what it is and stopped.
Please forgive my emotion on this, but friends and family (and potentially myself) are losing their jobs and homes based on this hate and fear, which is rooted in false science. 
When the threats and mandates stop from government and healthcare leaders, I'll agree to stop labeling them as Vazis and Vazi authorities.