#but can definitely apply to many situations

[condemning-twitter]

Alright, since the idiot above keeps trying to tell me (a German who took advanced classes in history) what wing Nazis were... let's wrap this up.

Mr. "mustache man wouldn't lie to us" probably also believes that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic and not... a dictatorship. But shockers! Totalitarian leaders are fully capable and willing to rebrand a term for propaganda purposes. In the case of the NSDAP, they rebranded the term "socialist" to gain the sympathies of the working class who were, at the time, struggling financially.

What this user is referring to is authoritarianism, not leftism. Notably, authoritarianism can occur independently from the "left vs right" political spectrum, as "authoritarianism vs libertarianism" is its very own political spectrum.

This is why infringements on your freedoms such as a ban on guns, free speech, and blind loyalty have nothing to do with being "left wing" or "right wing".

The core values of leftism are

(1) Freedom: Emancipating people from being held under forceful control, and giving them opportunities to exercise conscious choice over their lives without arbitrary constraints or coercion.

(2) Equality: Bringing about situations where people are of the same or similar standing in certain important respects, or by certain criteria of measurement.

(3) Justice: Ensuring that people are treated and provided for fairly, adequately, and correctly, according to their rightful due.

(4) Solidarity: Recognising the reciprocal bonds and shared purposes that tie people together, and their duties to support each other in their mutual common interest.

(5) Pluralism: Acknowledging that people are separate individuals who belong to various groups, and encouraging people to foster the many heterogeneous and incommensurable aspects of their identities.

(6) Progress: Pursuing the continuous onward advance of society by developing ever new and better ways to bring about improvements in people’s lives.

Source

Nazis incorporated NONE of that.

(1) Freedom: Nazis removed various freedoms from their citizens with the "Reichstagsbrandverordnung", overriding articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Weimar Republic. They restricted freedom of speech and speech, right to assembly, and the German "Briefgeheimnis" (privacy of letters), and enabled house searches.

(2) Equality: Nazis promoted a racial hierarchy with "Aryans" at the top. Gender roles were promoted, for example, through the establishment of the BDM which was separated from the general HJ.

(3) Justice: No justice or fairness without equality. See the point above.

(4) Solidarity: Nazis systematically excluded groups they deemed "unworthy". Exclusionary solidarity is not solidarity, otherwise nepotism and corruption would count as "solidarity" among capitalists.

(5) Pluralism: Nazis imposed a homogenous state identity upon all its citizens and purged all those who did not fit that standard. Not only did this logic apply to ethnic groups but also to sexualities, gender identities, disabilities, political affiliations, ...

(6) Progress: Now, read all of the above again and try telling me Nazis were "progressive".

For further comparisons between leftist and Nazi values, check out the following post.

Huh. Funny. So you are telling me that IN SPITE of Mustache Man believing Communism (and by extension Socialism) to be a Jewish conspiracy, he rejected both. The WHY DID HE PROMOTE IT? Seeing the error?

Quite obviously, "Socialism" meant something different to Mustache Man than to modern Socialists. In other words, Hitler never intended to practice Socialism and DEFINITELY not in the way we know it.

Side notes:

Excessive use of "..." it sounds like you are an edgy 14-year-old who is desperately trying to sound cool

Trump is about to run the US economy into the dirt because Capitalism is just as fucking stupid as Communism; mixed models so far have achieved the best results in maintaining high living standards among the entire population

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[drdemonprince]

is it too late to pursue FI/RE if i’m 26 and in grad school and wont have an income while draining my savings for the next year, and havent already been investing much? its also seriously got me considering not doing even further education after i finish this, no matter how badly i may want to….

I didn't start FIREing until I was about 27, though I had been saving some money for some time. That's definitely not too late -- the reality is that today, a majority of people don't have retirement accounts well into their 30s, and very few people utilize a sound investing strategy, so any time you get on board you're going to be in a better position than the majority of people.

It sounds like you are having some doubts about the cost of your education. I don't know your situation, graduate program, or goals, so I don't want to overstate it, but as an academic I do want to caution everybody that most Master's degree programs are viewed as nothing but a revenue source for Universities -- many offer no professional leg up whatsoever and cost an absurd amount relative to how much effort and care the academic institution invests in them. This doesn't apply to Master's degrees that lead to attaining some kind of certification, like a Paralegal degree or even an MSW, mind you -- those can help get people connected with jobs. But in a lot of fields, a lot of the time, a Master's degree is worse than the equivalent amount of time in job experience, and it costs you instead of paying you.

[etz-ashashiyot]

Compassion check: Do you

Want an end to the violence that both sides find to be acceptable (or at least they can live with the compromise), even if it isn't your ideal perfect solution?

Want as few people to die as possible, even the people on the "wrong side"?

Accept that you may need to put aside your own views and biases and prioritize what the people you're advocating for are actually asking?

Understand that your thoughts, feelings, emotions, and your self-understanding of your motives are less important than other people's actual lives?

Accept that you will need to take the time to empathize with the "enemy" in order to understand what they actually want, need, think, and feel in order to situate your responses in relationship to that reality?

Accept that if there is a solution that lifts up both peoples and allows everyone to move forward in a mutually beneficial way, you should throw your whole weight behind it because it'll help the people you're advocating for, even if it helps the "enemy" side too?

Understand and accept that you cannot rewrite or undo history, but you can help people move forward and make an active choice to prioritize forward thinking?

Know and have sat with the facts on the ground, have verified them from friendly and unfriendly sources, and are willing to acknowledge the truth of inconvenient facts and other people's truths in addition to your own?

Understand and accept that you not only should, but must call out poor behavior and bad actors in your movement in order to preserve its integrity?

If so, then maybe you're ready to be an activist on behalf of another group. If not, you are neither mature enough nor compassionate enough to act as an effective advocate and/or mediator.