I'm baffled. What should we call them? "National Socialist" is apparently out, and "Nazi" is just an abbreviation of that ("Nationalsozialismus" in German). That doesn't leave much that will be commonly understood. I suppose we could have the UN call some sort of international symposium to officially rename then "Fascist Poopyheads," but that's going to cost a lot in reprinted textbooks.

I guess I don't understand why you think calling things by their names is a mark of respect. It's just...how communication works. Your other example doesn't make much sense either, since North Korea is called "DPRK" fairly frequently in news and discussion. And then apparently calling things by their names is a mark of "liberalism"? What?

So that's why I'm downvoting you, since you wanted to know. I hope you find this information helpful.

I do, thanks - I would say Nazi, I suppose. It's the common term, and is fairly divorced from its roots as far as I'm aware. There's been a push to call groups like ISIS Daesh or ISIL or just IS, and refusing to actually spell out the moniker for "DPRK" might also fall under the umbrella of not acknowledging regimes' grandiose claims about themselves.

I guess another part of my complaint is that they weren't socialist at all (after 1920-something, when the small group of socialist thinkers in the party were forced out), so it's a misnomer. It leads to misinformation, and I don't really like that on principle.

The liberal comment was because, in general, liberals (and neoliberals, etc) tend to dislike socialism and so often take the chance to associate or equate it with fascism, social democracy, hegemony, etc.

Thanks for taking the time, even with the snark it's enlightening to see where folks are coming from. I appreciate it.

I do try to explain downvotes when requested, so here we go: I'm downvoting you for trotting out the tired old "anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy of free speech" silliness.

I'm curious what you think downvotes should legitimately be used for, if not to criticize patently ridiculous statements (like "calling things by their names is a gesture of respect, if you disagree you must be some sort of LIBERAL").

As a side note, are you implying that Redditors don't downvote when they disagree or feel insulted? Because wow. Have you been to Reddit?

    I do try to explain downvotes when requested, so here we go:
    I'm downvoting you for trotting out the tired old "anyone
    who disagrees with me is an enemy of free speech" silliness.

I think you misread me.

I never said, nor implicated nor thought that disagreeing is incompatible with free speech; quite the opposite.

I was talking about people abusing downvoting to express disagreement or feeling insulted.

Maybe you should read more carefully before presuming others wrote something silly.

    I'm curious what you think downvotes should legitimately
    be used for, if not to criticize patently ridiculous statements
    (like "calling things by their names is a gesture of respect,
    if you disagree you must be some sort of LIBERAL").

I have no finished list of things which downvotes should be used for.

However, trolling and trying to derail a serious discussion are part of that list.

Patently ridiculous statements can be downvoted, but I suggest to error on the side of doubt when judging whether it's patently or not. Also, if the statement in question was serious, a comment why it's ridiculous is appropriate.

Disagreement is definitely not part of that list. Because it blocks controversial discussion even when they are serious and rational.

    As a side note, are you implying that Redditors don't downvote
    when they disagree or feel insulted? Because wow. Have you been to Reddit?

I think you misunderstood again.

On reddit exactly what you described happens all the time, and HN should be different in this point.

> "calling things by their names is a gesture of respect, if you disagree you must be some sort of LIBERAL"

I'm a bit confused as to how you got this from my original comment; surely using a chosen name rather than an externally imposed epithet or handle is a sign of respect, or at least not disrespect?

I think there's a miscommunication about the liberal thing. I meant it in terms of classical liberalism (a prizing of individual rights over other concerns, for instance, is a central tenet of this; it doesn't mesh well with most varieties of socialism), not in the USA-specific sense of "liberals" vs "conservatives".

Yeah wow, folks hated that post. Some comments would have been nice.

See? Now it hit my comment as well.

These down-votes of constructive comments without constructive criticism are to press one into alignment. I consider that harmful for critical and controversial thought.