Counterpoint: Nazis aren't here to engage you in good faith debates, so it would be a mistake to attempt to defeat them by doing that.

Fascists don't believe that, and will happily kill people with different ideas if they get the power to do so.

This is the paradox of tolerance. It's pretty well understood, except apparently on online message boards where there are somehow always a bunch of people ready to jump to the intellectual defense of Nazis (evidence: this comments page.)

>Fascists don't believe that, and will happily kill people with different ideas if they get the power to do so.

That belief is one of the reasons Fascism is wrong.

I never said it was.

FYI, whataboutism in a thread about Nazis makes it look a little like you're defending Nazism. Was that your intent? If not, what did you intend to add to the conversation with this (true) observation?

Me being even-handed makes me look like I'm defending nazis? LOL.

>>If not, what did you intend to add to the conversation with this (true) observation?

The point that all extremism is bad, not just one side or the other. A point you failed to make.

Do you really intend to argue that "better than Nazism" is subjective?

Not at all. Nazism is disgusting, horrific, indefensible, and should be condemned at every turn.

But nazis would argue that it’s better (that’s why they’re nazis). That’s why it’s so hard to kill an ideology and why my original comment used the word “unfortunately.”

Okay, but there are plenty of objective truths that people disagree with. The fact that the earth is approximately spherical is objective truth, regardless of the existence of flat earthers.

I feel pretty okay saying "nazism is wrong" is about as objectively true as a statement of ethics can be.