I have no particular love for the nazis. As I’ve said multiple times, I am against the state deciding this, which means I am against the top of the slide down.

I disagree; I think some were morally worse. The transatlantic slave trade, the holodomor, leopold’s congo, and the khmer rouge all rank worse, as far as I’m concerned. Not in terms of numbers, in terms of horror factor.

Refusing to engage because “oh the nazis said something” is intellectually chickenshit. The core difference is some things which are reprehensible when backed by state violence are fine when chosen individually or encouraged by social pressures.

Just to hit this one more time as directly as I possibly can:

> The core difference is some things which are reprehensible when backed by state violence are fine when chosen individually or encouraged by social pressures.

No. It is both reprehensible for the state to tell people they're too sicky or unintelligent to procreate and for society to pressure people not to procreate based on society's assessment of how sickly or unintelligent they are.

We can set aside all the prior examples of when people have previously believed this, or tried to implement this in various ways, all of which were reprehensible. Even if this was day 0 and we were starting fresh, the idea of society pressuring the sickly or unintelligent not to procreate would be reprehensible.

This is a thread that began with opprobrium over "sickly" people being allowed into the gene pool and is now ending with a dissection of whether the Nazis really were as bad as they're made out to be. For the record: my assessment of Nazism doesn't much change even if you switch its mode of governance from fascism to classical liberalism. Nazism wasn't bad simply because it didn't adhere to the non-aggression principle.