/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15241896]

What would have been his stance on the LGBTQ+ movement?

[Anonymous No.15241923]

If he was alive today he’d been a broken porn-addicted NEET just like most of us here

[Anonymous No.15242009]

>>15241896
The attack on social constructs in favor of unfettered individualism is certainly in line with his philosophy.
The ressentiment would keep it from something he'd associate himself with, but that's a characteristic of all social uprisings. It's only a problem when breeds worse slave morality, and fore the aforementioned reasons I don't think it does. Ironically, the problems people see in the LGBTQ movement - the viciousness, the gleeful and senseless crushing of enemies, the disregard for tradition - are qualities Nietzsche frames positively in various parts of his philosophy, and in the Nietzschean lens they are perhaps healthier for an advancing society.
However on account of many things they wouldn't be philosophically or intellectually respectable for Nietzsche, but fulfilling that is a rare thing and not a standard by which we should evaluate something like a social movement, which in virtue of its nature wouldn't be expected to be of Nietzschean intellectual integrity.

[Anonymous No.15242877]

>>15241896
I'm sure he'd see it as a form of soft nihilism (hedonism) taken to it's most radically degenerate extremes, ie the last man.

[Anonymous No.15242883]

>>15241923
>the next Nietzsche was born to our generation but he's been ruined by the Internet and spends his days posting interracial porn on blue boards

[Anonymous No.15242895]

>>15242009
>the gleeful and senseless crushing of enemies
Don't know about that one, dawg. Sounds like poisonous fly behaviour.
>To defeat — that means for him: to prove. To drive to frenzy — that means for him: to convince.

[Anonymous No.15242910]

>>15242883
literally me

[Anonymous No.15242915]

>>15242883
>>15241923
Icycalm

[Anonymous No.15242916]

>>15241896
He'd think its gay

[Anonymous No.15242954]

>>15242895
See how you're not acknowledging the Hellenistic aspect?
I'd suggest a look at Homer's Contest.
As for flies in the marketplace... I don't see much of a connection. The line you're quoting doesn't work for several reasons. For one, that line is in reference to the actors, it is not in reference to the flies. Read over it again,

Regardless of that, to "drive mad" isn't the aim of the people in question, people, if anything, characterize THEM as being in a frenzy. It would be strange if they were here only to agitate people, rather than just expressing a morality and a desire for revolution.

[Anonymous No.15243041]

>>15242954
My interpretation of the actors is that they're the kings of the poisonous flies, the directors of their poison, and poisonous flies themselves.
I disagree that this isn't the aim of the people in question. They may be in a frenzy by being frenzied by flies on the other side but they are flies themselves. The smugness, the pejoratives. Their aim may be social change, but to prove: they attempt to defeat, to convince: they drive to frenzy. They call you a nazi, a racist, a sexist, a transphobe, an islamophobe, any name in the book to convince. They form mobs to go out in the streets and cause mayhem. They silence their enemies with airhorns, throw stones and hit with bikelocks. These are not the actions of enlightened individuals.
Nietzsche says a lot of shit, but ultimately I think his philosophy is one of beauty, love and power. He talks a lot about being powerful and overcoming one's enemies, but ultimately it's the overcoming of the self that is most important.

[Anonymous No.15243062]

>>15241923
How'd you know?

[Anonymous No.15243249]

>>15243041
>My interpretation of the actors is that they're the kings of the poisonous flies, the directors of their poison, and poisonous flies themselves.
"Where solitude endeth, there beginneth the marketplace; and where the marketplace beginneth, there beginnith also the noise of the great actors, and the buzzing of the poison-flies." They are made distinct, and at no point implied to overlap. And the chapter is clearly about envy. The flies are clearly motivated by envy, and they attack people
"They punish thee for all thy virtues. .... what is great in thee - that itself must make them more poisonous, and always more fly-like"
The flies are reactive to greatness and virtue. Not dissenting values. That's a different thing. The SJW's are concerned with values and politics, not envy of virtuous individuals.

> they attempt to defeat, to convince: they drive to frenzy.
With all due respect, you're just putting these words alongside each other, not showing a connection. The desire isn't to drive into a frenzy, the desire is to be agreed with, and to have their values be the values of the rest of the community. It's not a love of the conflict itself, the community feels negatively towards resistance.
>They form mobs to go out in the streets and cause mayhem.
I think that's kind of sensational. They go out and gather, sure, the "causing mayhem" bit is kind of tacked on.
>they silence their enemies with airhorns, throw stones and hit with bikelocks. These are not the actions of enlightened individuals.
Whatever you're referring to with this, it's absolutely not anything close to a norm and to frame it as such is forcing a narrative that's just convenient to the discussion.

That's not to say there isn't any Nietzsche that could appliy negatively to the LGBTQ movement - there certainly is (and for any other movement, for that matter) - but Flies in the Marketplace really doesn't apply at all. Totally different topic.

[Anonymous No.15243440]

>>15243249
>The flies are clearly motivated by envy, and they attack people
and what goes hand in hand with the SJW movement? Communism and Socialism. The actors of the movement are proponents of the theories of equality. What does Nietzsche say of those who advocate equality? They are envious. The actors of equality are actors of envy. They are flies the same as the flies who buzz around them, only fatter.
Is there a distinction between the two? Yes. This distinction would be greater in a different context, but in the context of the far left movement it's small. It is often small, though, since the flies are envious they often hold up the actors of envy. The crowd pleasers, the preachers of equality.

>the desire is to be agreed with
>To drive to frenzy — that means for him: to convince
Are insults not a tool to drive to frenzy? Isn't that the whole point of an insult? To make the other person mad? Their method of convincing is to drive you mad.
>They call you a nazi, a racist, a sexist, a transphobe, an islamophobe, any name in the book to convince

>It's not a love of the conflict itself
>When one speaks of "humanity" the notion lies at the bottom, that humanity is that which separates and distinguishes man from nature. But such a distinction does not in reality exist: the "natural" qualities and the properly called "human" ones have grown up inseparably together. Man in his highest and noblest capacities is nature and bears in himself her awful twofold character.
If man and nature grew up inseparably does that awful nature not exist in all of us? Does that competition not drive us all? Man is his highest and noblest capacities BEARS this nature. That does not mean it does not exist in those who do not bear it, they simply hide it in shame, making it all the more dangerous.
>"Everyone carries a shadow," Jung wrote, "and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is."

>I think that's kind of sensational. They go out and gather, sure, the "causing mayhem" bit is kind of tacked on
Have you not seen the Antifa videos?

>Whatever you're referring to with this, it's absolutely not anything close to a norm and to frame it as such is forcing a narrative that's just convenient to the discussion.
The silencing of dissenting of opinions is absolutely a norm. Many 'right wing' (most of which were ranging from the moderately left to the moderately right in reality) speakers have had their events crashed and airhorned and screamed at. The throwing stones is a norm at any antifa gathering, since they rarely if ever hold their own events and crash other events in an attempt to silence. The riots in Portland are an example. The bikelock thing was an isolated incident, though. The violence and fascist nature of their practices isn't.

>but Flies in the Marketplace really doesn't apply at all
You said it yourself:
>The flies are clearly motivated by envy
What are socialists motivated by?

[Anonymous No.15243463]

>>15241896
>movement
Slave morality. Which is not to say that individuals gays can’t be ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.15243737]

>>15242009
This is the good, well-informed answer.

[Anonymous No.15243898]

>>15243440
>and what goes hand in hand with the SJW movement? Communism and Socialism. The actors of the movement are proponents of the theories of equality. What does Nietzsche say of those who advocate equality? They are envious.
Again, you're going through extra steps to force the connection and it's more wordplay than anything. It isn't sufficient for the argument just to claim that envy could possibly be seen as being involved anywhere in the SJW experience, unless you mean to argue that all the apparent moralism and concern for the values themselves actually reduce to envy in particular. But that would be a strange argument.
The poison bites of the flies are a different sort of thing. These are subtle reactions to virtuous individuals. The SJW movement is concerned with abstract ideals and invisible enemies. The comparison does not work.

The relationship between egalitarianism and envy is more subtle than that anyways. It's more of a method of self preservation for the weak. This is easily traced back to presocratic thought, where this was actually a common opinion about society - that the very laws were merely devices of the weak to restrain the strong.

>Are insults not a tool to drive to frenzy? Isn't that the whole point of an insult? To make the other person mad? Their method of convincing is to drive you mad.
This is an incredibly forced point.
No, insults are also just a mode of emotional expression. Why else would SJW's insult people who aren't going to hear them? Who is an SJW making mad when they insult trump in conversation amongst themselves?

I'd rather ask you to take a step back and look at what you're writing and tell me that you seriously, honest to God don't think you're forcing this point for the sake the debate.
You're arguing that the goal of SJW's is to bullshit in order to trigger other people in order to convince them, because they are both actors and poison flies at the same time?
This, as opposed to SJW's believing themselves and being more angry than the opposition, whom they'd prefer to have agree with them rather than have to deal with the conflict?

>If man and nature grew up inseparably does that awful nature not exist in all of us? Does that competition not drive us all? Man is his highest and noblest capacities BEARS this nature. That does not mean it does not exist in those who do not bear it, they simply hide it in shame, making it all the more dangerous.
Okay I'm starting to see what you're doing now. You're trying your best to debate with the materials at hand for debating's sake, and you're improvising as you go along. I've read Homer's Contest and written about it, I don't think it applies here and I can pull out quotes that would go against your case. You're saying it's both a suppressed love of conflict and an expressed one, as opposed to conflict that isn't being enjoyed. To topple your point, you only need the possibility of an unenjoyable conflict.
[cont...]

[Anonymous No.15243964]

>>15243898
And there still lacks reason to suggest that love of conflict must be the main motive as opposed to the myriad of other motives. You're ignoring the point about moralism.
Communities, in Nietzsche, work rigorously to maintain and assert their value system. Why is it that this must not be the case for SJW's, and that it must be love of conflict and desire to make the opponents angry? You're just coming up with modal possibilities and dressing them up as the actual case.
>Have you not seen the Antifa videos?
Do you really think you get to use that to characterize the LGTBQ movement?
Do you really think most of them even have the nerves for a fight? Come on
Why don't I call the Grateful Dead a violent movement because of some instance of a fight breaking out in a concert at some point
>The silencing of dissenting of opinions is absolutely a norm
??? You're absolutely right, which goes against the love of conflict / desire to agitate picture you were painting earlier. Silencing dissenting opinions is removing the threat of conflict. Pick one

>You said it yourself:
>>The flies are clearly motivated by envy
>What are socialists motivated by?
you're framing this like it's a big point, but I don't see what it is.

Remember your initial point was that this
>>the gleeful and senseless crushing of enemies
was what SJW's were doing. Gleefully crushing enemies. Which isn't what poison flies do, which is flatter you with little bites of resentment, punishing you for your virtues and FORGIVING YOU FOR YOUR MISTAKES.
As in, the flaws of the virtuous one is not the concern of the poison flies. Their concern is the virtues of the virtuous one.
So you'd need to make a case as to how the real object of hostility for SJW's is the virtue of the people they're hostile to, and that they don't mind their flaws. It's more than plain that this is not the case, and that it is the perceived flaws in the enemy that are at issue. They dislike what is bad in the enemy.

[Anonymous No.15243992]

>>15243737
no, it's the anachronistic postie "nietzsche totally had nothing to do with the nazis guys" reading of nietzsche answer. the anon probably loves judith butler and foucault

[Anonymous No.15244013]

>>15243992
He would have hated the Nazis though? They'd be cattle to him.

[Anonymous No.15244060]

>What does our chatter about the Greeks amount to! What do we understand of their art, the soul of which is passion for naked male beauty!
Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak §170

[Anonymous No.15245031]

>>15242883
>Once you free yourself from static IP, no Janny can own you.

[Anonymous No.15245768]

>>15241896
>his stance on the LGBTQ+ movement?

LBGFAGGOT movement is post-christian in morals, Genealogy of morals already adressed POST-christianity.

[Anonymous No.15245779]

>>15241896
he would have diagnosed it as a mental illness. And he would be right.

[Anonymous No.15245782]

>>15243062
Because I’m him in soul and spirit

[Anonymous No.15245930]

>>15244013
yeah but there's a reason the nazis liked him. he definitely wanted to set up society in an aristocratic manner and he was basically reactionary

>>15243463
this is the correct answer

[Anonymous No.15246772]

>>15243898
>>15243964
Bump. I fell asleep but I have a response, but, shit, you're probably asleep by now.

[Anonymous No.15246803]

>>15245930
> Nazis were reactionary
Holy mother of yikes!

[Anonymous No.15247195]

>>15243898
>Again, you're going through extra steps to force the connection
I really don't see how the connection being made between SJWs and Socialism is forced. The whole basis of the SJW movement is equality and Socialism is the basis of their political and social theory. The denial of Socialism in SJW theory is ludicrous.
>But that would be a strange argument.
I think the same of your argument that envy isn't a huge part of the SJW movement. To deny that SJWs and Socialism are joined at the hip is ridiculous.

>The relationship between egalitarianism and envy is more subtle than that anyways.
I agree, but SJW theory isn't purely egalitarian. Much of the 'egalitarian' ideals they espouse are motivated by envy. Truly egalitarian ideals would have to account for all people. SJWs are only concerned with their own. They ignore any struggles of anyone who isn't a minority or part of the LGBTQ+ community. "Cis-gender scum" "White people are the Devil" "Fucking straight white males". These aren't the words of an egalitarian. They are a bastardization of egalitarianism. They believe if you're a straight white male you shouldn't have a voice in the discussion. Doesn't matter if you're from a low income trailer park drug addict parent background. If you're straight and white you're a piece of shit.

>No, insults are also just a mode of emotional expression
They are both.
>Who is an SJW making mad when they insult trump in conversation amongst themselves?
This is an incredibly forced point. To say that SJWs only insult among themselves is ridiculous.

>You're arguing that the goal of SJW's is to bullshit in order to trigger other people in order to convince them, because they are both actors and poison flies at the same time?
The actors of the movement are fly-like. Not every fly in the movement is an actor, but every actor in the movement is a fly.
>This, as opposed to SJW's believing themselves and being more angry than the opposition, whom they'd prefer to have agree with them rather than have to deal with the conflict?
The SJWs do enjoy the conflict. They do enjoy throwing out insults of 'racist' 'homophobe' and 'bigot'. Their end goal is to convince, but to get there they drive others mad. There's a reason so many people are so pissed off by SJWs. It's because they drive people mad with their insults and their bullshit.

>Okay I'm starting to see what you're doing now. You're trying your best to debate with the materials at hand for debating's sake, and you're improvising as you go along
No, I'm not. My first post about drawing a comparison between SJW methods and the flies, while it may not be perfect, is suitable. SJWs are absolutely poisonous, envious, and fly-like. They destroy using the methods of the flies.

>You're saying it's both a suppressed love of conflict and an expressed one
When the shadow isn't incorporated into conscious life, conscious being the key-word here, it manifests itself in action brought about by the unconscious.

[Anonymous No.15247356]

>>15243898
>I don't think it applies here and I can pull out quotes that would go against your case
Go ahead.
>To topple your point, you only need the possibility of an unenjoyable conflict.
The SJWs are mostly bored college kids who have been indoctrinated by their professors. When they silence dissenting opinion and try to get people fired I believe they are enjoying their exercise of power and enjoying the conflict that arises. Your take may be different, but based on what I've seen the SJWs most definitely do get off on the conflict since they cast themselves in the role of the hero fighting for the little guy.

>And there still lacks reason to suggest that love of conflict must be the main motive as opposed to the myriad of other motives
I'm not saying it's the main motive (so they claim), but it is most definitely a huge part of it. You're ignoring huge aspects of the SJW movement, such as the link to Socialism, to further your point. You're also ignoring the fact that they view themselves as the heroes and that they're "on the right side of history". I absolutely do believe that the love of conflict in the role of a hero plays a major role, and may even be the root cause of their movement.
Back when gays and minorities were being truly oppressed, then I would say the root cause was the need to be free of oppression. But these days the conflict arises out of "invisible enemies" as you said yourself. If someone creates an invisible enemy does it not stand to reason that they are forcing a conflict? Why force a conflict if you do not want conflict?

>Do you really think you get to use that to characterize the LGTBQ movement?
The Antifa people are a sub-sect, as the LGBTQ movement is a sub-sect of the SJW movement. The gleeful and senseless destruction of enemies that you pointed out is being carried out by these people so I think they are entirely relevant.
>Why don't I call the Grateful Dead a violent movement because of some instance of a fight breaking out in a concert at some point
Because they were viciously and senselessly destroying their enemies.

>you're framing this like it's a big point, but I don't see what it is.
Socialists are motivated by envy. Flies are motivated by envy. A comparison can be drawn.

>Gleefully crushing enemies
They do so by bites of resentment. That isn't all they do, but it is part of their repertoire.
>punishing you for your virtues
This is what SJWs do. They punish those who tell the truth, and telling the truth is a virtue.

>So you'd need to make a case as to how the real object of hostility for SJW's is the virtue of the people they're hostile to
Their ideology is envious in nature. The envious are hostile towards virtue.

[Anonymous No.15247372]

>>15243964
>and that it is the perceived flaws in the enemy that are at issue
Those perceived flaws are often born of envy. You said yourself they attack invisible enemies. If their enemies are invisible they have created them as they created the perceived flaws in the enemy. If those flaws are created, and the root of the SJW is socialism, then those flaws are often virtues being attacked as flaws by an envious group.

[Anonymous No.15247380]

>>15247195
>I really don't see how the connection being made between SJWs and Socialism is forced
The connection between SJW's and Nietzschean envy is forced. You can't establish the connection directly, you're instead saying the movement may be associated with something which is associated with something which is associated with envy. This is logical adventure ends with an additional leap - the largest of all - in saying that envy is not only involved but the primary motivator in place of others. This is unconvincing.
>I think the same of your argument that envy isn't a huge part of the SJW movement. To deny that SJWs and Socialism are joined at the hip is ridiculous.
See how much you're leaning on the connection to socialism? I've already granted you that, I don't care. I think it's strained to assert that envy must be not only present but primary on account of the association, because socialism associates with egalitarianism which associates with envy. Reducing egalitarianism to envy is already a clumsy move, as I addressed earlier. Egalitarianism is the measure taken by the weak to protect themselves. Calling that "envy" feels like a mischaracterization.
And even if it wasn't, saying that everyone affiliated with socialism necessarily partakes in envy is ridiculous. You can find plenty of people affiliated with socialism for other reasons. Example one: Pissing off your parents. Example two: Because you just read Marx for the first time. I could go on

>I agree, but SJW theory isn't purely egalitarian. Much of the 'egalitarian' ideals they espouse are motivated by envy.
I don't think so, you'd need to provide a more thorough case of this.
>Truly egalitarian ideals would have to account for all people. SJWs are only concerned with their own. They ignore any struggles of anyone who isn't a minority or part of the LGBTQ+ community. "Cis-gender scum" "White people are the Devil" "Fucking straight white males". These aren't the words of an egalitarian. They are a bastardization of egalitarianism. They believe if you're a straight white male you shouldn't have a voice in the discussion. Doesn't matter if you're from a low income trailer park drug addict parent background. If you're straight and white you're a piece of shit.
Yes, SJW's aren't true egalitarians and leave people out. They engage in class discrimination. But this works against your point. You asserted that SJW's are primarily envious because of that three-step connection to egalitarianism, if you dissociate them from egalitarianism, you dissociate them from the essence of egalitarianism, which you asserted to be envy - so you lose your argument

>They are both.
You're evading the point that it could be either and not the other - you said that the function of all insults is to make the enemy mad. This is false.
[cont...]

[Anonymous No.15247494]

>>15247380
>The connection between SJW's and Nietzschean envy is forced.
How? He said himself Socialism is born out of envy.
>You can't establish the connection directly
How is the connection between Socialism and SJWs not direct? How exactly is Socialism not directly linked to SJWs? Please explain this.
>in saying that envy is not only involved but the primary motivator in place of others
How is it not? Explain further. Their goals are very clearly not egalitarian. They are Socialist.
>Reducing egalitarianism to envy is already a clumsy move
It isn't egalitarianism. The SJWs CLAIM egalitarianism, but they only extend that egalitarian compassion to their own. It's a bastardization of egalitarianism. I don't know how you don't see that.
>Example one: Pissing off your parents. Example two: Because you just read Marx for the first time
These are tertiary. Following what Nietzsche himself said of Socialism it is inherently envious.
>You asserted that SJW's are primarily envious because of that three-step connection to egalitarianism
You are the one who made the connection to egalitarianism. Not me. I do not believe they are egalitarian. They are envious and use egalitarianism as a shield.
>if you dissociate them from egalitarianism, you dissociate them from the essence of egalitarianism, which you asserted to be envy
I associate them with a bastardized egalitarianism. Egalitarianism isn't always envious. When you advocate equality of opportunity that's the opposite of envy since you allow any and all to join in. You are not afraid of competition in any form. SJWs on the other hand advocate equality of outcome, which is most definitely envious since it is driven by forced equality at the expense of those who are better.

>you said that the function of all insults is to make the enemy mad. This is false.
Perhaps I misspoke in saying ALL insults are to make the enemy mad, but to deny the use of insults by SJWs to make the enemy mad is ridiculous.
>You're evading the point
You are evading very obvious connections between SJWs, socialism and envy. You are evading the point that they very clearly use insults as a tactic to drive the opposition mad.
You are evading so many things about the SJW movement.

[Anonymous No.15247527]

>>15247356

>This is an incredibly forced point. To say that SJWs only insult among themselves is ridiculous.
Of course that's not what I said. I'm giving you an example against your point. You said the function of all insults is to agitate the enemy, the fact that anyone would insult someone who isn't there disproves that.
>The actors of the movement are fly-like. Not every fly in the movement is an actor, but every actor in the movement is a fly.
You're getting creative again, and escaping your initial mistake.
>The SJWs do enjoy the conflict. They do enjoy throwing out insults of 'racist' 'homophobe' and 'bigot'. Their end goal is to convince, but to get there they drive others mad. ...
You aren't addressing the point. The primary object of interest is the values. This, as opposed to the conflict itself.
The object of the Actor's faith changes day by day, SJW's are persistent. SJW's clearly care about their cause.
And values aren't the concern of flies, who react directly to virtue.
>They destroy using the methods of the flies.
flies don't destroy, read the chapter again
>When the shadow isn't incorporated into conscious life, conscious being the key-word here, it manifests itself in action brought about by the unconscious.
Yeah I'm familiar with Jung and it doesn't work for your argument. This is incredibly stretched
>Go ahead.
It's not worth it just yet because I don't really like this discussion
>When they silence dissenting opinion and try to get people fired I believe they are enjoying their exercise of power and enjoying the conflict that arises.
Providing an example of enjoyable conflict does absolutely nothing. Either can be the case, but you're saying the love of conflict must be the necessary cause and that doesn't work, in light of counterexamples.
>I'm not saying it's the main motive (so they claim), but it is most definitely a huge part of it.
So be it. I don't see what that does for you
>. You're also ignoring the fact that they view themselves as the heroes and that they're "on the right side of history". I absolutely do believe that the love of conflict in the role of a hero plays a major role, and may even be the root cause of their movement.
Okay I can see that you're into Jung, and maybe know Nietzsche through Jung, but I think you're just grasping for whatever materials you have at hand. It's tiring to argue with someone who has no interest whatsoever in getting to the bottom of the matter, but only wants to play a game of seeing what they can come up with.
>But these days the conflict arises out of "invisible enemies" as you said yourself. If someone creates an invisible enemy does it not stand to reason that they are forcing a conflict? Why force a conflict if you do not want conflict?
? If it's conflict you want you can go get one, an invisible enemy would be a different and distracting thing. Hardly an important point, but I find the steps you're making to be strange.
I'm out of space but the rest is stupid and I'm done

[Anonymous No.15247596]

>>15243463
um sweaty the ubermensch will definitely be bi

[Anonymous No.15247743]

>>15247527
I'm not enjoying this either. Let's get to a central point.
I was perhaps too brief in my first post and that led to miscommunication. The reason I drew the comparison to the flies is the inherent envy in Socialism and the methods of the SJWs (yes, socialism and SJWs are so intertwined they are borderline interchangeable. to deny that completely ignores the realities of the SJW movement).
The reason I chose not to draw a distinction between the actors and the flies in this context is because in this context the basis of the actor's values is fly-like in its envious and poisonous nature. Also, in my experience, and I know it's anecdotal, but I've talked to a lot of them, every SJW I've met in person, or have seen in video has been poisonous and fly-like.
What's most irritating for me in this discussion has been your denial of the directly links to Socialism and envy in the SJW movement. Your denial of their use of poison when confronted with the virtuous truth-teller and their hatred of the virtuous. Your denial of their creation of an enemy to fight. Nazism and racism have been obsolete and inert for decades. The SJWs created a lot of the real Nazis they now fight.
Was my comparison to the flies perfect? No. The connection I drew between the flies and the methods of the SJWs was their use of poison. Their methods of destroying the enemy are often through the use of poison, both secret and overt. The flies use poison, poison kills, poison is destructive. This is not an insane logical leap as you keep claiming I'm using, it's a pretty direct and obvious one. What is poison if not something used to destroy?

Was I too brief and did I use a bit of a stretch in my first post? Yes. I enjoy the fly metaphor a lot and use it perhaps too liberally. You have, however, been rather obtuse and dismissive of my points. The comparisons I've drawn later in the discussion have not been stretches but you've treated them as such.