u/Competitive_Swan_130

Today's neo Nazis consistently frame their ideology around white supremacy or white racial solidarity. However, my understanding is that Hitler's Nazism specifically considered Nordic/Germanic people to be the master race, while considering Poles, Slavs, Romani, and others as racially inferior, even though many of these groups would be classified as white. I specifically remember reading about how Slavs were marked for extermination just like other groups. But people with Slavic or Polish backgrounds would have no problem joining a modern Nazi movement.

Are there any other aspects of Nazi ideology that modern neo-Nazi groups get wrong or fundamentally misunderstand?

This is overlooked, but there are some for real great stand-out screams from men in Horror movies I can think of, like:

Allen Danziger as Jerry in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

John Getz as Stathis Borans in the Fly as his hand melts,

Carl Weathers' Dillon with his extra manly scream in Predator, and

Shavon Ross/Reggie the Reckless in Friday the 13th

What are some more examples? Especially ones played serious and not for laughs

A growing number of thinkers are arguing that democratizing media hasn't led to more truth, it's led to less.

Their core claim is that the old gatekeeping system wasn't just about power or exclusion. It was doing necessary work. Editors, credentialed journalists, ombudsmen, and professional standards filtered signal from noise, enforced verification before publication and maintained shared norms about who counts as a credible source. And it's worth remembering that the threat of defamation lawsuits kept big media outlets honest in a way that citizen journalists, who lack the deep pockets to pay damages, simply aren't subject to. When we dismantled all that in the name of openness, we didn't get a marketplace of ideas. We got an engagement market where algorithms reward outrage over accuracy, where anyone can call himself or herself a journalist, and where the most emotionally compelling content wins regardless of whether it's true. And most of what we've gained from citizen journalism is really just bloggers recycling, adding to, or repackaging what big media outlets reported in the first place.

The result is that expertise itself has been discredited. Scientists and historians get treated as bad faith actors while actual propagandists and know nothings position themselves and are seen as brave truth tellers. And because we no longer share enough common reality, democratic governance becomes impossible.

I have anarchist leanings, so I find this a very hard pill to swallow, and I also remember how the old system had real problems too. It excluded voices, reflected elite biases, and missed enormous stories.

But the promise of open media was that more voices and more information would get us closer to truth. Has it?

I am reading The Life and Death of Ryan White by Paul Renfro Its about Ryan White, the teenager with hemophilia who contracted HIV through a blood transfusion in the 1980s and how the public and media framed him as an innocent victim, which implied that people who contracted the same virus through sexual contact were guilty ones. The book is making a great point but it doesn't really go into why this happens and who (if anybody) benefits when we separate sexually transmitted infections into their own category in the first place.

The categorization makes little sense from a purely biological standpoint. HIV can spread through sex but also through blood transfusions, shared needles, childbirth, and breastfeeding. Hepatitis B spreads sexually but also through sharing razors or household contact with open wounds. These are just pathogens that transmit through specific forms of human contact like any other communicable infection.

But we dont apply this logic anywhere else. Nobody calls tuberculosis a breathing transmitted disease. Nobody labels cholera a water transmitted disease. Those diseases get named after their pathogens or symptoms or the body systems they affect. But the moment sex is involved in transmission the name centers the behavior rather than the biology, and that centering seems to do a lot of moral work abd fnger wagging than legit medical work.

The only good faith reason I could think of is that the STI label is used to warn where transmission most commonly and effectively occurs, but again why not do that with other viruses? And is that warning worth the stigma and misinformation that comes with it. People who catch the flu on a crowded bus get sympathy. People who catch chlamydia through an equally ordinary form of human contact get shame. I imagine that shame drives people away from being tested and definitely from honest disclosure which leads them away from early treatment,which makes transmission worse for everybody.

Is there sociological research on how and why this separate categorization developed and is there any research measuring whether the stigma produced by this framing actually worsens public health outcomes?

Thank you!