Supporting a party that Nazis also support is not the same thing as admitting that you’re a Nazi

Thank you for raising this point. On first glance your conclusion seems benign enough. But we can apply a bit of critical thinking and see the true nature of what you're actually saying.

While supporting a party that Nazis also support doesn't automatically make someone a Nazi, it does raise questions about the platform and policies of that person. If Musk chooses to use his platform to repost and then give massive exposure to extremists, it's worth examining why that is the case. Why would Elon Musk use his gigantic, sprawling reach to give exposure to an extremist group?

This is not complicated.

Perhaps not on a surface level. Ultimately though the world is shades of grey - we can argue black and white topics all day but it won't change the fact that the world is inherently a complicated place with complex interactions. I believe to boil it down to "This is not complicated" is likely a barrier to better understanding how the world works. If your political stance aligns with extremists, it's crucial to critically assess why that alignment exists. Dismissing concern over such alignment without introspection sidesteps an important ethical debate. The post in question raises some concerning questions about his responsibility to understand the wider implications of his actions. I'm curious to hear from your point of view why Musk isn't tactfully associating himself as a supporter of extremist right-wing views?

Supporting a political party is an action with consequences. Even if you're not a Nazi, by supporting a party that Nazis also support, you are indirectly contributing to the environment where such extremist ideologies can thrive. By excusing this type of ideology and behaviour you're giving it the thumbs up, stamp of approval to continue.

Godwin’s law is hard at work here.

I understand what you're putting forward here but I'd like to state that the conversation didn't degrade into talk of Nazi's and comparisons to Hitler. It was the basis of the discussion from the get go. Godwin's law critiques the overuse of such comparisons, it doesn't automatically invalidate all comparisons. Some situations may legitimately warrant such references and dismissing them outright is an oversimplification.

I honestly wonder if people know what Nazis are anymore as people just throw around the term like it’s nothing.

The world has changed, so too has how fascism and Nazism present themselves. It's a mistake to assume that because the outward appearance and methods have changed, the underlying ideology is not the same or less dangerous. I put forward previously that the world is shades of grey; so too are the followers with their levels of commitment to the core tenets and ideologies of Nazism. Just because some modern adherents may not wear swastikas or hold rallies in the same overt manner doesn't mean they don't hold similar views about racial purity, authoritarianism, or other facets that defined the original Nazi party. Minimising the threat of neo-Nazis or other similar groups by arguing that "they don't look like Nazis to me" risks underestimating the danger they pose. Extremist groups often rely on the element of surprise and the benefit of doubt from mainstream society to grow and propagate.

I honestly wonder if people know what Nazis are anymore

This is a call for complacency and it's dangerous in the global political climate at present. This statement is a perfect example of the sort of dismissive behaviours that allow the Nazi ideology to manifest in contemporary society. Some factions of the contemporary movement intentionally distance themselves from historical imagery in order to gain mainstream acceptability. Dismissing them because they don't fit the 1940's stereotype allows for the normalization and sanitisation of their ideologies.

So in conclusion, you're correct! Supporting a party that Nazis also support is not the same thing as admitting that you're a Nazi.

You don't have to admit it, the world can see it as plain as day.

It means exactly the same thing.

He endorses a demonstrably bigoted right-authoritarian party - specifically for its attitudes toward minorities and foreign nationals. Their policy on immigration is "don't." Their stated goals involve mass deportation. They explicitly claim "the concept of multicultural society has failed" and "Islam does not belong in Germany." Naturally they're also big mad about women being equal and gay people existing. They were always extreme nationalists, and then a couple years ago their old leadership split off because their own party was starting to scare them, and as a direct result these German-nationalist Christian-supremacist anti-minority nutjobs got even more blatant.

They're Nazis. He endorses Nazis. He is loudly and openly throwing in his lot, with Nazis.