From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Nazism is a form of fascism,[4][5][6][7] with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. Its beliefs include support for dictatorship,[3] fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, anti-Slavism,[8] anti-Romani sentiment, scientific racism, white supremacy, Nordicism, social Darwinism, homophobia, ableism, and the use of eugenics.

Overall

• I won't trade in this market.

• The focus of these questions is object level endorsement or practice, not self identification.

  • e.g. "I am not a white supremacist but [... white supremacist stuff...]" resolves as yes for the 'white supremacist' subquestion.

• All statements or actions must occur after 22 Jan 2025, 23:31:08 PST and before May 2, 2025 23:31:08 PST

• In the event of ambiguity judging any criterion, I reserve the right to rope in a quorum of judges from mods/the community/responsible neutral third parties to determine resolution.

• I've tried to operationalise these as clearly and unambiguously as I can in terms of explicit action or endorsement in order to make resolution easier on my future self, even if in some cases the criteria are a bit more restrictive than the full intuitive meaning of the category.

  • ~~~I'm open to any reasonable widening of a category that lines up with consensus understanding of a term and which won't set me up for a horrible subjective argument in 3 months' time.~~~ too late, definitions are now frozen

  • Otherwise, I will try to resolve precisely as worded - I'm looking for "explicit" endorsement/practice.

• I've made the judgement call to eliminate some items from the original wiki list as less-relevant in modern American society (anti-slavism, anti-romani, nordicism) or just 'in the water supply' (anti-communism).

(a) Anti-democracy:

• He says that any democracy (defined as any 'Full' or 'Flawed' democracy according to the Economist Democracy Index as of 2023) would be better off as a dictatorship or if a particular current dictator was in charge

• He or his corporations take actions supporting a dictator (defined as any leader of an Authoritarian Regime in the Democracy Index as of 2023) in a way directly connected to them taking or maintaining power in their country

  • Saying something positive in isolation about an individual autocrat doesn't count

  • Supporting a dictator obliquely in an unrelated matter doesn't count, e.g. selling Starlink units to the king of Jordan would in general not count

  • e.g. selling Starlink units to a dictator to be used to crush a rebellion would count

  • e.g. censoring dissidents in a dictatorial regime on X would count

  • e.g. publicly endorsing Lukashenko in the context of the upcoming Belarussian 'election' would count

(b) Anti-semitism:

• He engages in holocaust denial

  • E.g. explicit claims that deny it happened or minimise casualties below the widely-accepted numbers

  • E.g. tacitly endorses, by retweeting someone else's holocaust denial claim in a supportive way

• Any of his statements are officially denounced as anti-semitic by the ADL, the Weisenthal center, or the World Jewish Congress

(c) Scientific Racism:

• He claims that any racial or ethnic group is inherently inferior to another racial or ethnic group on a biological / genetic basis

  • Claims acceptable in general polite conversation don't count, e.g. observing that the fastest sprinters tend to be of African descent wouldn't be enough

  • Claims must state or clearly imply an inherent, not cultural/environmental, basis for superiority/inferiority

  • A claim must both include a judgement of 'inherentness' and state or imply an overall judgement of superiority/inferiority of a race or ethnic group.

  • Examples

    • A colloquial language claim of "group X is dumber than group Y" would count: the common-sense reading implies inherent-ness and a value judgement

    • Posting a table of national test or IQ scores without any other context or comment wouldn't count: it doesn't by itself imply a position on "inherent-ness" or a value judgement

      • Using the same data as an argument to justify a policy position would in most cases count, as it's enough to imply a view on 'inherent-ness' and a value judgement.

      • E.g. "the US shouldn't allow immigration from [country] because [IQ test scores]" would probably count.

    • A claim like Lynn of "we should be worried that abc group are reproducing faster than white people, because abc group are dumber" would count - it implies an inherent quality and an overall value judgement

(d) White Supremacy:

• He claims that whites/caucasians/europeans are inherently superior to any one (or several) other race(s), or implies it with a more specific claim (e.g. people from white country A are inherently better than people from brown country B)

  • Claims of cultural superiority doesn't count here; it has to be explicitly race superiority.

(e) Social Darwinism:

• He justifies or supports any policy change or proposed policy in the US by directly or indirectly referencing "survival of the fittest" or that the hardship resulting from it is justified because of the weakness of the people affected

  • A policy that primarily affects companies or organisations not individuals isn't sufficient here

(f) Homophobia:

• He claims that homosexuality or bisexuality is morally wrong or disgusting, or bad for society at large, or directly endorses someone else's claim of the same

• He uses a homophobic slur towards or about a homosexual/bisexual/lesbian person

(g) Ableism:

• He uses an ableist slur towards or about a disabled person (e.g. calling a disabled person "retarded")

• He mocks the movements or vocal patterns of a disabled person (e.g. the Trump incident with the reporter)

(h) Pro-Eugenics:

• He endorses eugenics that are involuntary, population-level, or otherwise beyond the accepted norm

  • E.g. endorsing embryo selection to avoid serious genetic conditions would not count

  • E.g. forced sterilisation or forbidding reproduction for a particular population would count

  • E.g. Casual or offhand remarks (e.g., saying "my umpteenth child was embryo-selected for IQ" or noting that a company is engaging in embryo selection) are not sufficient

  • Promoting embryo selection as part of or in the context of a proposed government policy might or might not count

    • e.g. broad subsidisation of embryo selection for IQ probably wouldn't count

    • e.g. "soft mandatory" embryo selection ("you don't have to do it, but if you don't you don't get any special needs funding") probably would

  • The evaluation will use the heuristic of asking: would the statement or action seem clearly extreme-eugenicist driven if someone else made it?

(i) Transphobia:

• He claims that being trans is morally wrong or disgusting, or bad for society at large, or directly endorses someone else's claim of the same

• He uses a transphobic slur towards or about a trans person

• He advocates for the forced detransition of transgender individuals (e.g. Paragraph 175)

• He promotes legislation or executive action to eliminate transgender-related research

• Endorsing Transmedicalism isn't enough to count by itself (I assume the Nazi position on the topic was much harsher)

• Update 2025-03-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Update from creator

  • Explicitness Threshold: For a statement about group X having a stereotypical quality to count as saying “X is bad for society,” it must clearly imply that the quality is inherently negative or that the group embodies this trait to a problematic degree.

  • Sufficient Signals: Use of heightened language (e.g. repeated use of "EXTREMELY" and exclamation points) and directives such as "reopen the asylums" are deemed to push the statement over the threshold to be considered explicit.

  • Comparable Standards: The same criteria apply analogously to other categories (for example, if a similar explicit phrase was used in reference to another group, it would count as explicit endorsement of that form of hatred).