I'm pretty sure that even an actual Nazi would realize that they do not have the option to just straight up murder you right then and there at the restaurant table. A person also does not need to be uncontrollably angry at <minority group> to qualify as a Nazi. As one example, cynical and dispassionate severe dehumanization of <minority group> would also qualify you as a Nazi in my book. A Nazi who is cynical and dispassionate, rather than uncontrollably angry, might be able to sit at a restaurant table and maintain civil discourse with a member of <minority group>, either because the Nazi sees it as some kind of mental exercise, a display of his superior temper, logic and virtue, or whatever.

The point is, it is not physically impossible for a member of <minority group> to participate in civil discourse with actual Nazis. It just depends on the specific Nazi in question.

> I'm pretty sure that even an actualy Nazi would realize that they do not have the option to just straight up murder you right then and there at the restaurant table.

The fact that you think that's a counter argument, indicates you have severely failed to consider my perspective.

I won't willing hang out with you if you knowingly hang out with them. If you try to force me to hang out with you, I believe you would be breaking the law.

Furthermore, if they were in my country, I'd have them arrested because membership of that group is outlawed here.

There is no possibility of civil discourse, not only between me and someone who wants me dead (which wasn't actually the scenario I was describing even though it was clearly what you described in the quote), but there is also no possibility of civil discourse between me and those who tolerate those who wish me dead.

If we meet IRL, and you try to defend actual literal Nazis, the most civil I'll be able to be is getting up and leaving, not any kind of discussion. It's hard enough to not be enraged right now, and here I have the benefit of an edit button and the emotional distance that comes with text.

I don't think I am trying to (or capable of) forcing you to hang out with anyone. But I am trying to logically convince you that association and approval are orthogonal. I also don't think that wishing someone dead should be illegal. Acting on that thought, however, should of course be illegal.

Simply having a conversation with someone does nothing to help that person. If I eat at a restaurant with a Nazi, once we leave then nothing in the world will have changed.

Simply having a civil discussion with someone also does not mean that I approve of that person or their views. Most political discussions are inherently about disagreement.

If such a conversation means that you will think that I am necessarily evil, then I wonder why you think that.

If someone does something truly abhorrent, the appropriate reaction is to put them in prison. Whether or not to interact with that person is not relevant.

It seems to me like you are saying that the necessary obstacle to civil discourse is your own reaction to the situation. In my last comment I had assumed you meant the Nazi was the one who would not be able to remain civil. I guess I am opposed to emotional reactions when they accomplish nothing. Of course, overcoming our emotions is easier said than done, but it remains a goal of mine when it comes to anger and fear.

Is it too late to invoke Godwin's law, or is "actual Nazi" sufficiently unhinged for a late qualification?

I'm pretty sure there is nobody on /pol/, or anywhere on the internet for that matter (short of some 95+ year olds), who was an "actual Nazi" who "mass-murdered people like you."

I wish it were unhinged.

Sadly there are a whole bunch of people who self describe with that term (or its translation), and whose demonstrative behaviour matches the label to the greatest extent they can get away with.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and wears a badge saying "I'm a duck", why should I treat it as anything other than an actual duck?