>> At least with national socialism you have a chance to get out. > Not if you're born the wrong way.

This is demonstrably untrue. A good historical example would be the Madagascar Plan, in which Germany was willing to fund the relocation of their "undesirables", but was prevented from doing so by the Allies:

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

Prior to even this, Nazi Germany absolutely did give their "undesirables" ample opportunity to flee, which led to a major humanitarian crisis (about which the Allies did nothing):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference

The larger point here is that: yes, National Socialism is a certain grade of evil, but as an ideology that offers the chance for their targeted groups to get out, it is significantly and substantially less evil than an ideology that kills/tortures/enslaves ON SIGHT and not only offers no chance of escape, but actively prevents it, as is the case of nearly every implementation of Communism the world has seen thus far.

So, if you are a member of a targeted group, if given a choice between two evils:

1. An evil which hates you but at least gives you the chance to make a life somewhere else.

and

2. An evil which prevents you from leaving and shoots, starves, or enslaves you on sight.

I don't think there is any objective argument to me made that option 1 is somehow worse. Option 2 is objectively more evil.

Perhaps after USXGiving I will have more time to respond to your other points. Cheers!

We are just saying that, if you want to silence people in the name of past mass killings, you have to silence a lot of people. Nazis, communist / socialists, probably even Christians and Muslims, yes.

Wouldn't be better to just not try to silence anyone? :)