Seeing the backlash, The Times was quick to jump to their own defense, claiming that heck no, they're not normalizing Nazis. What they were doing, see, was letting you know how normal it's become to hold these viewpoints in America. How your neighbors with good manners and nice lawns could very well wish to separate all the races and maybe put them in different, secluded places, like death camps. But they're not normalizing these people, oh no. They're just telling you how normal they are. Nazis, you see, may be just like you. The Nazi in their article isn't even a racist, man! He had mixed-race couples at his wedding! Dude is chill as f**k. Except for the mass murder thing.
What The Times seemed to miss in their profile of a garbage human was that we already know Nazis are coming out of the woodwork. The excuse that the article is just to show us how it's becoming more "normal" is missing that we've already seen them hold rallies with tiki torches. So what exactly did the paper hope to accomplish by featuring a meandering interview with a Nazi? Why do we need to know that he enjoys Twin Peaks? We know who Nazis are; a lot of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought and died trying to make these fucklechucks go away. But also, The Times didn't actually say s**t about the man in question. I know he likes turkey sandwiches, that's swell. Why does his softboiled brain think his race deserves any more special treatment than other races? What fumes were in the room when he thought Hitler was chill about anything? Who the f**k cares about a website that sells Swastika armbands? This profile has less depth than a kiddie pool filled with punched-out Richard Spencers.