It's So Unbecoming For Grown Adults To Whine "That's Not Fair!" Like A Seven Year Old - Hate Mail

You don't claim that George Bernard Shaw didn't advocate murdering huge numbers of people in large gas chambers, pretty much consigning anyone he deemed to be economically unproductive to, rightly, be murdered by the state for eugenic purposes, I suspect you checked and found out it would be pointless to claim that he didn't say that because the documentation that he not only said that then but he pretty much advocated that position over much of his public life, even up into his extreme old age is so very well documented, including in publications of his work which he, himself was involved in.

What you're saying is that some conservatives have pointed that out makes it illegitimate for me, on the American left, to also call that depravity what it was, an advocacy of Nazi policy before Nazism was invented or at least named.  Nazism wasn't a sui generis manifestation that came out of nothing in 1919, changing its name to Nazism the next year, it was just one political party which was a manifestation of ideas which had become current in Western intellectuals since the 1860s, ideas which, themselves, were part of a longer materialist line of thought but which given biological affirmation in Darwinism, grew enormously in power.  The irony of conservatives using Shaw's and others depravity from that period is that is should work a lot better for American liberalism than it does for American conservatism, though if they're going to abandon scientific racism and eugenics I can't see that as a bad thing.  If, or rather IF THEY DO SO CONSISTENTLY AND COMPLETELY. I might add that I'm not waiting up nights for that to happen.

Anyone has the right to accurately cite what anyone says as part of their argument, if the argument is invalid it has to be attacked on some other basis than that noting what someone has said, truthfully, is somehow felt to be unfair.

The idea that because he wrote some witty plays and was a goddamned Fabian (about the most putrid of the supposed socialist parties of the English speaking peoples) we're supposed to pretend he didn't say those things and that, saying it over the period of a quarter of a century even as it was becoming reality, it was meant to be comic or ironic is about as stupid an assertion as anyone has ever made and passed it off as liberalism.  Shaw was as depraved as the authors of Nazi propaganda were, that he may have been a more skilled writer and dramatist doesn't change the fact that his witty mind was as diseased and likely more than that of Ezra Pound or anyone else who supported Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Mao.

Advocating mass murder by the state, whether for "racial purity" or economic efficiency should be enough to get someone removed from the honor roll of lazy-assed intellectualism.  The Nazis sold the acceptance of genocide to the German people through an appeal to economic efficiency as much as they did racial purity.  In the end, even much of their racial genocide was explained in economic terms, the plan to murder Poles and other Slavic people based on the desire to steal their land was, in the most basic way, an economic plan.  I don't have any problem with anyone slamming anyone for saying things like that, no matter how much I might have smiled at their wit in the past or how many supposedly respectable people have said pretty things about them.  I don't smile at Shaw anymore. He disgusts me.  So does any modernism that is compatible with that level of depravity.  It turns my stomach as much as the sentimental Nazi era Germanic kitsch or the American Nazi yearning for the phony old South, old West or Steve Bannon's ahistorical, farcical, 19th century nostalgia for a nativist economic power house that didn't exist.  That's the TV addled  meth-addict view of history, something liberals shouldn't have anything in common with.