Freedom of Speech and the recent unpleasantness

Page 11 of 11 [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

20 Jan 2021, 5:28 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
magz wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Nazi Germany is a poster child example of what happens when you take tolerance of opinions too far. But no one likes these Nazi comparisons. Don't forget about Goodwin's Law. I think that is a way to shut down arguments and discussions and dismiss feelings and dismiss any concerns. Maybe at first that Law was intended for people who compare minor things to Hitler when what he did was thousand times more worse but I think it's valid to compare what is happening now to Hitler because this is where we are heading and if we look at the German history and Hitler, we all see how it all started and we see similarities between now and back then before Nazi Germany started.
The communists, in the 1930s were a serious political force in German, also, and they too were violent bastards.
Had they won, rather than Hitler, who knows, they may have murdered more people than Stalin and Mao combined. 8O
But Hitler won. And you deflected with the "fine people on both sides" argument. The question still remains that we are seeing Nationalistic and populist movements taking over.

Actually, in this case, it's "awful people on both sides" argument.
And, historically speaking, it's valid.


No, it is simply deflection. And historically speaking, it is not valid. It is sloppy thinking--you can't prove an event that did not happen.


Sloppy Joe, I have named you well.
What part of: "who knows, they may have murdered more people than Stalin and Mao combined."

Dear, dear, what will I do with you? [sigh] :mrgreen:



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

20 Jan 2021, 5:47 pm

Pepe wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
magz wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Nazi Germany is a poster child example of what happens when you take tolerance of opinions too far. But no one likes these Nazi comparisons. Don't forget about Goodwin's Law. I think that is a way to shut down arguments and discussions and dismiss feelings and dismiss any concerns. Maybe at first that Law was intended for people who compare minor things to Hitler when what he did was thousand times more worse but I think it's valid to compare what is happening now to Hitler because this is where we are heading and if we look at the German history and Hitler, we all see how it all started and we see similarities between now and back then before Nazi Germany started.
The communists, in the 1930s were a serious political force in German, also, and they too were violent bastards.
Had they won, rather than Hitler, who knows, they may have murdered more people than Stalin and Mao combined. 8O
But Hitler won. And you deflected with the "fine people on both sides" argument. The question still remains that we are seeing Nationalistic and populist movements taking over.

Actually, in this case, it's "awful people on both sides" argument.
And, historically speaking, it's valid.


No, it is simply deflection. And historically speaking, it is not valid. It is sloppy thinking--you can't prove an event that did not happen.


Sloppy Joe, I have named you well.
What part of: "who knows, they may have murdered more people than Stalin and Mao combined."

Dear, dear, what will I do with you? [sigh] :mrgreen:


Sorry, did you mean you don't know? My mistake...



Jiheisho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2020
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,507

20 Jan 2021, 5:50 pm

Pepe wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Nazi Germany is a poster child example of what happens when you take tolerance of opinions too far. But no one likes these Nazi comparisons. Don't forget about Goodwin's Law. I think that is a way to shut down arguments and discussions and dismiss feelings and dismiss any concerns. Maybe at first that Law was intended for people who compare minor things to Hitler when what he did was thousand times more worse but I think it's valid to compare what is happening now to Hitler because this is where we are heading and if we look at the German history and Hitler, we all see how it all started and we see similarities between now and back then before Nazi Germany started.


The communists, in the 1930s were a serious political force in German, also, and they too were violent bastards.
Had they won, rather than Hitler, who knows, they many have murdered more people that Stalin and Mao combined. 8O


But Hitler won. And you deflected with the "fine people on both sides" argument. The question still remains that we are seeing Nationalistic and populist movements taking over.


You are an odd bod.
Are you saying there *aren't* fine people on both the Democratic and Republican side?
Please answer the question, for the record.
I won't hold my breath. :mrgreen:


No, that is not what I am saying at all. It is not even the point I am making.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

20 Jan 2021, 6:03 pm

Jiheisho wrote:

The argument was a deflection to not answering League_Girl's point.
You didn't make that clear.


Jiheisho wrote:
Many people rejected the KPD and chose the NAZIs instead. Are you arguing that was a better outcome?


Wasn't it said that no one knew where Nazism would lead to, but people did know what communism was all about?

Jiheisho wrote:
They did not have to chose either.


America only has 2 viable parties.
I hope you understand the implications of my statement.

Jiheisho wrote:
But you are cherry picking your information (the NAZI party had them banded in 1933, KPD also resisted the NAZI party during the war, and a number of KPD members were murdered in Stalin's purges), but you still can't get from there to say that the KPD would be a more murderous regime greater than Hilter's and certainly not Stalin's and Mao's put together.


To use your own words: "It is sloppy thinking--you can't prove an event that did not happen."
You can't *prove* that, had the 'communists/socialists' joined together and won the election, they would have been a more benign regime.
They were very violent times.
I should know. I was there. [joke] :mrgreen:

Jiheisho wrote:
Speculation is not fact. In history, these accusations are, at best, simply sloppy ideological rhetoric.

I live and breath 'speculation' and know its limitations. You don't need to tell me how it works. 8)

Sloppy Joe, what is this ideological rhetoric of which you speak? :scratch:
And who is disseminating it?

Jiheisho wrote:
Why not an honest discussion? Is speech harmful? Does the use of Nationalistic, populist language deserve protection when it incites violence? What are the responsibilities of the speaker? At what point does the audience become complicit? When do we take responsibility? When the words are spoken? When the ovens are fired up? Or when an army invades to close the camps? Germany found one solution was to ban NAZI and neo-NAZI speech at that last phase.

Speech is a complex topic. It is not simply an individual concern, but also a collective one.


What the hell are you on about?
Your context is jumping all over the place. 8O

Who is *not* being honest?
Who is inciting violence?
What speaker isn't responsible?
The audience? When did they join the discussion?

So, you aren't talking about what we were talking about now, are you? :scratch:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

20 Jan 2021, 6:06 pm

Jiheisho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
magz wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Pepe wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Nazi Germany is a poster child example of what happens when you take tolerance of opinions too far. But no one likes these Nazi comparisons. Don't forget about Goodwin's Law. I think that is a way to shut down arguments and discussions and dismiss feelings and dismiss any concerns. Maybe at first that Law was intended for people who compare minor things to Hitler when what he did was thousand times more worse but I think it's valid to compare what is happening now to Hitler because this is where we are heading and if we look at the German history and Hitler, we all see how it all started and we see similarities between now and back then before Nazi Germany started.
The communists, in the 1930s were a serious political force in German, also, and they too were violent bastards.
Had they won, rather than Hitler, who knows, they may have murdered more people than Stalin and Mao combined. 8O
But Hitler won. And you deflected with the "fine people on both sides" argument. The question still remains that we are seeing Nationalistic and populist movements taking over.

Actually, in this case, it's "awful people on both sides" argument.
And, historically speaking, it's valid.


No, it is simply deflection. And historically speaking, it is not valid. It is sloppy thinking--you can't prove an event that did not happen.


Sloppy Joe, I have named you well.
What part of: "who knows, they may have murdered more people than Stalin and Mao combined."

Dear, dear, what will I do with you? [sigh] :mrgreen:


Sorry, did you mean you don't know? My mistake...


No problems.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

20 Jan 2021, 6:46 pm

Fnord wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Fnord wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
... The "other side does it too" or "both sides are fine people" moral equivalence is a false argument.
↑ This...

... is worth remembering.
Maybe that explains why I couldn't get the school staff to listen to me. I was using the "But they do it too" argument so they thought I was doing that than understanding they really were being bias about me and treating me different than NT students.
Yes, exactly.  Besides, even though "they do it too", YOU were the one who got caught, and that is all they care about.
But the fact they were all caught on video when I got video taped in class, they were stull focused on me and didn't bat an eye on the other kids. My mom saw that, so did my therapist, they were both furious and pissed and my therapist said "this makes my job harder" to them lol.  They were caught red handed and the results were still the same so I was correct.
So you were singled out and others let free?  I was often rounded up with the "usual suspects" whenever something was vandalized or stolen at school, but that was only because my older brothers used to engage in such acts.  Were you ever absolved or vindicated?



I'm not sure i understand the question.

My mom thinks this happened because I was a sped students. I learned on Facebook that rules are enforced more on the special needs and they let NT kids get away with not following social rules.

As a kid, all I felt was I was singled out, oppressed, scape goated, bullied, and this is how you can traumatize a special ed student.

NT kids get traumatized too when they are also scape goated in their family. This can happen to a special needs child too because of ableism.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

20 Jan 2021, 6:56 pm

Pepe wrote:
The Versailles Treaty was specifically designed to punish and cripple Germany.
How did that work out, for them? :mrgreen:

After the eisenhause/morgenthau-plan mob finished killing off millions of Germans through eisenhauer's death camps and a man-mad famine within the 2 year period after the war, it was realised they needed Germany to protect Europe from the expansionist russian's.
:

Both of these sound awfully like right wing propaganda. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Hitler claim the first?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

20 Jan 2021, 9:02 pm

theprisoner wrote:
If you lived in germany in the 1930s , and decide to evaluate the message of mein kamf on its own merits, it would not matter. if you lived in Russia in the 1920s and had to evaluate the works of Lenin and Marx on its own merits, it would not matter. If you lived in a theocracy and wanted to evaluate the holy book of your specific culture, it would not matter. These are totalitarian systems. maybe they are not equivalent, but they are similar enough in organizational structure to pose the same problem to the lone individual


I don't dispute that there is a certain amount of acquiescence to the prevailing dogma of a totalitarian state. In the rise of communism and fascism the poverty and unemployment that preceded it was a big factor in why people accepted extreme philosophies, but there is a distinction between the disproportionate number of poor Russians accepting socialism as a means of having enough to eat compared to Germans thinking their are the superior/master race



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

20 Jan 2021, 9:25 pm

cyberdad wrote:
theprisoner wrote:
If you lived in germany in the 1930s , and decide to evaluate the message of mein kamf on its own merits, it would not matter. if you lived in Russia in the 1920s and had to evaluate the works of Lenin and Marx on its own merits, it would not matter. If you lived in a theocracy and wanted to evaluate the holy book of your specific culture, it would not matter. These are totalitarian systems. maybe they are not equivalent, but they are similar enough in organizational structure to pose the same problem to the lone individual


I don't dispute that there is a certain amount of acquiescence to the prevailing dogma of a totalitarian state. In the rise of communism and fascism the poverty and unemployment that preceded it was a big factor in why people accepted extreme philosophies, but there is a distinction between the disproportionate number of poor Russians accepting socialism as a means of having enough to eat compared to Germans thinking their are the superior/master race


Popularist but eventually totalitarian regimes ramp up their extremism in stages. Nonetheless there is a breakaway moment when enough people decide the promises on offer, versus what they already have, justify gambling on a leap into the unknown and giving up most of one's existing power and wealth to do so.

Things have to be severe for that gamble to be worth making. People aren't normally willing to stake everything they have on a double or quits move.

The Russians felt like that, and very shortly after the Germans felt like that as well. Or at least enough did to put extreme leaders into power. Initially I would imagine there was relief, and hope in a better future. And then it all gradually turned to s**t, and the people realised they were trapped in a situation where their double or quits gamble had NOT paid off.

Yes the situation in Russia was more extreme, but then it always had been. Russia wasn't known for its high standard of living to start with. The Germans had some severe economic problems after WW1, greatly exacerbated by the Versailles Treaty, which caused rampant inflation, and consequently overnight poverty. Not in the same league as Russia, but then the Germans were used to having a lot more. And therefore were more mindful of the consequences of losing it all, too, especially having already suffered great personal losses in the Great War.

Unhappiness + desperation + propaganda + promises of a greater future (always at someone else's expense) = open door for an extremist, no-way-back power grab.

Whether you're goose stepping hard left or hard right, it works just the same.