Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cruxador]

The irony of people calling the current crop "Nazi" is that the original nazis probably would have looked down on them as thugs and untermenschen.

Ok so is it still ok to punch the ones that say "I'm a fucking nazi" or does that hit the same slippery slope?

It wasn't okay to begin with. You'll have committed an assault, and he'll have committed free speech.

If there is a mistake here, then the onus is on them to come out and say "hey, though we were acting like nazis and even calling ourselves nazis at various points, we don't actually want to eradicate non-white people, and think hitler was a dick" otherwise fuck 'em all.

Just so you know, actual nazis didn't want to eradicate non-white people. They considered non-Germans to be inferior, but not necessarily bad to have around in general. A lot of the most evil things that happened were not necessarily because they were thought of as philosophical goals, but because they were economically pragmatic and not philosophically prohibited. Of course, the line is a bit blurry in some cases, most famously with the concentration camps, where there were certain classes of people whom it was seen as desirable to separate from society, and then it became economically pragmatic to no longer keep them alive. But still, the motivation is being mischaracterized here. Lebensraum does not, after all, translate to "extermination".

[Helgoland]

Maybe not a priori, but certainly a posteriori. And regarding Jews, homosexuals, Roma and Sinti, and other groups, it certainly was extermination from the beginning, regardless of economic incentives. In fact late in the war the concentration camps were still gobbling up fuel that was desperately needed by the retreating army.

[smjjames]

Maybe not a priori, but certainly a posteriori. And regarding Jews, homosexuals, Roma and Sinti, and other groups, it certainly was extermination from the beginning, regardless of economic incentives. In fact late in the war the concentration camps were still gobbling up fuel that was desperately needed by the retreating army.

That bolded part is wonderfully ironic.

Anyways, genocide is still genocide, no matter how you slice it.

[EnigmaticHat]

This is the American politics thread, so I'm using the American definitions (as good as i can ) for simplicity. And to make everything even more complicated outside of it.

Point for point I'm very aligned with the democratic platform.  And I've been honest about that.  What you used isn't American definition of liberal.  We use liberal to mean "American left".  Libertarian would be the closest American term to the word you're using, although I'm not sure the degree to which an outsider would find libertarians genuinely liberal.

Curious tho, how am I "authoritarian?"

The irony of people calling the current crop "Nazi" is that the original nazis probably would have looked down on them as thugs and untermenschen.

Ok so is it still ok to punch the ones that say "I'm a fucking nazi" or does that hit the same slippery slope?

It wasn't okay to begin with. You'll have committed an assault, and he'll have committed free speech.

If there is a mistake here, then the onus is on them to come out and say "hey, though we were acting like nazis and even calling ourselves nazis at various points, we don't actually want to eradicate non-white people, and think hitler was a dick" otherwise fuck 'em all.

Just so you know, actual nazis didn't want to eradicate non-white people. They considered non-Germans to be inferior, but not necessarily bad to have around in general. A lot of the most evil things that happened were not necessarily because they were thought of as philosophical goals, but because they were economically pragmatic and not philosophically prohibited. Of course, the line is a bit blurry in some cases, most famously with the concentration camps, where there were certain classes of people whom it was seen as desirable to separate from society, and then it became economically pragmatic to no longer keep them alive. But still, the motivation is being mischaracterized here. Lebensraum does not, after all, translate to "extermination".

Spoiler: history debate (click to show/hide)

When the Germans took over Belarus, they divided the population into the 3/4ths least racially pure and the 1/4th most racially pure.  The "lesser" majority was to be exterminated, while the remaining 25% of the population was to be enslaved.  And so they set to doing exactly that, and didn't stop until the Soviets came and took it back.  The vast majority of cities were leveled, all of the country's industry was destroyed and IIRC when the dust had settled 40% of the population had died.  They had an even higher percentage of losses than Russia or Japan and that's saying something, almost of all of them civilian deaths.  This had nothing to do with Jews and nothing to do with the war effort, it was about Lebensraum.  That's what that word means.

The idea that the nazis would have looked down at anyone as thugs is hilarious.  Hitler loved thugs.  He surrounded himself with former death squad members and secret police, while ignoring the ordinary soldiers and generals that made up most of his military.  I mean don't get me wrong, neo-Nazis aren't Nazis and the Third Reich would have rejected them, but not because of disagreement.  Just because they're not in Germany, and Nazi-ism as defined by Nazis is inseparable from Germany.  US neo-nazis make the mistake of assuming that because they're "white" in the US they would be Aryan in third Reich, which is laughable.  But when people who aren't Nazis call neo-nazis "nazis", they're using the more common definition of "fascism linked with murderous identity politics."

Hitler gained much of his initial popularity by an endorsement from one of the two generals that had effectively run Germany during WW1; that particular general had endorsed a plan to exterminate, enslave or expel Eastern Europeans and colonize the area with Germans.  That and Nazism were tied together, but neither was essential to the other.  The core of the nazi idealogy is one nation, one religion, one race, one creed.  To the nazis, all of human history is a game of Risk.  They ally with Italians and Japanese because they're buddies, but at the end of the day only one person gets to sweep the board.  They don't need to kill everyone to win the game, but everyone must be subjugated or the game isn't over.

[Helgoland]

And regarding Jews, homosexuals, Roma and Sinti, and other groups, it certainly was extermination from the beginning, regardless of economic incentives. In fact late in the war the concentration camps were still gobbling up fuel that was desperately needed by the retreating army.

That bolded part is wonderfully ironic.

It's not ironic at all. If the Jews are the real enemy of the German people, it makes perfect sense to pour resources into combating them instead of forestalling the end of the war by another couple months. Keeping the Holocaust going was, from the Nazi perspective, a heroic self-sacrifice by the régime. It was a matter of great importance to them that no undesirables would survive.

[smjjames]

And regarding Jews, homosexuals, Roma and Sinti, and other groups, it certainly was extermination from the beginning, regardless of economic incentives. In fact late in the war the concentration camps were still gobbling up fuel that was desperately needed by the retreating army.

That bolded part is wonderfully ironic.

It's not ironic at all. If the Jews are the real enemy of the German people, it makes perfect sense to pour resources into combating them instead of forestalling the end of the war by another couple months. Keeping the Holocaust going was, from the Nazi perspective, a heroic self-sacrifice by the régime. It was a matter of great importance to them that no undesirables would survive.

Still ironic from a strategic or tactical perspective since they were so single minded about it to their own detriment. Not that prolonging the end of the war would have done much good anyway.

[sluissa]

Far left wants to punch the right.

Far right wants to punch the left.

Moderates just want the punching to stop.

[smjjames]

Far left wants to punch the right.

Far right wants to punch the left.

Moderates just want the punching to stop.

I guess that succintly sums it up.

[RedKing]

Far left wants to punch the right.

Far right wants to punch the left.

Moderates just want the punching to stop.

Which is fine and dandy when you're Switzerland and can pretend that nothing outside your mountains concerns you.

[scriver]

This is the American politics thread, so I'm using the American definitions (as good as i can ) for simplicity. And to make everything even more complicated outside of it.

What you used isn't American definition of liberal.

No.

Curious tho, how am I "authoritarian?"

Your dislike of pluralism, what your arguments and way of speaking about other members of this forums reveals about you, how you deride everyone who do not agree with you 100% or in any way question or simply to not agree with your narrative as the Enemy - a common authoritarian technique to bully people into both getting in line. Of course, pointing to any particular post in which you have been downright authoritarian isn't possible, because in your dishonesty you hide what I just know you actually think. Which is why, and I repeat, you should stop pretending so you can genuinely participate in the conversation and say what you mean.

[RedKing]

Take a second to look at what you actually just wrote.

"I can't point to any proof that you're authoritarian, I just *know* your thoughts."

Really? 
And people are accusing the pro-Antifa crowd of thoughtcrime?

[hector13]

scriver is turning into the personification of Poe’s Law with his passive-aggression, methinks.

[scriver]

I am simply echoing the way EnigmaticHat thinks about other forumgoers (He won't name names) back at him. That's why I've been repeating that last sentence back at him in every post. I don't actually think he is authoritarian, I'm trying to make a point about the way he reasons.

Also more to the point being Muslim doesn't imply any kind of support of complacency with the 9/11 attacks.  Being a neo-nazi automatically makes you in support of violence.  That's kind of the point of it.

Anyway, the main thrust of what I'm saying isn't about Muslims or Nazis, its about our political conversation.  I wrote up a giant post about this but its already been said.  There's a double standard as to what constitutes foul play between the left and the right.  I've heard people on this very forum try to downplay, for example, violence against trans people by saying that it happens no less than average.  And then we've got people digging up every example of how neo-nazis have been punched openly but not killed, and law enforcement actually did something about it.  And its like... I would feel a little more receptive to this, if at least one person who had downplayed violence committed by hate groups in the past isn't one of the people who's defended neo-nazis in the present.  Not naming names but some of y'all aren't nearly as moderate as you claim to be and you should stop pretending so you can genuinely participate in the conversation and say what you mean.

[hector13]

But you’re not making that point with the essential tone of “lol, troll, sarcasm, parrot”, however intellectual it makes you feel to hide your message in subtext.

Oregon Welles you are not.

[scriver]

Next time I'll make sure to mark everything with the International Sarcmark, just for your sake, hector.