Because I guess stairs were the enemy of the disabled? But the cripples are OK because they don't want stairs taken down.
He is such an idiot.
Because I guess stairs were the enemy of the disabled? But the cripples are OK because they don't want stairs taken down.
Stairs are heritage not hate imho
I don't know if that is necessarily what he was implying. I think he was trying to say that "regular" Germans were scared of the violence from both sides, and the Nazis offered the best means of calming things down and keeping them safe. Which may very well be, but it was only a tiny contributing factor. He neglects to blame anything about the economy, rampant anti-Semitism, etc., but I don't think he was intending to actually defend the Nazis. It's still a really simplistic and dumb take.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑24 Aug 2017, 4:25pmHuh. All along I thought Nazis were the perpetrators of the Holocaust but it was those dirty Communists who opposed them (unlike conservatives and liberals in Germany who saw the Nazis as useful indirect allies against Bolshevism). But I guess it was the Commies.
I honestly can't get my mind around the fact that there are right-wing Jews who give Nazis a pass or think it's no big deal. Forgive the generalization, but I thought Jews were pretty much in agreement that Nazis are always the worst kind of excrement in human form and not letting them get even a toehold is a historical urgency.
It just seems weird to blame the Communists, who were clear and unwavering in their opposition to the Nazis from the start, rather than the "regular Germans" who underestimated the Nazi threat and even saw them as useful in their opposition to Bolshevism. I mean, the implication is that if not for the Communists, the Nazis wouldn't have gained any traction and … faded away? It's dumber than dumb to blame the people who stood up to what we now know was a genocidal menace, when it was the conservatives and liberals who were too passive.JennyB wrote: ↑24 Aug 2017, 4:34pmI don't know if that is necessarily what he was implying. I think he was trying to say that "regular" Germans were scared of the violence from both sides, and the Nazis offered the best means of calming things down and keeping them safe. Which may very well be, but it was only a tiny contributing factor. He neglects to blame anything about the economy, rampant anti-Semitism, etc., but I don't think he was intending to actually defend the Nazis. It's still a really simplistic and dumb take.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑24 Aug 2017, 4:25pmHuh. All along I thought Nazis were the perpetrators of the Holocaust but it was those dirty Communists who opposed them (unlike conservatives and liberals in Germany who saw the Nazis as useful indirect allies against Bolshevism). But I guess it was the Commies.
I honestly can't get my mind around the fact that there are right-wing Jews who give Nazis a pass or think it's no big deal. Forgive the generalization, but I thought Jews were pretty much in agreement that Nazis are always the worst kind of excrement in human form and not letting them get even a toehold is a historical urgency.
Good point. But then again, he thought it was terrible when I said I saw nothing wrong with punching Nazis. He thought that was a violation of the first amendment, because anyone, no matter their views, should be able to march "unmolested."Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑24 Aug 2017, 4:51pmIt just seems weird to blame the Communists, who were clear and unwavering in their opposition to the Nazis from the start, rather than the "regular Germans" who underestimated the Nazi threat and even saw them as useful in their opposition to Bolshevism. I mean, the implication is that if not for the Communists, the Nazis wouldn't have gained any traction and … faded away? It's dumber than dumb to blame the people who stood up to what we now know was a genocidal menace, when it was the conservatives and liberals who were too passive.JennyB wrote: ↑24 Aug 2017, 4:34pmI don't know if that is necessarily what he was implying. I think he was trying to say that "regular" Germans were scared of the violence from both sides, and the Nazis offered the best means of calming things down and keeping them safe. Which may very well be, but it was only a tiny contributing factor. He neglects to blame anything about the economy, rampant anti-Semitism, etc., but I don't think he was intending to actually defend the Nazis. It's still a really simplistic and dumb take.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑24 Aug 2017, 4:25pmHuh. All along I thought Nazis were the perpetrators of the Holocaust but it was those dirty Communists who opposed them (unlike conservatives and liberals in Germany who saw the Nazis as useful indirect allies against Bolshevism). But I guess it was the Commies.
I honestly can't get my mind around the fact that there are right-wing Jews who give Nazis a pass or think it's no big deal. Forgive the generalization, but I thought Jews were pretty much in agreement that Nazis are always the worst kind of excrement in human form and not letting them get even a toehold is a historical urgency.
Well, leaving aside my pacifism, this idea that all views need to be respected is so goddamned dumb and, quite ironically, contrary to democratic thought. One of the key, defining qualities of liberal democracy is the idea of reciprocity. All parties are committed to the idea of democracy and settlement of political questions are done without vengeance, that the victors still respect the rights of losers to continue to participate and perhaps succeed later on or on different questions. It's about an open and mutually supportive process. If you don't sign on to that, you have no claim to that respect and protection in return. Nazis do not believe in liberal democracy—their desire is to replace it with a racialized totalitarian (or perhaps just authoritarian) state—so those committed to democracy work against it by granting those opponents any kind of legitimacy. It's overstating it, but if you're arguing for the importance of allowing Nazis to participate in the democratic process, you're betraying democracy. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but seeing so many dopes online smugly asserting that we have to respect Nazis' right to speech and all that just shows how poorly they understand the principles of democracy and/or what Nazis want.
Exactly.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑24 Aug 2017, 5:09pmWell, leaving aside my pacifism, this idea that all views need to be respected is so goddamned dumb and, quite ironically, contrary to democratic thought. One of the key, defining qualities of liberal democracy is the idea of reciprocity. All parties are committed to the idea of democracy and settlement of political questions are done without vengeance, that the victors still respect the rights of losers to continue to participate and perhaps succeed later on or on different questions. It's about an open and mutually supportive process. If you don't sign on to that, you have no claim to that respect and protection in return. Nazis do not believe in liberal democracy—their desire is to replace it with a racialized totalitarian (or perhaps just authoritarian) state—so those committed to democracy work against it by granting those opponents any kind of legitimacy. It's overstating it, but if you're arguing for the importance of allowing Nazis to participate in the democratic process, you're betraying democracy. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but seeing so many dopes online smugly asserting that we have to respect Nazis' right to speech and all that just shows how poorly they understand the principles of democracy and/or what Nazis want.
edit: To be clear, I'm not talking about removing legal rights and protections based on ideology; this is about citizens defending and thereby empowering Nazis.
Hell, now that you've written that, I don't feel confident ruling it out.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑25 Aug 2017, 2:01pmAssuming we survive this ordeal, the books from former staffers are going to contain jaw-dropping anecdotes. Yet, we'll have no safe standard for figuring out bullshit from truth. If Priebus wrote that Trump had his bathroom stocked with toilet paper that had Obama's face on every sheet, who would feel confident in ruling that out?
My family, for the most part, is the same way except the other side of the spectrum. Pretty much any bizarre rumour you could imagine about a conservative politician, they'd buy it.Kory wrote: ↑25 Aug 2017, 4:57pmMy head would have exploded in that conversation, and I come from a family of people who take personal offense when I say that politicians over a certain age should not be in office, and who simply reply with "you're full of crap" when they've exhausted their already limited debating skills.