Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Mar 02 10:31:15 PST 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / Of Nazis and men
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 04:28:33
Seb
"And the latter two are particularly offensive."

You forgot to add IMO or "to me". You have not found an objective state of offensiveness, these are subjective experiences. There is nothing objective about being bothered by the stupid things people say. What I am doing right now, for instance, is a choice. I choose to be offended into action by the stupid thing you wrote.

""you are a Nazi", another thing to say "you are treating me like the Nazis treated Jews". One is a statement about you; the other is a statement about you, me, and Holocaust survivors. And the latter two are particularly offensive."

The instance you mention Nazis, I (and everyone that isn't a holocaust denier) think about the holocaust, since the holocaust is the only characteristics that distinguishes "Nazi" from "French Empire" or "Macedonian Empire" or "Abbasid Caliphate", where the word carries a meaning into the 21th century. I see emaciated people behind fences in stripped clothing. You don't? Do you know how many young men and boys that had to die to defeat the very real Nazi enemy, that you are comparing to your pissant foes? You should show respect and dignity for those surviving veterans and the victims they saved from the evil clutched of the Nazis. Like I said seb, a failure of imagination, and it really doesn’t require that much.

Anyways. you are not the arbiter of the meaning words carry, and clearly not even equipped to evaluate the meaning words carry.You may not understand this, but the things are doing and saying in this thread, provides cover for all kinds of holocaust denial and specifically on the left, anti semitism. Which the left is full of.

But, I think you should be free to do it. Just remember I am keeping tabs, we all are. There will be costs and interest accrued further down the road.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 04:30:51
Jergul
large member
Tue Feb 16 04:06:08
Nimi
It matters because it underlines that its just meaningless blustering hyperbole.

Sure, but I have already said things to that effect and then some, about frivolous or “hyperbolic” usage of “Nazi”. How many times have you explained this to people on the left? The people who most frequently use hyperbolic nazi analogies to describe their political opponent.

I can’t think of a single time you have said anything to the effect of what you are saying now. And we have talked Nazis and been very topical.

Everything she wrote can be found on left wing accounts. So, I am really interested in what precipitated this new insight about nazi hyperbole?

This all feels like that period when I “taunted” you with “death to socialism” and “socialism is evil”. The joke was, that it was a mirroring of slogans found on banners May 1st. Why would you be bothered by something you thought was ok when the banners were deep red? You agreed it was stupid, "capitalism is a tool" you said, we both agree on that. Yet until I wrote “death to socialism” I get the feeling, it didn’t bother you or was even something you had thought about.
Rugian
Member
Tue Feb 16 04:37:26
Seb is just making up completely arbitrary and subjective distinctions.

200 posts in, and I still have zero idea what his rationale is for saying that comparing someone to a Jew killer is acceptable discourse but comparing them to a Jewish victim is not.

The fact is that he realized he got caught giving a biased reaction, and because he's literally incapable of ever taking an L and admitting his initial instinct was wrong, we have to have three threads devoted to his insane logic about how Insulting Comparison XXXXXX is not as bad as Insulting Comparison XXXXXY.

Take. The. L. Seb.
jergul
large member
Tue Feb 16 04:40:11
Nimi
What are you on about now? I was supporting your position. The actor's tweet about Nazism was nothing to take seriously and was certainly not grounds for dismissal if viewed in isolation.

Ie I don't think she was fired for that tweet alone.
habebe
Member
Tue Feb 16 04:48:40
,200 posts in, and I still have zero idea what his rationale is for saying that comparing someone to a Jew killer is acceptable discourse but comparing them to a Jewish victim is not."

Yeah, that's a pretty good summary.

Jergul, Evidence suggests she was fired for being a Republican, so your correct, she wasnt fired for that tweet alone.
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 04:51:50
Nim:

No, not to me - to quite a lot of people.

Trivializing the holocaust always provokes a large backlash from various campaign organizations etc because of the role that holocaust denial plays in modern anti-sematism.

If you haven't noticed this, you haven't been paying attention.

"since the holocaust is the only characteristics that distinguishes "Nazi" from "French Empire""

That is not particularly accurate: the NAZIs were far more totalitarian across the board than the French empire, and the cult of personality around their leader far more pervasive. The French Empire did not wish for the French Empire to be the overriding organizing principle for the day to day lives of it's subjects in the way that the NAZI regime sought to monopolise the thoughts of it's subjects. It, and Sovietism, stand out beyond other European Empires not just in the scale of their cruelty, but the scale of their ambition to control every facet of human life.

When you say Nazi's the first thing that comes to mind actually is columns of black uniformed soldiers jackbooting past a demagogue, with red flags everywhere, while crowds of identikit, commoditized citizens cheer madly on.

There is more to NAZIism than the holocaust. When we say someone is a Grammar Nazi, we don't mean that by being pedantic about grammar, they are persecuting us as the Jews were persecuted. We mean they are being needlessly and oppressively controlling. When we say someone is a "Little Hittler", we do not mean that he designs to liquidate us, we mean they are preening, self absorbed and using their powers in a dictatorial way to control our behavior.

To give two examples.

Then there is the fact that they were the opposition in the first total war of the modern era. WWI largely took place on battlefields with the majority of casualties being uniformed soldiers - the kinds of wholesale destruction from air raids etc. brought a new level of horror to western citizens consciousness.

"Anyways. you are not the arbiter of the meaning words carry,"
Says the man who just arbitrated on the meaning of words...

Neverthless, the meaning of a sentence is clear:

It is one thing to accuse someone of being a NAZI - i.e. they are carrying NAZI symbols.

It is another thing to accuse someone of being like a NAZI

It is another thing to say that you are persecuted like the Jews.

This is a simple objective fact, and as I have demonstrated - even if you do accuse someone of being a NAZI, even if you think it must necessarily imply the existince of a group analogous to the Jews and being treated as such, because that group is not identifiable and their treatment is not identifiable to be compared to the holocaust, it is not the same as e.g. complaining that being hounded off of twitter or whatever it is Gina Carrano imagines is happening to Republicans, is equivalent to Kristalnacht.

Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 04:52:58
Nim:

"Sure, but I have already said things to that effect and then some, about frivolous or “hyperbolic” usage of “Nazi”. How many times have you explained this to people on the left? The people who most frequently use hyperbolic nazi analogies to describe their political opponent."

As opposed to Soviet, and Communist - which are only ever rarely heard...
Rugian
Member
Tue Feb 16 05:00:07
Calling someone a Nazi is calling them a perpetrator of mass murder. Its that simple. That's what distinguishes the Nazis from everyone else; that's what history remembers them for.

If you simply wanted to compare a conservative voter to an authoritarian group, you could call them a Fascist or a Falangist.

Using the Nazi comparison, on the other hand, deliberately evokes images of the Holocaust. Nazism and the Holocaust are inseparable in the public consciousness.

The two terms cannot be distinguished in terms of offensiveness.
Rugian
Member
Tue Feb 16 05:00:07
Calling someone a Nazi is calling them a perpetrator of mass murder. Its that simple. That's what distinguishes the Nazis from everyone else; that's what history remembers them for.

If you simply wanted to compare a conservative voter to an authoritarian group, you could call them a Fascist or a Falangist.

Using the Nazi comparison, on the other hand, deliberately evokes images of the Holocaust. Nazism and the Holocaust are inseparable in the public consciousness.

The two terms cannot be distinguished in terms of offensiveness.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 05:05:03
Jergul
I have no idea, but it feels like you are arguing with me. I already agreed that in the old thread, and you kept writting and I was searching and grasping after the "argument". If there is none, I am happy to be late to the party :)
habebe
Member
Tue Feb 16 05:06:20
Seb, Communist, yes. The term Soviet doesn't get thrown around nearly as frequently as Nazi or Commie.

That said Commie is MUCH larger group than Nazi which is more comparable to Nazi being a specific group. Literally pushing 30% of the worlds population is communist.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 05:22:58
Seb
"No, not to me - to quite a lot of people."

I never you thought, you alone "reasoned" this way.

"Trivializing the holocaust"

You should stop providing cover for people who do this, if it bothers you. Your small part in the big machinery.

"That is not particularly accurate: the NAZIs were far more totalitarian across the board than the French empire, and the cult of personality around their leader far more pervasive."

Only because technology facilitated it. We can also point to the unique aspect of the 20th century ideology based political movement that was the Nazis etc. etc. I am sure there are many unique and distinguishing carachterstics about the "Confederate states", but the reality is, without the holocaust, the word wouldn't be The Word.

"When you say Nazi's the first thing that comes to mind actually is columns of black uniformed soldiers jackbooting past a demagogue"

It is sweet that you explain this, but unlike you I came into this understanding the subjective sense making apparatus (our brain) that provides meaning to words. These explanations are redundant. The basis of my argument IS the subjectivity in which meaning emerges. It isn't arbitrary, but also not constrained by the articifical boundaries you have constructed.

"There is more to NAZIism than the holocaust"

There is more to the civil war than slavery. There is the question of state's rights and all kinds of nuances. Yet, Godwins law among the lay people of social media, is not a concept because of all the technical details of the Nazi organization.

You know this, but here you are trying to convince us, that the defining aspect of Nazism wasn't the holocaust and anti-semitism. Just so you can keep your pacifier.

And now you are doing exactly what you were worried about, providing cover for all kinds of holocaust denial. The amazing thing, is that this is exactly what they (holocaust deniers) do seb, they dive into a bunch of details that are immaterial or just outright fabricated. I know, this isn't your goal, but this is the length you, an educated and intelligent person, with a basic moral foundation is willing to go just to keep using "Nazi". That is the power of the word, it corrupts.

Nice.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 05:43:05
Seb
"As opposed to Soviet, and Communist - which are only ever rarely heard…"

Rarer for sure and relatively recent phenomena, reactive to the fact that the left never dealt with the crazy people among them. They mostly want to forget about it. So, the victims of the communists, unlike the Nazis, didn't get SHIT. How many movies are there about the crimes of the Nazis? A million? How many are there about the victims of the communists, 5? It took until 90's and Schindler's list Before a nazi that wasn't totally evil made it to the screen. Too soon for 50 years.

Yes, indeed, something can be said about the way the western world has dealt and not dealt with the crimes of the past century. I think I have already said it, several times.

So yes, people need to have "Communist" and their victims shoved in your faces, until they throughly, like Nazism, deal with in. Should I call you "communists", maybe not, but the reality is that communist does not carry the same meaning and "burden" as Nazi, does it? Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

I support you, if the goal is to de-nazify/communistify political discourse.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 06:08:44
"When we say someone is a "Little Hittler""

You, not we. Do _we_ need to have a long discussion about "meaning" and words again?

"Neverthless, the meaning of a sentence is clear:"

The grammatic "meaning" of the sentence is clear and an objective state of "English". The meaning of "Nazi" is subjective (to a degree), because Nazi, as you explain, is a big topic. None of the peaks of Nazism, is higher than the holocaust, because of the pain and suffering, because of all the pictures. We don't disagree on that. You are disagreeing with *my* first mental association, my subjective experience/memory. Which is a Product of my sensibilities and emotions. And yes, the pictures of those "skeltons" behind fences is etched in my brain, pictured of people being loaded into trucks and dumped into holes. Fucking Nazis.

When I was a kid, there was a campaign here in Swedish schools about the holocaust. Survivors came to our schools and talked. I remember this one guy, 40 years later, his voice still cracked when he remembered "the screaming of children".

Your entire line of argument, that "Calling people Nazis is different", is an assault on that pain for many people. You are diminishing the crime of the criminals, by hurling their name on people who at best are authoritarian, despots, jackbooted thugs. We already have many words for the thing you are want to describe.
Habebe
Member
Tue Feb 16 06:23:54
Nimi, I had a substitute teacher nicknamed Lil Hitler. Mrs Armstrong. She was old enough to have taught my mother and then me later on. She was like 4'9 , strict and at least for my time in school told us things that were racially innapropriate.

Such as Mexicans having "hot blood" and being feisty....it was amusing to us.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 06:28:43
If I can summarize this, if that is even possible.

What we are offended by and hurts our feelings, is a subjective process. There are actual constraints to this, situations where we all would tell a person "the Nazis had nothing to do with the Babylonian empire" constraints of that vein. There is nothing unreasonable in primarily associating "Nazi" with the holocaust. The unreasonable thing is to say there is something "objective and qualitative" that makes that wrong. At this Point, where the rubber meet the road, the grammatic and qualitative differences between talking about the victims or aggressor is completely irrelevant. Especially irrelevant when you, like I, know tha,t reliably people do think about the holocaust when you mention Nazis.

You are arbitrating what words can and cannot mean. Complex words with many layers, involving historical events, people, victims and agressors, forming a rich tapestry of misery, pain and death. To what end I could ask, but there simply is no answer where I could support your position, because it offends me deeply. I can't Control, what I can control is not writting to your employeer to get you fired for offending me. I will do that.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 07:12:07
"Nimi, I had a substitute teacher nicknamed Lil Hitler."

There is a lil Hitler, in every school, ours was the woodshop teacher! A man who worked with hard and square pieces of wood, that used to be trees that were alive. A stern man from another era, but really he just was very serious about making sure we didn't dismember each other.

I think the point you raise goes to the core of why this is stupid. These are the shallow "analysis" and associations children make, because they don't know any better.
Habebe
Member
Tue Feb 16 07:23:55
Yeah, to clarify, I was just throwing an easter egg of my HS life out there entirley seperate from the conversation other than Mrs. Armstrong being lil Hitler.
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 07:50:25
Nim:

Are you seriously suggesting that calling people caring a swastika and other neo Nazi emblems and wearing a t-shirt saying 6MWE a nazi is trivialising the Holocaust?
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 07:55:20
"The basis of my argument IS the subjectivity in which meaning emerges"

No. You have confused our positions entirely. You are arguing that any accusation of being a NAZI must trivialise the Holocaust because objectively, to accuse someone of being or like a NAZI is equivalent to saying they are carrying out the Holocaust.

I am arguing that you only trivialise the Holocaust if you explicitly do so.

If the association between Nazis and Holocaust is subjective - as you now assert is your position - it cannot be argued that to equate someone to a NAZI is equivalent to trivialising the Holocaust.

Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 07:56:33
"You, not we"
Do you imagine I invented the well known idioms "little Hitler" and "grammar Nazi"?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 07:58:49
I think it was a relevant point you made, if you disagree you can fuck off!
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 07:59:04
This is what I mean by pointless, sterile semantic arguments.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 08:18:49
Seb
"Are you seriously suggesting that calling people caring a swastika and other neo Nazi emblems and wearing a t-shirt saying 6MWE a nazi is trivialising the Holocaust?"

"Are you seriously" followed by something you already once raised in the other thread and that I answered in detail. Consult the old thread.

"You are arguing that any accusation of being a NAZI must trivialise the Holocaust because objectively"

lol, "objectively", when I specifically explained what we are offended is a subjective. The same sentiment I tried to convey to you when we talked about racism. You on the other hand deny the subjectivity.

The offense taking, I accept as the premise of my argument is in the brain of the observer. You on the other hand are telling me it is different, there are "objective and qualitative" differences that invalidates the offence holocaust survivors can take when people throw around "Nazi" where it doesn't belong.

"to accuse someone of being or like a NAZI is equivalent to saying they are carrying out the Holocaust."

That could be >one< plausible way to be offensive, yes. Or as I explained you are diminishing the criminal and their crimes, just to score points in a political discussion. Does that really begger belief? Is that such a bitter pill to swallow?

"it cannot be argued that to equate someone to a NAZI is equivalent to trivialising the Holocaust."

I, unlike you, have not argued about anything being objective, I have since the first post said it is SUBJECTIVE. Which in a wierd about way you are now agreeing with, by mirroring back what I said and accuse me of not agreeing with it.

My brain hurts seb.

You can't be this stupid and poor at reading and comprehending, but it would explain the difficulty you have with the meaning of words and the total butcher job you did retelling that tweet.
Habebe
Member
Tue Feb 16 08:26:12
"Are you seriously suggesting that calling people caring a swastika and other neo Nazi emblems and wearing a t-shirt saying 6MWE a nazi is trivialising the Holocaust?"

I cant speak for Nim. But my point on thus was that a tiny hand full of people(4? 5?) with such symbols does not represent the 75 million Trump voters.

The old lewder of the UK fucked a dead pig , but we wouldnt say its the necrophiliac/bestiality party.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 08:30:24
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 07:56:33
"You, not we"
Do you imagine I invented the well known idioms "little Hitler" and "grammar Nazi"?

This discussion isn't about what you invented though, it is about the words we use. To my knowledge most of the words I use were invented by other people. The ones that I invented (quite a few actually, I like to make novel noises) are only circulating in my house.
Habebe
Member
Tue Feb 16 08:33:54
I take credit for Mayn't.

Ive argued this with English teachers and either they gave up on me or I was vindicated.Either way I count it as a win.

You can

You can not

You can't

The same goes for will not, do not etc.

Why not may not?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 08:42:14
Whyn't, indeed.

There is a funny and relevant Carlin bit about this, Carlin loved picking apart expressions and words.

"Tell us, in your own words"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoJI1p7cHhc

Habebe
Member
Tue Feb 16 08:57:57
Carlin was the GOAT and word play and language.

Surprisingly Gallagher had a good one about commas.But I javnt seen it in 20 years.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 08:58:08
"Are you seriously suggesting that calling people caring a swastika and other neo Nazi emblems and wearing a t-shirt saying 6MWE a nazi is trivialising the Holocaust?"

Habeb
Seb mentioned this in the other thread and I said:

"I am sure that are actual cases where calling people Nazis, isn’t a falsehood or close enough to the truth where it wouldn’t be problematic, but you used blanked statement about “calling your opponents Nazis is different…” and what I understand as a principle argument about “denigrating suffering” via false equivalencies to “pissant” worries. I think we both agree, there are many many instances where this isn’t the case, i.e calling an opponent Nazi is precisely denigrating the suffering those that suffered at their hands by comparing, at best a neckbeard with poor social skills, to Nazis."

This was part of a "wall of text", he responded with a short snarky comment, that I wouldn't understand, and graded my semantic skills.

I find it Interesting that the point where he chose to derail to discussion, is brought up once more.
patom
Member
Tue Feb 16 09:17:18
Habebe, you can't claim mayn't as your own. I've heard that used long before you were born.
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 10:03:24
Nim:

Have you never used the term Grammar Nazi?
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 10:08:18
"You are arguing that any accusation of being a NAZI must trivialise the Holocaust because objectively"

lol, "objectively", when I specifically explained what we are offended is a subjective. The same sentiment I tried to convey to you when we talked about racism. You on the other hand deny the subjectivity."

I didn't say offend here. I said trivialise.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that to to call someone a NAZI is objectively the same as trivialising the Holocaust because the use of the term NAZI implies the Holocaust.

But then you argue meaning of "Nazi" is subjective. This is clearly self contradictory.

This isn't a matter of semantics, but the logical coherence of your argument.

Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 10:13:13
I'm not saying that calling your opponent a Nazi is subjectivy different to comparing your suffering to that of the Jews.

I'm saying they are actually objectively different.

The latter nearly always explicitly trivialises the Holocaust; whereas the former requires that the specific way that the opponent is said to be like a Nazi is in perpetrating an event that is likened to the Holocaust; rather than other features of the regime such as its verbal totalitarian. And I have provided you with two examples where Nazi is referenced in widely used idioms where the analogy is clearly not about the Holocaust.

Habebe
Member
Tue Feb 16 10:50:20
Patom, At the very least I I dependantly invented it.

Nimatzo, I actually quite enjoy Seb.However he does have a few irritating "debate techniques" such as walls of texts that ramble on well off the topic at hand, ignoring points where he is clearly wrong or mistaken and other times being generally dismissive to avoid a topic where to me atleast it seems he cant properly defend his statements.

This is where I'll give Jergul a bit of credit. He will just admit he fucked up if he did instead of doubling down if he clearly is wrong.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Feb 16 11:05:13
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 10:03:24
Nim:

Have you never used the term Grammar Nazi?

I don't know that I have, but my primary language is Swedish, and in Swedish it's differently worded, we say "språkfascist" (language fascist) but a better 1to1 translation would be "grammar fascist". But let's assume that I have. This is going to be good :)

"I didn't say offend here. I said trivialise."

You are right, but the very reason we are even having this discussion, and you and I didn't need to spend an hour calibrating our cultural sensibilities, is because "we" as a human Community universally across cultures agree that trivializing things and stuff that are important for various reasons, can be mildly "offensive". Especially things and stuff that involves someone dying. 6 million someones in thise specific case, give or take a Jew. (i'm sorry it literally wrote itself)

"Trivialize" isn't a neutral technical word in this context. Are you pretending it is? What are you doing? Are you trying to strip all the emotions out of this topic that is 90% emotions?

"NAZI is objectively the same as trivialising the Holocaust because the use of the term NAZI implies the Holocaust."

So, since I am not pretending "trivialize" isn't viewed as offensive in this context, the answer is yes. Objectively you are "trivializing" the pain and suffering, fairly directly by comparing their molestors with your "enemies", in the political sandbox. Boo hoo they wan't to lower taxes and cut funding to Community programs. FUCKING NAZIS! Oh no, that guy wants to lower Immigration. FUCKING NAZI! Jordan Peterson? Nazi. Steven Crowder? Nazi. Trump? Nazi? Boris Johnson? Clearly a Nazi, that is even a Nazi name. Nazis to the left of them, nazis to the right of them.. we all know how it goes.

This is ridiculous seb.
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 11:17:03
Nim:

And when you did, did you have in mind that you were being oppressed like the Jews, or merely that the person in question is being an overly controlling oppressor?

Also if you have used the term, why quibble so much about the use of the term "we" rather than, say, "one"?

I'm not now clear if you are arguing that "trivialising" is subjective. Can I take it for granted that, while fuzzy at the edges, that we agree - objectively - there's nothing in the treatment of republicans that compares on any metric you chose to define to the treatment of the Jews by NAZIs?

Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 11:27:54
The things people tend to get called Nazi for are things that border on or explicitly are based on:
Theories of racial hierarchy
Classifying peoples intrinsic worth according to their assumed physical or racial attributes
Totalitarian, nationalistic, anti-democratic politics
Inhumane treatment of ethnic minorities
Carrying actual Nazi paraphernalia, chanting "Jews will not replace us" in torchlit parades

People don't get called Nazi for cutting community programs. They called Nazi when it is suspected that they don't want to control immigration but rather they want to discriminate against a particular group that they keep suggesting is inferior.

On the right we often see far more aggressive rhetoric. It is routine for the mainstream right politicians to accuse their opponents as communist, traitors etc and we only need to see the madness about paedophile, murderer etc. that's been attached to e.g. the Clintons.

That said, again, objectively, it is not the case that accusing person A of being a Nazi implies the treatment of person B by the actual NAZIs was less serious than it was. And that's obvious if you believe the connotations of what it means to be a Nazi is subjective, as you have argued. It is certainly offensive, but differently so.


TJ
Member
Tue Feb 16 11:42:11
There are proper and improper ways to apply Nazi and nazi. Both incite emotion. One is real and one is similar behavior. A mind captured by emotion is at its weakest state.

Nuances are important. Having gone through the actual experience is the peak of authentic emotion. Not semantics, context does allow the quality or fact that makes one thing different from another.
Seb
Member
Tue Feb 16 15:22:03
Another thought:

I gather now that the thing Pedro wassname published was a picture of the kids held in the border detention centers in cages under inhumane conditions, juxtaposed with pictures of a concentration camp.

Does this trivialize the holocaust?

I think a strong argument could be made that forced - in some cases permanent - separation of children from their parents, and the strong racial element to it puts it on the spectrum, albeit a long way from, the holocaust. It's certainly the kind of the thing the NAZI's totally would have been doing in the 1930s if the context made it relevant policy for them to adopt.

I'll firstly start by saying that on no way is any treatment of republicans by democrats equivalent to either of the above, so Gina Carano's comment remains egregious in comparison.

But this does highlight another reason, I suspect, why NAZI's are the go to hyperbolic analogy.

By virtue of being so specifically extreme in their totalitarian and racial policies, they provide the other side of a dichotomy from typical European (and I include the US in that) behavior towards "lesser races" that had, until that point, been lacking. Mainstream thought until that point had been around whether exploitation and discrimination of non-white peoples could be justified (the idea they should not being pretty extreme nonsense) and just what the relevant justifications were and allowed. E.g. Britain had taken the view slavery was a no-no, but being refused the vote and subject to sweeping discriminations was pretty much "obviously" ok.

It is certainly true that if you want to look for a European country that has done shit like the immigration policies the US has engaged in of late in terms of the cruel and inhumane treatment, the more apposite comparison is to any number of European empires who were doing similar stuff with "legitimate" policy justifications that will invariably now clog up this thread.

The great benefit of the NAZIs to western civilization is that by providing such an extreme example, where basically it was ok to liquidate entire populations and do what you liked to them without any specific individual or contextual justification because they just weren't even human it was considered actively harmful to even allow them to exist.

This forced a re-examination and repudiation of uncivilized and illiberal behavior. E.g. in Britain a great deal of the post war anti-imperial movement domestically (and even within the establishment) a very clear movement away from anything that looked or felt too much like something the NAZIs might do. This was not uniform, and atrocities still happened, but whereas before they might have been, if not unremarkable, then something of mainstream - if controversial - debate in which sides had differing opinions (cf. Amritsar massacre), to something shameful but required for expediency and to be kept very secret (Kenya) because it was now uniformly established to be unjustifiable politically.

And that, I think, is why NAZI is used so often as a label, hyperbolically. They will now and for the foreseeable future always be that other side of the dichotomy.

It is our linguistic stand-in for "beyond the grounds of what ought to be accepted as civilized behavior in terms of the exercise of state authority, particularly in matters relating to either ethnic minorities or nationalist policies".
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Feb 17 06:00:43
delete last post, something terrible happened

"And when you did, did you have in mind that you were being oppressed like the Jews, or merely that the person in question is being an overly controlling oppressor?"
I didn’t, but when and if this happened, it was a very long time ago. I have seen how nazi has been used to beat people up, considering it isn’t even part of my vernacular and all the things I am saying, do you honestly think I am attached to “grammar nazi”? I am telling you that I personally do not

I still think “grammar fascist” is better.

"Also if you have used the term, why quibble so much about the use of the term "we" rather than, say, "one"?"

Because I feel I must constantly remind you that the subjective experiences you are having are neither objective nor universal applicable through other means. "we" think differently, “we” are offended by different things, “we” experience the exact same events and reach different conclusion and, there is nothing “objectively” wrong with this, because there are many topics and issues that simply do not have objective answers. For instance, is there an objectively better way of dealing with grief? Is there an objective position of dignity? Which is what we are essentially talking about.

"I'm not now clear if you are arguing that "trivialising" is subjective."

What is and isn't trivializing, of something *I* thinks is important, is subjective.


“that we agree - objectively - there's nothing in the treatment of republicans that compares on any metric you chose to define to the treatment of the Jews by NAZIs?”

Nothing, no perceived similarities? Contentious, but none? My position is that these comparisons almost always are hyperbolic and exaggerated, but like all exaggerations they have some truth in them. Your falsely constructed retelling of the tweet even, I mean people are being booted off social media, “cancelled” and fired from their jobs. Jews were indeed “cancelled” and lost their livelihoods. There is NOTHING that compares? Is it a disservice to reality and history? Yes. My positions here on this woman’s plight, is basically the same as with the worries of feminists and BLM. Are the problems? Yes. Are you living in hell? Bitch please…

"The things people tend to get called Nazi for are things that border on or explicitly are based on:"


WTB told me "You're a nazi and you don't even know it". You honestly think that is a *rare* example of how "Nazi" is used today? Your understanding of what is going on in the real world is incomplete.
And I have covered this, there are instances of valid comparisons to Nazis, but there are far more comparisons that does _no one_ justice.

“People don't get called Nazi for cutting community programs.”

Is that a challenge? Because I just threw that one out there symbolic for, “trivial shit”.

“Does this trivialize the holocaust?”

There are GOP voting holocaust survivors. What do you think seb?

“On the right we often see far more aggressive rhetoric. It is routine for the mainstream right politicians to accuse their opponents as communist, traitors etc and we only need to see the madness about paedophile, murderer etc. that's been attached to e.g. the Clintons.”

I disagree that it is far more aggressive, there is a degree of subjectivity here, as well, in what we perceive as threatening. But in general, I agree with you that the aggressive rhetoric is not in any shape or form exclusive to Liberals. Everything I am saying pertains to human nature and is universal as far as I can see. Everyone and their mother try to use the holocaust and nazis to suit their purpose, just that liberals have been doing this for far longer, for historical reasons. There is a long history of Nazifying your opponents on the left.

“I'll firstly start by saying that on no way is any treatment of republicans by democrats equivalent to either of the above, so Gina Carano's comment remains egregious in comparison.”

We agree. You then spend quite a of the post, insinuating that when democrats do it to republicans it isn’t the same thing, because of what amounts to, Nazis were nominally conservative, rightwing and authoritarian, and the people are conservative, rightwing and authoritarian are usually in the GOP. Why not fascist? Why not jack booted thugs? Because those things have no holocaust, i.e a very visceral threat that transcends the left and right debate. You may disagree with me on immigration but genocide? Well then you truly are a Nazi. If I can only convince you that the guy you voted for is evil, by showing he is basically Hitler, you will come around on the immigration policy. Or so it goes..

“US has engaged in of late in terms of the cruel and inhumane treatment”

I am not aware of any details about this, than what was reported by the media that hated everything Trump did. So notwithstanding the fact that I have not made any research, I am 100% certain that your retelling of it has stripped it of all nuance, or outright fabricated important “details”, like Carrano’s tweet, that it is as close a description of reality, as saying, the moon sort of looks like cheese, therefor it must be “cheeselike”.

“The great benefit of the NAZIs to western civilization is that by providing such an extreme example, where basically it was ok to liquidate entire populations and do what you liked to them without any specific individual or contextual justification because they just weren't even human it was considered actively harmful to even allow them to exist.”

I disagree that it was without contextual justification, there was plenty of justification rooted in Jewish domination of important parts of society, the blame for losing ww1 etc. a lot of propaganda and a thousand years of anti-semitism in Europe. Germans didn’t wake up one day and without justification or reason start rounding up the “undesirables”. You touch on this with the hierarchy of races, but don’t seem to fully understand the ramification of such a hierarchy and where it comes from? This is an inaccuracy that is relevant because I have accused you of not really understanding “Nazi”. And if you don’t understand the how and why, then you don’t really understand the “what” in its’ full glory and why (many) people associate it with industrial scale genocide.

You see boots marching, I see people in boots doing this:

http://www.../ukraine/images/expo1_01_l.jpg

That is a perfectly reasonable visual association to make when you hear “Nazi”. Do you disagree?

“And that, I think, is why NAZI is used so often as a label, hyperbolically. They will now and for the foreseeable future always be that other side of the dichotomy.”

That is the great benefit of the holocaust for the western world, it serves as the other side of the dichotomy to a “good life”. And when people go through the trials and tribulation that is their pissant woes, because the ultimate suffering serves as such a stark contrast to happiness, they use it in this hyperbolic way to convey strong feelings of despair or defiance.

Hopefully you are now a bit more empathetic to the average Joe and Jane’s suffering as they log it on social media, like you are about the frustration of your political allies in dealing with your common foes.
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 17 07:23:35
Nim:

"Because I feel I must constantly remind you that the subjective experiences you are having are neither objective nor universal applicable through other means"

Do you think many people who uses either idiom is thinking specifically about the Holocaust, or other aspects of NAZIism?
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 17 10:18:17
Nim:

"You see boots marching, I see people in boots doing this:"

Indeed, so we both agree the association between NAZIs and the Holocaust is subjective. It is not necessarily the case that to be accused of being a NAZI necessitates being accused of support for genocide. Cf. Grammar NAZI.

How is this different from my original point here: accusing someone of being a NAZI does not, objectively, trivialise the Holocaust, whereas explicitly comparing the treatment of republicans by democrats to the treatment of the Jews by NAZIs objectively does.
TJ
Member
Wed Feb 17 12:21:05
Who has committed mass genocide, waged war on the world, tried to create a master race? We should not disregard the deaths of millions of people by labeling each other as Nazis simply because of differences in political posture that doesn't reflect the above mentioned circumstances.

As our political climate becomes less about tolerance the divide increases. Labeling perpetuates negative responses, witch is its purpose. Obviously it isn't the path toward any sense of unity. It’s important to remember the history behind what is being expressed.

The extreme left and right should not be setting the narratives that will lead to what is feared the most by the most. All the fake morality will catch us on a flat plain in a monstrous tornado when our own wind is sounding the alarm and being ignored.

Nazi is a term purposely applied to denigrate with a specific intent and increases the divide. It isn't because there is an absence of alternative vocabulary. Repetitively poor behavior is what kills.
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 17 15:17:23
TJ:

Arguably, Communists - who have done things every bit as bad as the NAZIs - and which has been a frequent term of abuse thrown by the western right against the western left since the very beginning of the cold war.

And this does not avoid the fact that there undeniably neo nazi groups that the leader of the republican party - and hence the republican party - have actively courted over the last 4 years.

We absolutely should call people who wander around with t-shirts saying 6MWNE and brandishing swastika flags NAZIs, the fact they are also republican supporters should not shield them from that, and the Republican party has as many questions to answer about their general tolerance of this fringe entryism into their party - exactly and more so than say, Jeremy Corbyn in the UK needed to account for the anti-semitic hard left that entered the UK Labour party.
TJ
Member
Wed Feb 17 17:03:17
Seb:

Well, I agree with your arguably communist comment with limits(exceptions).

It was the reason I said that the extreme 'ends' of the spectrum should not be encouraged to determine the narrative for either of the political postures. The bulk of left and right parties do not agree with either extreme. I think that is a fair assumption. There is too much distance between them.

Unfortunately, language can not repair blinding hatred relentlessly seeking total power, it defeats reasonable compromise. Civil criticism is the better approach.

The behavior continuing can't end well for any of us. It demonizes the entire population. If we speak like a fool we join the fool and that goes for both political parties.
The extremes fall under both umbrellas.

Anyway, this is a world for the young forging their own path and they will have to live with their collective result. It is inherent from generation to generation.
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 17 17:38:13
The hyperbole and demonisation is a symptom, not a cause of, the lack of restraint.

As an outsider, its been clear to me that the republicans have been on a trajectory for some time where they do not behave as though they consider democrats as legitimate holders of office.

Do you remember when McCain had to stop his own supporters spouting bullshit about how Obama was a traitor Muslim or whatever and that was considered as some grand and Nobel bi-partisanship rather than an obligatory act that anyone that could credibly claim to be a leader should do.

It's utterly unsurprising to me that the republicans have ended up being the party of a guy that incited an insurrection, that's for among its most vocal activists with Timothy McVeigh types and open neo fascists, and which was happy to nod and wink to the Russians, the fucking Russians of all people, to hack the opposition.

This isn't about economic politics here, its about basic integrity of politicians and adherence to the norms of democratic process.

Seb
Member
Wed Feb 17 17:41:46
And let's make no mistake, this attitude that democrats are illegitimate is mainstream in republican party. The expression of it in terms of violent action is -perhaps- a fringe (though you should note that the activists of any party are always a fringe of the core electorate of that party); but the principle is not, and violence follows logically from that principle.

If you truly believe the things mainstream republicans often say about democrats, then violent resistance is the photos course of action.

You don't need to say that Hillary Clinton or whoever is a NAZI, there are plenty of other lies that can be said that do just the same.
Habebe
Member
Wed Feb 17 17:48:36
"And let's make no mistake, this attitude that democrats are illegitimate is mainstream in republican party."

The sad state of affairs is that this is true of both parties.Collapse of the Union seems plausible.
TJ
Member
Wed Feb 17 19:30:18
Seb:

The personal assessment I provided had nothing to do with economic polices. It was all about the shameful political environment of which both parties are guilty of a lust for power.

I'm an American insider that is rightfully concerned with the hyperbole and demonization of other Americans and people in general who believe and think differently. I've demonstrated that principle consistently throughout my extensive UP history.

Since you mentioned lie just one can cost everything or nothing. Ask Clinton, Trump or any professional who has done so and been caught. You'll find the loss considerably more frequent and severe when the amount of public respect or popularity stature is small or even null.

At this point I have nothing worthy to add in this exchange.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 18 03:46:43
>>I'm not saying that calling your opponent a Nazi is subjectivy different to comparing your suffering to that of the Jews.

I'm saying they are actually objectively different.<<

The way in which they are objectively different is irrelevant to invoking a third party and their suffering. I understood this about what you were saying and responded the same, like in the first 5 posts. Now, this has become irrelevant relative to the actual tweet because it was a holocaust comparison, to set up a Nazi punch towards the Democratcs. It was in effect both sentences you set up. A behavior that your confederates engage in almost every day. Which is still something you have not provided an answer for*.

Rugian posted a very good article by a Jew (google revealed to be very serious about anti-semitism), who explains this. If you can’t accept that…

lol a few months ago we were talking about the word “rape”. Apparently “rape” can have no other, less traumatic, meaning than sexual assault that gamers can use. You told me you had retired it. A far more generic word than Nazi, without a unique place in history. You have to understand how silly you look here! I actually agreed, it is inappropriate for a police chief to say it, because CONTEXT. Context and meaning sitting in a tree…

“Do you think many people who uses either idiom is thinking specifically about the Holocaust, or other aspects of NAZIism?”

Yes, making holocaust references (like Gina did and so many leftist do) to describe your political opponents as Nazis, is practically impossible with thinking about the holocaust. The details of the tweet matter and initially I just went with what you said. The punch in her tweet is to call the Dems Nazis (this is clear if you can understand English at HS level and know history) and she does this with a holocaust reference, something that has been done to death among liberals and leftist.

“It is not necessarily the case that to be accused of being a NAZI necessitates being accused of support for genocide. Cf. Grammar NAZI.”

Dear lord. “Grammar Nazis” has a very very limited scope, it is declared right there with the word “grammar”. It relates to a very specific “Nazi” who has a strict adherence to the rules of language, often at the expense of parsing meaning (sort of what you are doing).

That is very different than directly referencing the >political< nazis (and/or the holocaust) of 1930’s Germany to describe current political “Nazis” to GET AHEAD IN POLITICS and destroy "enemies"**. Here there is actually a qualitative and objective difference, that isn’t limited by the word “grammar” or the context, in the meaning of word "Nazi". In one case it is amended to provide a context and different meaning, the other is a free floating association (i.e the listener has not been instructed or constrained by either new Words or context, to think about a SPECIFIC meaning). How do you not understand this?

Can this still offend people? See variations in human psychology.

Seb
*As leftist have beaten to death holocaust and nazi comparison to describe everyone from Boris Johnson to Ayaan Hersi Ali, almost verbatim like the tweet in question, has this bothered you? Why didn’t you speak up sooner then? Why now when it was a “political enemy” aka a “Nazi”. Well I think we have our answer, don’t we?

**This initial word you used, is quite telling of the mood and emotions with wich you are carrying yourself these days in political discourse. It is commendable that you changed the word, but the feelz that go along with that Word, they don't go away that easy. Your clinging to "Nazi" is indicative of that. You understood it was "wrong" to call your neighbors in a democracy "enemies", but apparently you don't understand that for a lot of people "Nazi" is to paint out an enemy. An adversery beyond the framework of democracy.

You don't understand this? That when you Yell "fire" (or Nazi) a bunch of people (like me) are wondering, moltov cocktails or shotgun? It turns out, it was just Boris Johnson. *sigh of relief*
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 18 03:54:55
TJ
"It was the reason I said that the extreme 'ends' of the spectrum should not be encouraged to determine the narrative for either of the political postures."

Yea, this is the whole other part of this that me and seb have not even touched, the total cost of lobbing Nazi around, on people who are not even a little Nazi like, Ayaan Hersi Ali, me and a bunch of other "house niggers". Is that OK btw, for immigrants from the middle east to call each other house niggers, because they voted for a rightwing party that want's to limit immigration?

Seb
Member
Thu Feb 18 04:18:49
Nim:

"The way in which they are objectively different is irrelevant to invoking a third party and their suffering"

That's a contradiction in terms *IF* it they are objectively different, then that difference cannot be irrelevant.

"'Do you think many people who uses either idiom is thinking specifically about the Holocaust, or other aspects of NAZIism?'

Yes, making holocaust references.."

You appear to have misunderstood the question I posed and answered an entirely different question. What I asked was whether users of either idiom, "Grammar NAZI", or "Little Hitler", have in mind the Holocaust, or other aspects of NAZIism.

The point I'm making here is simple: it is indeed possible and indeed common to use several aspects of the NAZIs as an analogy that do not touch on the Holocaust and therefore cannot - objectively - trivialise the Holocaust. "Doing a Godwin" doesn't necessarily trivialise the Holocaust.

Yet even you agree, Gina explicitly referenced the treatment of Jews. Her intent to compare the treatment of republicans to the treatment of Jews was explicit and intentional.

The political right cannot complain about Godwins law becoming a mainstream phenomenon now. It's been common long enough that Godwins observation is what, over 20 years old? And secondly because the political right uses the same heated rhetoric day in day out since pretty much the 50s, accusing their opponents as being Communists, by which they explicitly meant and intended that to be understood as Soviet sympathisers.

That said, regardless of the merits, ethics and corossiveness of this hyperbole:

1. Comparing someone to the Nazis does not necessarily trivialise the Holocaust. It may be hyperbolic, corrosive to discourse, needlessly offensive, and depending on the precise analogy, it *may* also trivialise the Holocaust, but these are distinct things that offend different people for different reasons.

2. Explicitly trivialising the Holocaust is a different kettle of fish, politically and in terms of the wider reaction of will draw, and in context of the still very real Holocaust denial movement.

3. It is undeniable that within republican activist ranks in the Trump faction there are actual honest to god NAZIs and until the republicans drive these factions out, they are tainted by association *and should be*. No mainstream party should be breaking bread with the likes of those. If someone thinks beating their opponents is more important than distancing themselves from neo NAZIs, then they've clearly decided their opponents are worse than Nazis.

Strangely, on this point, you are silent.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 18 06:04:48
“That's a contradiction in terms *IF* it they are objectively different, then that difference cannot be irrelevant.”

They are objectively the same side of a coin. Because you don’t understand context is very important for meaning. Because you think an unamended “Nazi” used in the context of political discourse is very different. You think there are very strict laws of “reason” and logic” here (which I agree they are there to govern language) but that are irrelevant to humans feeling offended as you trivialize, their suffering or their mortal enemy.

“You appear to have misunderstood the question I posed and answered an entirely different question. What I asked was whether users of either idiom, "Grammar NAZI", or "Little Hitler", have in mind the Holocaust, or other aspects of NAZIism.”

I did not, I answer both as it related to the specific case and in general as it relates to “grammar nazi”.

“it is indeed possible and indeed common to use several aspects of the NAZIs as an analogy that do not touch on the Holocaust and therefore cannot - objectively - trivialise the Holocaust. "Doing a Godwin" doesn't necessarily trivialise the Holocaust.”

And I answered you, see my answer on “grammar nazi”.

“Yet even you agree, Gina explicitly referenced the treatment of Jews.”

I have argued option A and B are not different in their effect, so I have no idea why you are surprised, that I would remain consistent, when I finally read the tweet. The details are important, she uses the holocaust references to swing at the Dems, they are the ones responsible for Nazi tactics. She perfectly captures in 1 tweet how holocaust references and pointing out nazis or the reverse, when (exclusively) liberals point to “Nazi”s, insinuating there will be a holocaust, on immigrants at the border, or muslims or Jews again, go hand in hand.

My only shock is how wholly underwhelming the tweet was as far as holocaust refences goes, and how unoriginal it was compared to what the people you regularly support have done. Many things are going on here seb, none of them related to an inconsistency on my part.


I still think referencing holocaust and Nazis are almost always exaggerations, and the way in which people use them, both can plausible be perceived as diminishing the crime and suffering. Which we are only talking about as “bad”, because we are not lizards and have emotions. You then spend quite a lot of time trying to divorce the emotions that are nested in “Nazi”. You are trying to take the emotional edge out of the word. Which, ironically, wouldn’t be the word it is without all those emotions. This the part that doesn’t seem to get passed your “they are objectively different”. You turn into a lizard when it suits you.

“Comparing someone to the Nazis does not necessarily trivialise the Holocaust.”

And I said, *I* along with many other things it does, holocaust survivors. You are strangely silent regarding these voices.

“1. Comparing someone to the Nazis does not necessarily trivialise the Holocaust.”
Reliably is the word I would use, (necessarily is an absolut term that fails to capture reality), because objectively you are relying on the subjective sense making apparatus (human brain) and without direction and constraints (grammar + nazi) you can objectively predict (with statistics) that some portion of the public will reliably think about the holocaust and feel offended. Clear enough?

“2. Explicitly trivialising the Holocaust is a different kettle of fish, politically and in terms of the wider reaction of will draw, and in context of the still very real Holocaust denial movement.”

See nr 1. Some portion of people will reliably not be offended and think it is positive that people can on a personal level identify with a trauma they never experienced, from 70+ years ago. There is nothing objective about being offended. You need to accept layers of value hierarchies, that emerged in human brains to be offended by anything. Some of these value hierarchies are almost universal, others are cultural and some are sub-cultural. The only clear thing is that we have wildly different value hierarchies.

“3. It is undeniable that within republican activist ranks in the Trump faction”

Which to a wise person would signal a need for a HIGHER level of precision with words, not less. This is akin to pointing to smoke stacks and yell fire, when there are actual pyromanics running around. And in that light using “Nazi” where it doesn’t belong, actually has a higher cost to society. There are the victims of the actual nazis, the person you are defaming and the actual Nazis you obscure and provide cover for, with your hyperbole.

I know you understand everything I am saying, perfectly. This is an exercise in futility.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 18 06:49:12
Nim:

". Because you don’t understand context is very important for meaning"

My entire argument depends on context. I'm sorry but I really think the issue here is you are just spouting self aggrandising patronising bollocks. Address the text in front of you.

If a Holocaust survivor feels offended at any invocation or analogy drawn with respect to the NAZI trivialises the Holocaust, even when the analogy doesn't explicitly touch on the Holocaust, that's subjective, not objective.

This is different from an explicit comparison to the Jews experience in the Holocaust that - on any metric - does not hold up, that's objectively trivialising the Holocaust.

The distinction between objective and subjective is critical here, it is the heart of what we are arguing about and you don't seem to understand that at all.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 18 06:54:33
The hurdle I see, is that you only see as valid, the perspective of the person who is being crushed under their trauma, and here Gina is, shitting on that trauma. You do not think about the brave and defiant people who stood up to the Nazis, people marked for extermination even. If you can understand that perspective, you can see how calling Boris Johnson “Nazi” diminishes what they were up against and the sacrifices they had to make. I have a natural proclivity for the defiant people who take the trauma and go and hide in the woods and conduct guerrilla warfare. The other perspectives came with age.

This is isn’t the only topic, you have in the past repeatedly failed to see the perspective of males as related to gender equality. The common denominator in the topics, is the way in which people deal with trauma, offence and adversity. Very simply you can say sadness and anger are the two primary ways of dealing with trauma. Giving the illusion of underlying qualitative differences in what you as a fellow human should care about, their pain. Crying (here symbol for sadness) is less ambiguous than anger, many people are thus fooled about what is actually going in.

It pipes in directly to the current topic. People whose trauma you diminish you are hurting, because it is implied the pain is still there, peoples whose mortal enemy you are diminishing will get angry, because those enemies are still here. It all goes back to what the trauma meant to these people and how they managed to survive it. And that is subjective.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 18 07:03:26
"My entire argument depends on context."

It's the same context you fool. The cultur war raging on social media where are all these "Nazi" and "holocaust" references are raging, it is the most corrosive context relating to the actual historical events, politics! The Nazis were a political party, remember?

You then introduce "grammer nazi" something with a completely different meaning and context (person anal about grammer). You have clearly shown you do not understand the importance of context.

"aggrandising patronising bollocks"

You cast the first stone. You judged someone for something you have probably done yourself or defended others doing, at the very leat turned a blind eye as your allies have done this. And then when I was happy just talking and figuring out your position, you got bitchy. You reap what you sow.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 18 07:23:26
“NAZI trivialises the Holocaust, even when the analogy doesn't explicitly touch on the Holocaust, that's subjective, not objective.”

And I have explained, in even greater details with your introduction of “grammar nazi”. Without instructing someone of a scope and context (which grammar nazi does), then simply calling a _political_ opponent “Nazi” will invoke any number of visuals, you and I explained what came to mind first. You understand this at a professional level because you regularly communicate with people about complex technical and regulatory issues. Right? You are leaving the sense making to the listener and that will reliably produce variation in outcome. This is not different.

And here there actually isn’t any distance between “Nazis” and “the holocaust”, (ctrl f Babylonian empire in last thread).
werewolf dictator
Member
Thu Feb 18 12:29:35
the nazis killed 6 million russians in ww2

then they killed another 6 million russians on top of that

then they killed another 6 million soviet slavs on top of that

then they killed another 6 million soviet slavs on top of that


but somehow nazi evil is almost always about the jews in english language film and media
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 18 12:38:16
Nim, your refusal to debate the clearly stated points and instead go off on tangents based on wild and unfounded assumptions about my motivations or inability to understand context, or what is subjective (despite that being my point) wastes time and words.

It's very simple point - people's trauma at imagined offences have to end somewhere - and one you yourself have often resorted to.

Hence why I have distinguished between objective and subjective. If we are beholden to entirely subjective experiences that someone may experience based on associations they may make, the only possible course of action would be widespread self censorship which is unworkable.

Thankfully, we don't need to go there, we can simply distinguish between a form of words that explicitly and deliberately trivialises the Holocaust, Vs a merely hyperbolic use of the term NAZI.

Generally, Holocaust and anti-Sematism campaign groups show more restraint than you and do not argue that merely calling someone a Nazi trivialises the Holocaust.

werewolf dictator
Member
Thu Feb 18 12:46:55
i'd rather be ruled by communists like mao or stalin than british aristocrats.. those are much bigger "nazis"

british let ~60 million indians die in famines over time of rule.. extracted lots of money while keeping india as a captive market that wasn't free to export commodities to highest international bidders.. while doing approximately zero to educate illiterate indian subjects or aiding industrialization of india in factories..

british aristocrats aren't even good to irish [who they also let starve].. or even to british commoners who they paid pittance in their factories

at least commies educate their subjects.. with stalin also industrializing ussr so 90% of nazi military killed or wounded in ww2 could be accomplished by soviets.. or mao successfully bringing medical care to rural poor with barefoot doctors..
Rugian
Member
Thu Feb 18 12:52:50
Seb's stupidity in this thread has been manifest throughout, but his use of "NAZI" as an acronym is particularly infuriating for some reason.

It's "Nazi," bro. Only been in common English usages since the 30s.
werewolf dictator
Member
Thu Feb 18 13:25:52
"the Russians, the fucking Russians of all people"

noting how it would never be acceptable to say "fucking jews" or even "fucking zionists".. even when worst nazi victims was russians
Habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 13:38:19
Well, The Soviets were scumbag rapists.
werewolf dictator
Member
Thu Feb 18 14:41:18
the soviets are accused [in cold war propaganda] of raping up to 2 million german women after ww2

meanwhile a google search recommends/spotlights 2019 rapes in usa as "406,970 women were raped or sexually assaulted while the corresponding number for men was 52,336."

this in country where 35% of black men descend from white male ancestors for obvious reasons

talking about a nation of scumbag rapists.. that would be united states americans



[also world's smallest violin for any german woman who voted/supported hitler and who actually did get raped by soviets]
obaminated
Member
Fri Feb 19 00:09:19
there is a reason that russia is viewed as villains by europe and americans arent. there may have been rapes on both sides but the vast majority was by russians, americans tend to bring their concubines home. or at least ply them with food before defiling them.
obaminated
Member
Fri Feb 19 00:15:18
i mean, study history and it is obvious. america hasnt done atrocities like russia. it simply hasnt happened. worst we did was shit in vietnam and those soldiers went to jail for it. otherwise we generally are the light in the world.

name another country that has gone to war to protect other countries. we didnt have to bail our europe from germany. we did it because it was morally right to do.

so you are welcome for giving you freedom, now go fuck yourself you emasculated pricks.
obaminated
Member
Fri Feb 19 00:19:15
last point, does russia's education system actively promote the idea that russia is a morally evil country? pretty sure russia has a good history of wiping out educators who dissent.

also, will russia ever tell the world what actually happened in chernobyl?
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 19 03:53:13
Rugian:

Idiosyncracy of Google keyboard. If you swype Nazi correctly the first time, it does it with a single capitalised N.

If it detects a different word instead, say, "back" instead, then you get offered NAZI as an alternative.

Suggest you write to Google to complain.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 19 03:57:20
Werewolf:

Russia under Putin does not have America's best interests at heart, and the republicans are generally the most hostile to Russia. Hence my utter exasperation (emphasised by expletives) that the republicans tolerated and even endorsed Trump's leveraging of Russia's cyberwarfare efforts.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 19 04:00:26
Obaminated:

Your history sucks then. America has also committed atrocities along side it's promotion of high minded ideals.

The Philippines, the various atrocities inflicted on the indigenous population of the continent etc.


jergul
large member
Fri Feb 19 04:11:16
5 million dead in Vietnam. The use of nuclear weapons on civilian populations. The willingness to use nuclear weapons to end all civilizations if certain undefined conditions are met.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 19 06:41:13
I typed up another wall of text and then I erased it, realizing the sunk cost fallacy.

This is only complicated if you make it complicated. It is a complex subject and we must at some Point rely on our adult ability to assess the framework as you say for, "people's trauma at imagined offences have to end somewhere".

You are drawing socially, emotionally, cognitively and culturally invalid deliniations. You are not being a grown up about this and instead discordant with everything else you have personified on this forum.

This is a very low hanging fruit, take it.

Nima out.
Habebe
Member
Fri Feb 19 06:49:07
The US has done plenty of horrible things. But what we did to the native Americans gets oddly poonted out.Every nation on earth pretty much has committed bad acts to conquer their territory or defend it.

Do you think the conquest of Gaul was peaceful?
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 19 10:30:53
Nim:

Sorry Nim, if a Holocaust survivor is offended because someone accuses someone else of being a NAZI without explicitly drawing an analogy to the Holocaust, that's not a good reason in my mind to avoid it. This is remarkably different to explicitly trivialising the Holocaust. I think generally the world agrees with me: we don't see Holocaust awareness campaigns focusing in on this like they do on tasteless analogies that trivialise the Holocaust.

Either way, even if you thought both were to be avoided, they are also clearly different things.


You are right that this is simple, so I've no idea why you are making it so complicated.

I also don't expect to hear you complain about trigger warnings etc. after these screeds on how we have to self censor to avoid subjective offence based on unintended associations that aren't based on the factual content.
Habebe
Member
Fri Feb 19 10:48:42
Because when someone calls you a Nazi they are referring to their stance against animal cruelty...of course.
werewolf dictator
Member
Fri Feb 19 13:18:51
"last point, does russia's education system actively promote the idea that russia is a morally evil country?"

rofl

this is from american whose country's history is
* killing off a continent of natives
* enslaving and raping blacks
* stealing land from mexicans
* killing millions in vietnam
* backing shah.. before backing saddam [and his use of wmd vs iran killing hundreds of thousands].. before sanctioning iraqi economy.. before invading iraq because saddam supposedly still had wmd [when he didn't] and thus killing off nearly a million iraqis
* backing religious nut mujahadin in afghanistan
* operation condor stuff in latin america
* doing nazi style experiments on their own people.. including mkultra stuff that would make doctor mengele blush
* aiding saudis as they blockade starving yemenis
* dropped nukes on japanese cities full of civilians.. firebombing cities also atrocities
* killed 20% of north koreans with bombing that demolishes every nk town.. according to boast of curtis lemay

_____

"also, will russia ever tell the world what actually happened in chernobyl?"

already known.. has anyone told you about americans nevada nuclear tests where fallout probably kill hundreds of thousands of their own people [100x worse fallout deaths than chernobyl].. or that castle bravo is dirtiest nuclear explosion ever.. or mention russians never used nuclear bombs vs cities like usa does

_____

"name another country that has gone to war to protect other countries."

not sure what wars america did to protect other countries but
* ww1 was because russia opposed austria-hungary invading serbia..
* russia was involved in number of wars to try and stop napoleon before france was on borders and imminent threat in 1812..
* orthodox christians arent a literal country but stuff like crimean war was largely about protecting them..
* syria recently is arguably about protecting syrians from isis as well as from al-qaeda-dominated usa-backed jihadis [although it's also about fighting islamic extremism on the front lines]

nothing special about usa claims they fight wars to protect other countries

_____

"there is a reason that russia is viewed as villains by europe"

usa is more popular among 600 million non-russian europeans.. otoh russia is much much more popular among 1.4 billion chinese who view usa as villains.. there are reasons for everything like this including usa/bernays being inventors of public relations slash modern propaganda slash manufacturing consent

and be cautious of overestimating usa support in europe.. poll of 12 nations showed majorities in all that wouldn't want to take either side in usa/russian conflict.. and 3 [greeks slovakians and austrians] more likely to want to side with russians than usa
TJ
Member
Fri Feb 19 13:43:31
Nim:

Have you read any works by R.J. Rummel? If not and interested the link provided is a good place to begin.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WSJ.ART.HTM
werewolf dictator
Member
Fri Feb 19 17:25:12
rummel is of interest but his numbers show extreme bias in trying to support theory that democratic and free people don't kill civilians

table 1 on that page shows only 831,000 killed in "democide" by "free" governments in 20th century.. during period le may alone claims to have bombed to death ~2 million koreans targeting cities and towns.. and you have usa firebombing and nuking cities in ww2.. britain firebombing germany as well.. 1943 bengal famine.. vietnam and american-philippine wars

rummel's bias also selected the most extreme and implausibly high figures for communist famines.. ascribed them to malice instead of mismanagement.. and ignored even worse economic long-term mismanagement when it happens in places like democratic india

on the last point.. despite disastrous policy of great leap forward years.. china's per capita incomes grew much faster than india's from 1950-1975.. china widened its life expectancy superiority gap by ~5 years [partly from emphasis on rural healthcare].. and china's superior emphasis on education had china ready for economic takeoff once mao was dead and better macroeconomic leadership was in place
TJ
Member
Fri Feb 19 18:03:34
WD:

Yeah, you need to pay close attention to how he organized his estimates. There is a lot of ground to cover rather than simply focusing on a single graph.

HIs biggest focus is the separation from war and democide.
werewolf dictator
Member
Fri Feb 19 19:58:23
contrasting headlines for the likes of obaminated

www.jta.org
Russia Helped 1,750,000 Jews to Escape Nazis, Says James N. Rosenberg
“Russia has saved over ten times as many Jews from Nazi extermination as all the rest of the world put together,” James N. Rosenberg, American ...


www.smithsonianmag.com
The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing ...
Nov 18, 2015 — In a long tradition of “persecuting the refugee,” the State Department and FDR claimed that Jewish immigrants could threaten national security.
werewolf dictator
Member
Fri Feb 19 22:04:59
when are usa/british going to accurately teach what happens in ww2.. like how soviets defeat nazis almost single-handedly..

or like this

stalin is opportunistic in wanting to fight powerful nazis.. wants to ally with britain and france to hold line in stopping hitler in czechoslovakia.. but brits and french don't want an alliance and poles wouldn't let soviets cross territory.. so chamberlain and french sign away defensible heavily fortified defensible border

in 1939 stalin thinks he's in no position to bear brunt of nazi onslaught and makes deal to split poland.. no doubt stalin would have attacked germany in back if britain and france bogged down german forces and left nazis vulnerable in rear.. instead british and french get blown the eff out almost instantly..

hitler later invades ussr 22 june 1941.. declares war on usa after pearl harbor

after dunkirk anglo-americans are unwilling to fight nazis on any front logistically capable of leading to the third reich's borders.. screwing around in meaningless sideshows in north africa and italy until 6 june 1944 [if left up to churchill he still wouldn't do that and would have created another meaningless sideshow front in balkans]

anglo-american bombing does little to defeat nazis since it causes limited factory damage and increases german worker morale to just work harder on armaments [some exception here is when they occasionally target german controlled oil facilities].. mostly usa/british bombing just amounts to war crimes of killing civilians

so this is why soviets defeat germany essentially single-handedly.. and even with long-delayed normandy front [that would still never ever would happen without germans bogged on eastern front].. the soviets still accounted for 90% of total ww2 germans killed and wounded.. and saved all of europe from still speaking german today.. [besides also saving 10 times more jews than rest of europe combined also]
werewolf dictator
Member
Fri Feb 19 22:08:23
* accounted for 90% of total ww2 german soldiers killed and wounded..

i don't mean to detract from usa/british killing and wounding of german civilians
obaminated
Member
Fri Feb 19 22:11:38
Russia helped people?
Fuck off. Russia imprisoned people. Russia forced entire countries to submit to it.
Russia hid the massive disaster of Chernobyl from the world.

America did bad shit. But we allow citizens to study all of it and we have given reparations.

Fuck off trying to pretend we are the same.

The only reason the ussr existed is because the german nazi empire was the bigger threat and by then we were tired of rescusing europe from itself. But we should have wiped you backwards fuckers out before you stole our blueprints to make a nuclear bomb.
werewolf dictator
Member
Fri Feb 19 22:24:42
i'm pretty sure even most conservative posters here realize you're dumb.. so no surprise you continue to post such nonsense
obaminated
Member
Fri Feb 19 22:30:36
You didnt say a word about what i said you russian stooge
werewolf dictator
Member
Fri Feb 19 22:38:14
you didn't respond to what i've said knucklehead

in nazi thread i point out things like how ussr defeat nazis virtually alone.. and how they save 10x jews than rest of europe combined.. and you are still like "dur dur dur russia never helped anyone"

you are also rude and racist and impolite using f* word so there's also that..

i'll respond to one new thing you said.. usa has been #1 in world at imprisoning people since collapse of apartheid south africa.. congratulations on being #1 at throwing people [esp blacks] in cages dipshit
werewolf dictator
Member
Sat Feb 20 00:13:36
wondering if marshall plan is most overhyped bernaysian propaganda since marketing cigarettes and bacon with eggs

"The Marshall Plan's accounting reflects that aid accounted for about 3% of the combined national income of the recipient countries between 1948 and 1951,[8] which means an increase in GDP growth of less than half a percent.[9]"

how about economic benefits of being in usa sphere of free market influence after that

per angus maddison.. average per capita gdps 1950 -> 1973

western europe.. $4578 -> $11417
eastern europe.. $2111 -> $4988

not much difference in percentage increase
werewolf dictator
Member
Sat Feb 20 05:45:30
when it comes to rape and atrocity propaganda against communists.. bbc rightly gets banned in china for this kind of journalistic malpractice

http://www...-chinese-defectors-contin.html

this wouldn't pass the rs-uva/duke lacrosse/ tawana brawley / babies-off-incubators smell test.. even if bbc was unaware of how radically the women changed stories from past [which i'm sure they did]
werewolf dictator
Member
Sat Feb 20 05:55:24
hmmm

Atina Grossman in her article in "October"[40] describes how until early 1945 the abortions in Germany were illegal (except for medical and eugenic reasons), and so when doctors opened up and started performing abortions to rape victims (for which only an affidavit was requested from a woman). It was also typical that women specified their reasons for abortions being mostly socio-economic (inability to raise another child) rather than moral or ethical. Many women would claim they were raped but their accounts were surprisingly describing the rapist as looking Asian or Mongolian. German women uniformly described the rapist in racialist terms. Claiming they were never blond, but consistently "of Mongolian or Asiatic type".[41][42][43]
habebe
Member
Sun Feb 21 14:37:27
Since this is a spin off of the Gina carano threads, she gave an interview to speak her peace...havnt seen it myself...we finally have good weather, so, yard work....

http://youtu.be/mxObG659Sc0
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share