News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by big_chungus on Thursday November 21, 2019 @02:48PM (#21598689)
You're clearly drawing paralells to nazi germany and the holocaust, but it's not as though it was years of peaceful planning followed by a sudden outburst of violence.

A quick timeline:

* Jan. 1933 Hitler took power

* Feb. 1933 civil liberties of Jews "temporarily" curtailed. This is a key step.

* Mar. 1933 Dachau created

* May 1933 Books nazis disliked burned

* Sept. 1935 Nuremberg Laws; gypsies and others sent to concentration camps

* July 1938 Hitler tries to sell German Jews to the rest of the world at $250/head

* Nov. 1938 Kristallnacht; Jewish kids kicked out of public schools

* Dec. 1938 nazis seize Jewish businesses

* Sept. 1939 Germany invades Poland

* Oct. 1939 "euthanasia" starts

* Dec. 1940 Mass murders at Treblinka

Look at the timeline and tell me where you think we are. Then please point to the currently-elected American politician who is "calmly suggest[ing] killing Jews as a way to fix what ails the country". I get fed up with the argument that current leadership is "literally hitler". It's intentionally dis-ingenuous, put forth in bad faith, and designed to incite unrest with no reasonable backing of the points.

Source: https://isurvived.org/cronology.html

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by mcguire on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:53PM (#21599466)
Mein Kampf, 1923:

"The historian Ian Kershaw points out that several passages in Mein Kampf are undeniably of a genocidal nature. Hitler wrote "the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated", and he suggested that, "If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

"The racial laws to which Hitler referred resonate directly with his ideas in Mein Kampf. In the first edition of Mein Kampf, Hitler stated that the destruction of the weak and sick is far more humane than their protection. Apart from this allusion to humane treatment, Hitler saw a purpose in destroying "the weak" in order to provide the proper space and purity for the "strong"."

Note that this was in a book for popular publication, that Hitler "hopes the book will run into many editions, thus enabling him to fulfill his financial obligations and to defray the expenses incurred at the time of his trial". Announcing that when you rise to power, you intend to kill a significant fraction of the population is probably a bit much to expect.

The "temporary curtailment" was not really the first step.

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by mrtaway90210 on Friday November 22, 2019 @02:08AM (#21603484)
Interesting fact: please see: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-201...

Scroll to Brooklyn NY. Trump enjoyed 93% support in an all Hasidic Jewish neighborhood (ocean parkway district.) and 80%+ support across most hasidic Jewish districts.

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by watwut on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:35PM (#21599289)
Hitler did not magically appeared in 1933. He was politically active pretty much from 1918. The ideas he drawn from were even more older.

1933 is when Hitler gained all the power and Germany was pretty much at point of no return. The time to stop Hitler was before. Your timeline literally starts when experienced and possible opposition is about to go to Dachau. It is too late at that point.

[dead]
Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by AnimalMuppet on Thursday November 21, 2019 @04:04PM (#21599600)
Even if you believe that Hitler has taken power (which I am sure some people believe), what is your analog of "civil liberties of X 'temporarily' curtailed"? What specific event do you point to that you think is equivalent to that?
Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by pjc50 on Friday November 22, 2019 @06:50AM (#21604749)
> what is your analog of "civil liberties of X 'temporarily' curtailed"?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/24/detained-us-... ?

(As the article points out, this did not begin with Trump; the illiberalisation of America dates at least to 2001 and the permanent war footing thereafter.)

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by big_chungus on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:02PM (#21598856)
So "literally hitler" has taken power? Who do you believe this to be? How have the civil liberties of American citizens been curtailed by legislative actions?

> Why would you recommend forbidding anyone from making this comparison?

This is a blatant mis-representation of what I have said. I responded to your comment claiming that we ought to punch people who hold certain positions. I don't believe we ought to restrict anyone from saying anything that's not defamatory; if something defamatory is said, it can be fought out in court. The fact that I disagree with your position doesn't mean I advocate restricting your right to express it.

Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m... by zapita on Thursday November 21, 2019 @03:56PM (#21599510)
> So "literally hitler" has taken power?

No. I believe I used the term “analogy” which is the opposite of what you’re implying.

> How have the civil liberties of American citizens been curtailed by legislative actions?

I didn’t mention legislative actions. There’s an overwhelming consensus among experts on authoritarianism (not just US experts, in case you were hoping to dismiss those experts as partisan hacks) that the US is currently in a transition from democracy to authoritarianism. I won’t argue this point with you for the same reason I won’t argue the reality of the climate crisis.

> > Would you recommend forbidding anyone from making this comparison?

> Why would you recommend forbidding anyone from making this comparison?

You are misquoting me: my question does not start with “why”. You added that word out of thin air, completely changing the meaning of my question.

> I responded to your comment claiming that we ought to punch people who hold certain positions.

I never said that either. You must be confusing my post with another.