|
NeedToUseYou -> RE: Holocaust denier sentenced to 5 years (2/19/2007 5:23:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Everyone is assuming in Germany, the people were tricked or forced to be Nazi's.
There's a real communication here because much of what I've said has been misconstrued.
If I'm part of the everyone (which, considering everyone is everyone, I must be), you couldn't be further from the truth. Type musn't be the best form of communication because time and time again I see people jumping to conclusions based on what they think they're reading.
I rarely have problems understanding most people, maybe type isn't the best way of communicating. I'm sure you've heard "Everyone" used in a casual way to denote the vast majority. My assumption in communicating is that most people having years of experience communicating, and can easily derive the intended meaning. Mostly what I find in such circumstances is the same people seem to have a reoccuring problem understanding and need things put in a super concise manner, as to avoid confusing them.
I've already said that the majority of the votes in 1932 or 1933 did not go to the Nazis and this should tell you that, despite their best efforts of gaining support through terror, there was real choice right up to the point where he was elected in very dubious circumstances.
How do dubious corrupt elections relate to free speech. I will agree with you that corrupt elections should be banned.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
These debates are a bit crazy, because they assume the populace is a docile little gullible thing, that is corrupted by the ideas of the evil man. When in reality, most of what is happening at any given time is condoned by the public at large, and only in hindsite do people seperate themselves from the events.
I've narrowed the rest down to the above.
I'm surprised to hear you say you believe the lynchings and hanging of black Americans were condoned by the majority of the US, or that the chaos in Iraq is condoned by the majority of the public - a few on here will disagree with you.
I think the majority of white people in the thirties didn't view black people as people. I've met some very racist people, and most of them happen to be older(generational 50+ years old, very very very few younger people). Who say things just like you described and think it's acceptable. So, no I don't think I'm exagerating, at all. Now, it's like everything else in the world, some are passively racist, as in they wouldn't do anything physical, but couldn't care less if something did happen. Tell you a real story, if you still think I'm exagerating, there is small town (600-700) population around here I lived in for a couple years, and when ever black people came up. Well, sometimes, someone would recount how in the late sixtiesish a black family tried to move in and they burnt their house down within a week. There to this day still aren't any black people in that town, and undoubtedly the world is more tolerant now than then. I can only imagine that it was even less tolerant the further back you go.
Life is not so simple that everyone knows their own mind and can't be swayed. Propaganda is such a powerful tool. The Germans didn't suddenly wake up one day and want to massacre a whole religion/race. They were influenced by decades of very powerful propaganda - prior to 1933 and after 1933. Young kids were brainwashed to the point where they spied on their families. That is not normal behaviour in my book and most certainly the result of people having their minds bended. Germany was as civilised as any other in the world - they were as advanced as any other in terms of sciene, technology, literature, philosophy etc. This wasn't some poverty-stricken, uneducated people.
No, but my point here is not that the germans initially wanted to eliminate all the jews, mentally disabled, etc... My point is they accepted this leader because he promised radical change. People are people, and maybe this is where we seperate in thought. "Nearly" everyone transfers blame on someone else constantly. Examples: It's corporations, It's the lazy people, It's the Right, It's the Left, It's the Communists, It's the Terrorists, It's the Blacks, It's the Whites It's the Capitalists, It's the Jews, It's the Bankers. It's human nature from everything I've ever witnessed for people in general to defer blame and gravitate towards those that offer such. Now who is to judge which of those is true or not, it's not so clear in some cases today. But like after 9/11 IT WAS THE MUSLIMS, if you asked 9 out of 10 people, it wasn't a specific MUSLIM, or a few, but all. In one day a whole country went leaving peacefully to threatening to kill them in their shops or on the streets. People are people and I've not seen more than a handful deviate from the Norm
Now it's a small leap of logic to connect the dots in germany, to why alot of the populace would jump on the Hate Jew bandwagon as the cause of all the problems. This is not a new phenomenon, It has happened innumerable times throughout history. To believe it is not in general human nature, to blame others when times get tough, is in my view, putting to much faith in human nature to do the right thing.
"People separating themselves from events" is a completely different issue. I'm talking about the evolution of the ideas of a small bunch of cranks into the widespread action of a nation. There is a whole chain of events to consider.
Think about BDSM and the change that occurs in people. The change in outlook on life and the evolution of thought. If you accept that people change and their outlook on life changes, and you accept that propaganda is a very powerful tool, then you must accept that propaganda can turn peoples' minds - we're not static in our beliefs, we evolve, we learn, we take on board new ideas.
Yes, but one man's propaganda is another man's obvious truth. Like this conversation, I couldn't disagree with you more, and I can't even think how someone could believe in such things without an agenda. See, you think it's truth, I think it' must be a power/control thing, for similiar minded people. You can't define truth in many cases, because it's not known until after the fact.
There is such a thing as the herd mentality and mass movement and people can be led down a path. Where propaganda is used effectively, that path can have dangerous consequences.
Yes, but no one is immune to propaganda, no person is capable of making these decisions. So, giving the power to arbitrarily remove some groups that haven't proven openly violent yet, is license to suppress unwelcome ideas. It's not that I don't agree with you in utopian reality terms. It's just not possible at all for any group to be immune from such effects, or even be the judge of correct thought.
Look at the WMDs farce, were Americans led down a path or are you saying the majority couldn't care less and want to see large numbers of people dead? This is the top and bottom of your logic.
What I'm saying since you frame it about Iraq, is most people won't do anything to change anything as long as it doesn't affect them or they don't think it will. And as long as you have a scapegoat to blame it on,(jews,blacks,mexicans,Right Wingers, Left Wingers, whitey, whatever) one is morally absolved of responsiblity. Presently that is Bush and the Right Wing. So, no people don't want people to die generally, but neither do most (obviously) care enough to do anything at all about it. What a couple million in a land of 300 million actually do something, the rest go to work, go home, eat dinner, go to bed, bitch a little about it and, Repeat cycle. And some do actually support the war and believe it is about bringing democracy to Iraq. As long as that is maintained they won't "care" enough to do anything. Now, when enough people die that they know or can relate to, then they care. The word "care" is wide ranging in its emotional content. They care like most care about a stranger they will never meet. It's print on a page, not something you can see, hear, and feel.
It is the easy option to say everyone should be able to say what they want regardless of the consequences because people want to be seen as purveyors of freedom. The problem with this is, you're into the realms of a free-for-all and moving away from the rule of law. There is a balance to be had in society - civili liberties, responsibility to the people around us and the rule of law.
No, it's an easy option for those in power to decide at their whim what is and isn't acceptable speech. It's a much harder option for one to have to deal with the reality of the ideas of the people. Like okay, I think banks are trully evil organizations and it would serve everyones good, to complete dismantle the system. Am I now a radical. Someone else will disagree. I believe the whole of government should be dropped in the ocean. Am I now a radical. I can give you reasons for those beliefs but they aren't truths except to me and like minded. But you go around locking people up for saying subversive things, you radicalize them further. You still don't answer who is this person or persons that have this ability to perfectly see the one correct path. For example, the islamic cartoons, I see no reason at all to ban people from printing such material. Am I to be locked up now for printing a picture of a Pope eating children(could be artistic view of the catholic sex scandals), or Muhamed with a bomb on his head(well, they have bombed a shit load of places), or Lazy fat americans(Yep, that is my dream someday), or some big corporation eating the forest. Those are all disrepectful to the target of the drawing, and certain percentage of any population will think they are true. The radical kills or threatens to kill people for disrespecting them. Some religious say all gays are burning in hell. That is disrespectful as well. But they believe it is Truth, How can you oppress another mans truth, without radicalizing him and others that agree with that truth.. And who knows this truth. I mean, I don't agree with 90% of what you say on most things. So, in this world of banning speech arbitrarily either you or I will be suppressed. I don't think I'm radical in any harmful way(no criminal record, except a few driving tickets), and I'm sure you don't feel you are radical. But I will be more radical, the day someone fines me for expressing a view.
And that ultimately is what your view would lead to. Once you move the standard from banning soliciting direct violence only, to subjective judgement of meaning(which obviously varies, just look at the board). Then the system is based around suppressing people based upon the subjective view of one or a few. And at that point you might as well rename the country because any real freedom becomes impossible once thought can be deemed illegal at the will of a select group.
But sure I agree hitler was evil, if you went back and shot him, who knows, maybe it would of been better, maybe not, they may have gotten a better military commander and one or who knows what. The point is it just wasn't hitler, It was Hitler backed by a lot of people donating money time, protection, advice, support. Hitler was just one person not the whole of the movement. And the german people put up one hell of a fight for something they didn't believe in.
|
|
|
|
