Not really “powertripping”. Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.
We can’t dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!
Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930’s “tolerating” fascism, and the Nazi’s killed over 100 million people. Don’t make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.
feddit.org is a German hosted instance that has to abide by the German law. By that law, your comment falls into a grey-zone of legality. As much as I agree with you, they were right in removing your comment, as they are legally obligated to. They could get into trouble if they don’t.
To quote the feddit.org sidebar:
Content that is illegal in Germany, Austria or Switzerland will be deleted and can lead to an immediate ban of the account.
Ah germs, I understand. Consistently on the wrong side of history. Can’t even mildly criticise genociders in that shithole.
Can you quote an article of German law forbidding calling nazis (or any other violent political group) pieces of shit?
It is a genuine question - I am not familiar with German law.
Nothing easier than that: Art 130 StGB
Anyone who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace,
1.
incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against sections of the population or against an individual because of their membership of a designated group or a section of the population, incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
2.
attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or slandering a designated group, parts of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or part of the population,The Post was in A Manner to disturb the public by being a public post. It attacks the human dignity by dehumanising a group based on their world view. Under current German law this is incitement to people.
Not that directly, but saying they have “zero worth” might be against GG Article 1
Human dignity is inviolable
Pretty sure dehumanizing can be prosecuted under this, even if its rather tame. Also there have been some laws over the last few years that criminalize violent speech on the internet and that give people the ability to report comments directly to agencies. These might make it quite dangerous for the instance to keep up these comments.
I assure you, German leftist often say way more intense stuff on a daily basis, but not on publicly hosted servers
Can you quote the actual article?
Can you be less annoying? No one owes you anything here.
You are misrepresenting the facts here. Nobody said that calling Nazis pieces of shit is actionable under German law. That’s not the problem. The post specifically states that “Nazi lives don’t matter”, questioning a person’s right to life is dehumanizing and might very well break German law. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not gonna quote specific case law but if I were an admin, I’d also would err on the side of caution here.
Can you be less annoying? No one owes you anything here.
Can you go and kindly shag yourself? No one asks you to answer here.
Furthermore, you don’t have a clue how logic works, do you? If someone claims the comment has been removed due to German law, it is on them to prove it.
I guess that’s a no
Well done, perfectly logical analysis of my last comment. Now try to apply the same to the entire thread.
Wrote it down in another comment in case you might actually care you can read it there:
Yes, I have seen it, thank you.
I did. That’s the first article of the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) of Germany
Constitution is not a criminal law so no. But someone else already quoted criminal law which at a very stretch may be applicable here.
Yes, but these are probably also an extend/criminal law implementation of this constitutional law. Also you would still break the law, even if you couldn’t get punished for it. Something you don’t want to host on german servers.
To contextualize my original comment a bit more and explain how these things work over here: you can already get sued for just insulting somebody. I remember a case a few years ago where somebody called a right wing politician a “Hurensohn” (son of a whore) and got his house raided by police. Getting sued (especially by politicians) for insults isn’t unlikely in germany. The platform hosting that content can also get in trouble for it. OP apparently talked about a politician, who could try and sue in Germany. Since OP is probably not from there, the server owners will get in trouble instead. All that to say: this form of moderation is legally necessary in Germany. You can dislike this and I agree with you, but it’s not something that’s going to change. It doesn’t mean that the mods are supporting fascism, as so many are seemingly claiming. Feddit.org is a rather left instance (in Germany we’d say “linksgrün versifft”) and they are definitely not trying to shield nazis, they just try to follow the local law to prevent getting sued
This is true.
The first article of our constitution is like all of our criminal law packed into one sentence. Most of our criminal law is just specifying how violating the dignity of humans gets punished. So while in theory he was not wrong with that this is against our constitution this is not how a judge would argue.
You could copy and paste that chunk of text in to a thing called a “search engine” and if it exists outside of that comment you’ll find out where.
Just a thought.
Have you actually read it? I am yet to see a legal section saying “pretty sure”
Hi, I happen to be a moderator on that community. I wouldn’t have banned you but I won’t put my partners’ decision under scrutiny if this is a temporal ban. If this ban is permanent, feel free to DM me, I’d like to review what happened here.
PS. Moderating communities is exhausting! And terribly difficult given my account is not on feddit.org
I’m going to assume this is a language thing. You really do sound like a nazi when saying “i wont put my partner’s decision under scrutiny” when the decision is to act like a nazi. You may want to reword or recend that comment.
And you sound like someone who is very quick to jump to conclusions without the full context.
They remove all hate speech, including any from actual nazi’s.
I don’t see how that makes anyone involved a nazi.I can see where he was coming
A three day ban is now apparently Nazi. This word has truly lost all meaning. You are lost ideologically.
I only meant to say that changing another mod decision would only be taken, after discussion with them, if there’s a clear and robust disagreement (a permanent ban). This, to me, is just a lack of agreement (a temporal ban).
I can see where he was coming
A three day ban is now apparently Nazi. This word has truly lost all meaning. You are lost ideologically.
Not a power tripping Mod just a huge misunderstanding.
Vance, you wanted to label as Nazi and went off a rant, was only mentioned indirectly, so you probably couldn’t mean him.
And instead of talking to the Mods you started this post.
Always keep in mind the human on the other end. The human who has made their whole identity be about dehumanizing other people. Remember, remain respectful and considerate, only they get a pass at ignoring that.
Wait, why are governments suddenly falling to fascism!?!?
I give Nazis all the rights they want to give to me. And all the lefts too.
If you follow an ideology of intolerance, you are no longer entitled to tolerance from others. I will not engage in discourse with followers of an ideology that would enslave my family and likely deport, imprison or exterminate those who are of color and/or disabled.
That’s what it comes down to. You can’t have any sort of discussion after that point. The conversation has been reduced to either I stop you or you destroy my life. There’s nothing more to be said.
If I’m not human in your eyes, you’ve already proven your inhumanity to me.
If you don’t believe in human rights for Nazis, you don’t believe in universal human rights.
Right to life is a the most basic one.
Arguments about limiting free speech is on a different level.
Fascists not caring about free speech, but exploiting it in bad faith, is the core of the argument and very valid.
A three day ban is fine for something like this.
For some context, this person is a Zionist, and with the genocide in Palestine, it’s not surprising that they would have nazi sympathies.
Of course the antisemites show up right away to spread their hate.
I have protested against and fought Nazis with my own fists since I was 16.
Are you claiming that a person protesting against Israeli indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinian men, women and children must be an antisemite?
No. What are you talking about?
The only thing he did was make an equivalence between Nazis snd Zionism. That comparison itself is already tantamount to Holocaust denial and thus antisemitic.
Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to self determination. Denying the Jewish people this human right is antisemitic.
Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to self determination
If by self determination you mean establishing an ethnostate in stolen land
Zionism is nationalism. Mearly calling it a right to self-determination is disengenious.
On the other hand I agree that implying an equality between Zionism and Nazism (as in the facist ideoligy) downplays the severity of facism and the Holocaust in particular.
Yes, Zionism is Jewish nationalism, similar to Polish, Greek, Kurdish nationalism.
Yes, Zionism is Jewish nationalism, similar to Polish, Greek, Kurdish nationalism.
Although I don’t disagree with your core position, nationlism ≠ fascism
“Nazism is the right of the Aryan race to self determination. Denying the Aryan race this human right is anti-German bigotry”
That’s disgusting antisemitic and you know it.
Your denial of the Jewishness of all those people who are Jews and are against Zionism or simply do not agree that Zionism represents them, is the true antisemitism here.
It’s not up to you and it’s not up to Zionists to decide that Zionism represents all Jews, it’s up to all Jews and a lot of them think Zionism doesn’t represent them, hence “Zionism” is not at all equivalent to “Jew” and hence anti-Zionism is not at all equivalent to antisemitic.
The previous poster’s metaphor is spot on illustrating your inherent anti-semitism in how you defend your beloved flavour of ethno-Fascist political ideology: Zionists claim that they represent an entire ethnicity - even against statements of members of that ethnicity that they do not - and then claim that criticism of Zionism is actually an attack on the ethnicity, going so far as explicitly calling actual Jews who are critical of Zionism “anti-semites”, all of which is exactly as the Nazis did using “the Arian Race” (including the detail of accusing members of the Arian Race of being “against the Arian Race” or “not real Arians” when they voiced opinions critical of Nazism) which is why the previous poster’s metaphor was perfect - how you and your ideological brothers position yourselves in relation to the Jewish People and use that self-proclaimed relation in your “arguments” is straight out of a Himmler manual on Propaganda.
You’re the only Racist in this room and by making arguments in the same style as Nazi Propaganda you out yourself as a rabid, Nazi-style kind of Racist.
Disliking Nazis is anti-German bigotry and you know it. Being anti-genocide is only motivated by hating the people doing the genocide and ethno-nationalism.
What the hell are these arguments, and why are you getting upvotes?
What the hell are these arguments
These are very common arguments. You’re simply ignorant about this discourse.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
This is the shaky part.
It is quite fair to make a comparison between Nazism and Zionism as long as someone frames Zionism as an attempt to eliminate Palestinians.
Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to self determination
May have been in XIX or in the first half of XX century. At the moment it is a deeply racist movement denying Palestinians the same rights Jews enjoy.
Also Israeli government, supported by Zionist parties is definitely including nazis. So while I don’t argue that zionism is equivalent to nazism I can see where he was coming from.
You are misrepresenting Zionism. It has always had different ideological strains.
If you believe in a two state solution, congratulations you are a Zionist.
I can see where he was coming
Demonization, delegitimization, antisemitism.
Demonization, delegitimization, antisemitism
Stop talking rubbish. Criticism of Israel and/or zionism is not antisemitic.
Your first sentence is simply incorrect. Nazis chose their lot. They weren’t born into it. Why are their lives Inviolate despite their expressed Desire to see others killed? They’re not Try again
Well, if you don’t believe in universal human rights, then your moral standing against Nazis is very shallow.
Vasily Zietsev didn’t stop the Nazis with moral standing.
There’s a difference of fighting back including killing to defeat an enemy or denying someone the basic right to life.
The first means you fight back until you defeat the enemy, the second one means after you defeat them you round them up and put them in camps to exterminate them.
It also means it limits your actions to those targets who actually hold power and not just anyone who has a Trump / Vance flag in their garden.
That was a war. He also didn’t check if German soldiers were party members or not.
What do you think the new Nazis are planning? A tea party?
Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before. Even then, only if it’s necessary to achieve military objectives. You don’t kill people for their ideological beliefs, but to stop their ability to act and remove them from power. Mass murder can never be the goal for anyone who believes in human rights.
Wars aren’t won by killing soldiers. They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act. An army can’t fight without fuel, food, and ammunition.
That is a very strange and self-contradicting hill to die on.
If you believe in universal human rights either all of humanity or none of humanity should be imprisoned or persecution by the state. Thinking murderers should be punished means you don’t believe in human rights.
WTF are you even on about? If someone violates the rights of others, punishment is of course acceptable. Self defense or defending others is also acceptable. Rights are not absolute. They are for everyone.
I swear this place is filled with teenage tankies.
I thought you said beliefs and actions shouldn’t matter. That’s the only reason “universal human rights” have to apply to fascists as equally as the rest of humanity.
Dude are you a fucking dumbass?
Nazis themselves do not believe in the right to life. They are like cockroaches. They cannot be allowed to spread.
I believe the death penalty is immoral because I don’t believe there is such a thing as an act so heinous that it would be moral to kill them after the fact.
There is room in my moral framework for killing in self defense or defense of others, but I leave that to require some kind of immediacy. And I think enemy combatants in a hot war are fair game, too, but that requires a hot war as a precondition, and I don’t think we’re there right now.
Then you will only ever be in a position to defend yourself from Nazis.
I am also opposed to the death penalty, but I understand that there are circumstances where practicality overrides morality. Stopping the spread of Nazis is just such a circumstance.
cockroaches
You are using literal Nazi rhetoric. You have no moral standing.
You are using literal Nazi rhetoric. You have no moral standing.
The Nazis aren’t the first to use the cockroach analogy, nor is it a particularly poor one to use when describing them
If we can’t do things because Nazis did them then there’s very little were allowed to do
And the Germans kill the Jews and the Jews kill the Arabs and Arabs kill the hostages and THAAAAAAATT is the news
Is it any wonder
That the monkey’s confused?
And so on
By Roger Waters
Actually, this was a while ago, and there are a couple more layers to the cycle now, if you know where to look. Arabs killings Kurds, Kurds killing Turks. Some of the newer nodes are still forming and may or may not grow large, but they’re there.
Roger Waters
You are really citing this notorious antisemite?
Don’t make us laugh, you’re a smart kid
Time is linear, memory’s a stranger, history is for fools
Man is a tool
In the hands of the Great God Almighty…
So they gave him command of a nuclear submarine
And sent him off
In search of the Garden of Eden
“The Final Cut” is quite good, too. It’s a big song about what war does. There is stuff that will break your heart.
“The Ballad of Bill Hubbard”
“The Gunner’s Dream”
“Two Suns in the Sunset”
“Watching TV”
“Home”
Pink Floyd singer-guitarist David Gilmour and his wife, Polly Samson, who wrote lyrics for the band’s later songs, are not pulling any punches about Roger Waters, whose stances on Israel, Ukraine and Russia have alarmed many of the band’s followers in recent years. On social media, Samson called Waters “rotten to your antisemitic core” and “a Putin apologist,” among other things — and Gilmour emphatically cosigned his spouse’s statement, writing: “Every word demonstrably true.”
Find better artists to listen to.
If we could climb the highest steeple
And then look down at all the people
And shoot the ones not wholly good,
As we, like noble shooters, should
Why then there’d be an only worry:
Who’s be left to bury
Us?
-Walt Kelly
Thank you for openly admitting that you cannot tell the difference between Nazism and opposition to Nazism. At least you admit it.
You seem to be completely bereft of self awareness. It’s remarkable really.
Y’all would’ve let the Nazis rampage across Europe to ‘not stoop to their level.’ I know for a fact, because you’re doing it now.
deleted by creator
world moment
E oops just noticed that instance is not actually world. My mistake
Nazis are not, nor ever have been, human.
Im going to get downvoted to hell for this.
Nazi’s are human. They are pieces of shit humans that need to not exist and i could punch without feeling bad, but they are humans none the less.
Yeah but they’re not human, though
“Yeah but” is not a valid rebuttal. You made no attempt to refute what the other person said.
Well we also have plenty of fascists and are US vasals after all.
.ml 4 the win
Europe is descending into far right fascism again. Even Germany’s highest ranking Green Party member was openly defending the genocide of children in Palestine.
We tried to tell y’all that defending Nazis in Ukraine would spread to accepting them all over the rest of the continent. You cannot allow Nazis to gain a foothold anywhere, or they will spread everywhere.
Not really directly the result of Ukraine, but this was always going to happen. Fascism is capitalism in decay, and why Liberalism is just moderate, polite fascism.
Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.
… but that looks like a mod/comm ban, not an admin/instance ban?
You’re right. I scrolled through the instances top communities. Most seemed political, and are pretty small, so I just assumed it’s a propaganda mill. Might not be.
It’s worth mentioning that mods of a community do not have to come from the instance the community is hosted on. The mod who upset you may not even be associated with the instance.
It’s not a propaganda mill, feddit.org is the biggest German instance (since feddit.de essentially shut down)
To add to this, the “Bundestag” is elected in a week, which is why everything is about politics right now. It doesn’t help, that the political debate in Germany is extremely heated right now.
As they blocked feddit.org, they’re not gonna see your comment I’d assume
Pretty sure instance blocks only work on posts, not comments.
They don’t work on comments. I regularly see comments from .ml people even while having the instance blocked.
Thanks for confirming!
Thanks, good point. At least others can see it
This seems like a 50:50 type scenario. I personally wouldn’t bother with moderation unless someone complained, but a good faith arguement can be made that you were breaking the rules.
While the current US adminstration is arguably somewhere between proto-fascist and fully fascist (there is lots more room for democratic and human rights backsliding), I can see how dehumanisation can be seen as a legitimate moderation reason for your comments.
They seem to only have a rule against dehumanisation of minorities, where the term is pretty clearly intended to mean minorities generally subject to persecution/bigotry:
4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
I feel the ban is a bit over the top, anyway. I get the post being removed for being a bit too aggressive, but to immediately ban over (what I presume) is a first offence… I’d simply give a warning myself.
Another rule is that all contents have to follow German, Austrian and Switzerland’s laws. Under German law the comment that got deleted is incitement of people and therefore it was right to delete it.
Yeah, in that case I understand.
Ban is definitely over the top.
Sometimes less is more with respect to rhetoric (not saying there aren’t situations were you have to be clear and uncompromising in your statements).
Saying “nazi lives don’t matter” isn’t even “dehumanizing”.
Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.
Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.
You’re not gonna see this as you blocked feddit.org, also geh dahin wo der Pfeffer wächst!
For everyone else:
Saying “nazi lives don’t matter” isn’t even “dehumanizing”.
Doubtful from a legal point of view
Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.
Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.
Basically everyone on feddit.org agrees with this, so this whole rambling doesn’t make any sense. Two things can be true at the same time.
Doubtful from a legal point of view
Can you quote the section of German law you based this assessment on?
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html
(1) Anyone who, in a manner that is likely to disturb the public peace,
- incites hatred against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against sections of the population or against an individual because of his or her membership of the aforementioned group or a section of the population, or incites violence or arbitrary measures, or
- attacks the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously denigrating or defaming a designated group, sections of the population or an individual because of their membership of a designated group or a section of the population,
shall be liable to a custodial sentence of three months to five years.
And according to https://kujus-strafverteidigung.de/strafrecht/volksverhetzung/ the protected groups include
Gruppen mit einer bestimmten weltanschaulichen Überzeugung (Groups with a certain view or conviction)
Which one could concievably put Nazis into (although their views are shit they’re still views)
https://www.anwalt.org/volksverhetzung/#absatz-1-nr-1-stoerung-des-oeffentlichen-friedens-durch-aufruf-zu-hass-und-gewalt Further provides the following explanation for attacks against human dignity:
Dem Täter kommt es aus verwerflichen Beweggründen darauf an, andere Menschen als besonders minderwertig, unwürdig und verachtenswert darzustellen. (For reprehensible motives, the perpetrator aims to portray other people as particularly inferior, unworthy and despicable.)
I would think saying someones live does not matter constitutes them as unworthy (of life).
Thank you, first answer with a merit. Although 1 definitely doesn’t apply. 2 you can argue about but I doubt it.
Agreed regarding Trump and dehumanization. I am Ukrainian, so you can imagine what I think of Trump, his goons and even those who support Trump (Americans or otherwise).
I am almost arguing from a devil’s advocate point of view.
To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if the mods at a high level support your views (in a different more nuanced phrasing), but you do have to have a modicum of fairness when approaching a rule like “no dehumanization”. The style/tone of your comment did conflict with the rules, that’s all I am saying.
No, you need to read about the paradox of tolerance.
You have to shut down the Nazis before they shut you down.
You guys always stop halfway through Poppers writings of the Paradox.
“I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument. They may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”
Popper never argued to strip people of the right to free speech. Even immoral free speech. He makes the line very clear: when people begin using fists and pistols. That is, tolerate up to the point of physical violence.
I don’t think the paradox of tolerance works here. Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. It doesn’t say kill them, it says don’t tolerate them. Meaning exclude these topics from public discourse or make basic right non-negotiable and unalterable. One of these basic rights being the right to life. Ironically, by calling into question such a basic right, you are actually the intolerant one Popper means.
Of course, this only applies as long as we are still in a tolerant society. A better argument at the moment especially in the US would be the right to resist.
It doesn’t say kill them
Neither did the OP
Yes, you shut them down. That doesn’t require you to dehumanize them. Someone inciting violence against a minority group for example would also be banned I’m sure. The paradox of tolerance is simply solved by limiting the freedom of the intolerant. There are plenty of ways to do that without pretending the offender isn’t human. Honestly, resorting to that line of thinking is very much what Nazis do.
There also is an argument in here for a false flag attack to paint leftists as terrorists or calling for violence. Feddit.org seems to be a German instance which means they have to adhere to German law which absolutely States that you can not dehumanize anyone, Nazi or not. It is article one, section one of the constitution. The platform would open itself up for straight deletion if they let that stand.
Live to fight another day. But yes, in general I’m not opposed to eradicating Nazis where possible. One important distinction though: the real Nazis are a few. Those absolutely need to be shut down by any means necessary. They’re master manipulators and if you let them speak, you have lost. The others need to be educated. Education, broad and free, untainted by corpo shit is the ultimate weapon against these fucks.
Agreed. You do have to shut down nazis/tankies etc. Zero tolerance policy even.
I am just saying look at it from the mods point of view, they do have to act upon their “no dehumanization” rule or they risk that rule not having any meaning.
Consider a situation where some tankie is ranting about how Trump supporters are capitalist roachs and lack humanity. You don’t want that shit in any community.
Well, yeah. We don’t condone murdering murderers, either.
If Hitler was assassinated before he started the war, millions wouldn’t die.
If Hitler had been assassinated right before the war, it might have been infinitely worse.
The Nazis weren’t predicated solely on Hitler. He actually was meant to be just a speechmaker while the smarter people made all the important decisions, because he was kind of an aggressive moron. Things got out of hand, though, and he was able to take over and to a large extent fuck everything up. A few of the attempts on his life were from other committed Nazis of a pretty high rank. The allies thought about trying to assassinate him, but decided ultimately that it was way better for the war effort if he was in charge.
I don’t think the movement would have petered out without Hitler and constitutional order restored. Not by 1939. They might not have exterminated the Jews quite so completely, but they might have, and they also might have stayed allied with the Soviets and won the war in spades. I think one of the few saving graces about the way it all went down was that Hitler was in charge, fucking everything up.
The parallels to Trump are uncanny.
Not by 1939. They might not have exterminated the Jews quite so completely,
You don’t have a clue.
While the nazis obviously didn’t rely solely on Hitler, in 1939 holocaust plans weren’t even drafted.
Plus, we are not in 1939 quite YET. If Hitler was killed after he came to power, war wouldn’t even start.
The parallels to Trump are uncanny.
Of course sweetie. Keep telling yourself that until it is too late.
I’m not sure if you are being condescending because you think you are right, or for some other reason. I wasn’t even saying whatever you thought I was saying about 1939. You also have some of your history wrong.
The camp system started instantly after Hitler came to power, as did sterilizations and abortions. Things ramped up from there. Systematic mass killing of Jews started in 1941, but it wasn’t something that was off the table until “plans were drafted” to do something that they hadn’t been ramping up towards. The plans that they drafted were systematic expansions of what had already been happening in a less organized fashion for years.
Hitler didn’t invent the idea of starting a war with all of the rest of Europe. He picked it up, along with a lot of other Geopolitik ideas, apparently from Karl Haushofer. That was back in the days when Hitler wasn’t unequivocally in charge or even close to. How things would have played out without Hitler at the helm is totally uncertain of course, but plenty of other people had the ideas that became World War 2, and they appeared in Hitler’s works all of a sudden in 1923 when he picked them up from Haushofer at the same time Hess and Ribbentrop did.
It’s possible that if he was killed in 1933 that we wouldn’t have had the big war, just internal misery everlasting within Germany’s borders or a ways beyond them. Like I say, it’s also possible that the Nazi operation would have played out the same but been far more effective, if a little slower and less stylish without Hitler’s high-octane speeches.
We are clearly in early 1933 right now. Ten metaphorical days away from the Reichstag Fire, a little more than a month from the Enabling Act. Of course, we’re not bound for things to play out in exactly the same fashion, but that’s where we are on the timeline.
Of course sweetie. Keep telling yourself that until it is too late.
Not even sure what to make of this.
Systematic mass killing of Jews started in 1941, but it wasn’t something that was off the table until “plans were drafted” to do something that they hadn’t been ramping up towards
I wasn’t planning to have historical debate here but you are clearly misinforming anyone who reads your comments.
“Final solution” — mass murder — wasn’t planned until 1941 and in 1940 Nazis were still toying with the idea of mass deportations to Madagascar instead.
Just remind me, what is Trump trying to do at the moment?
Not even sure what to make of this.
Go figure.
Holocaust as a mass murder wasn’t planned until 1941
400,000 people were sterilized in 1933. Gas vans were killing mental patients in 1939. The Einsatzgruppen were traveling with the army in 1939, shooting Jews en masse in some cases. “Aktion T4” was put into practice in 1940, also with mental patients. Eugenics scholars had been talking about exterminating those with inferior genes since 1920. The deportation to Madagascar was talked about under the assumption that the harsh conditions and lack of civilization would leave most of the Jews to die “naturally.” Deliberate starvation in the ghettos killed tens of thousands of Jews before a formalized “final solution” was planned for. And so on.
Not sure how you got that my “ramping up” description was misinforming people. That’s what happened. As much fun as this is, I have completed as much of this conversation as I want to have.
400,000 people were sterilized in 1933. (…)
Again, your point is? Mass murder of Jews wasn’t planned until 1941. In 1940 Nazis were planning mass deportations to Madagascar. These are facts, I am not sure what is you are trying to achieve here?
Furthermore, your comments only support my point as the goals escalate: Trump is attempting mass deportations now - like nazis were going to just before Final Solution
If someone was to kill Hitler, neither WW2 nor Final Solution would have happened.
The same if he had been detained.
Not really. He was in charge of Germany, there was no chance for him being detained. Draw the conclusions yourself.
Depends on the murderer. Dexter has great ratings because people do in fact support murder of people who kill and aren’t being held accountable, at least in theory.
At least in fiction. Big difference.
Luigi seems to have a lot of support as well. In reality.
I think the key difference is that no one was bringing Brian Thompson to justice.
The nature of humans is that they seek justice for themselves. Congress and the courts are, in theory, an uneasy compromise to offer people justice in exchange for demanding that they don’t go out and make justice for themselves. Because we’ve seen where that leads, and it sure isn’t good.
You can believe in the rule of law and still think Brian Thompson deserved to die. Because by any legal standard, he committed more homicides than pretty much everyone on death row. And yet, somehow, our system is so twisted up that it is fine. Everything Thompson did was perfectly legal. Just like slavery, segregation, and the holocaust.
I don’t think killing CEOs at random is a route to any good thing. Bringing random violence into the political equation serves one side only, and it is not ours. But it is perfectly consistent to condemn murder and still support Luigi, in reality.
I think the key difference is that no one was bringing Brian Thompson to justice.
Who is bringing Putin, Trump or Netanyahu to justice?
no one was bringing Brian Thompson to justice
You’re not wrong, but the issue is that as fewer and fewer people believe that the law will actually hold anyone accountable, they’ll decide the correct thing to do is to take it into their own hands.
And, if there’s anything that’s been very, very, very, very, clearly shown over the last 2 or 3 years in the US it’s that the rule of law does not apply to anyone who is rich, famous, or is capable of wielding sufficient soft power.
If you’re one of those 3, then absolutely nothing you do is illegal, and once you’ve reached the point where the justice system will not do anything to those that wrong you, the only thing you have left is to go out and take action yourself, which historically has almost always been violence.
I would expect there to be more, rather than less, of these types of murders from here on - especially given that everyone in this country either has a gun, or is a 15 minute background check away from having one.
You’re not wrong, but the issue is that as fewer and fewer people believe that the law will actually hold anyone accountable, they’ll decide the correct thing to do is to take it into their own hands.
Very much so. I was meaning to imply as much, when I threw that little “in theory” into how congress and the courts are supposed to work.
legal […] like the holocaust.
Funnily, German law did not change during the holocaust, and Germany still convicts people for being accessories to murder in concentration camps under the laws of the 1940s.
Condemning murder wasn’t the argument though, it was condemning all murder including against particular people or groups who want to or have committed murder like nazis. Luigi is the evidence that if a system protects those types of people from repercussions, the person who corrects them tend to get support from general public which runs counter to condemning all murder.
At this point it’s just semantics between physical violence and actions that lead to death like economic or social violence like what we see from united health and nazis.
My grandad who fought in WW2 used to say to me “You don’t speak to Nazis. You shoot Nazis”.
I may be less radical than that but I would gladly see all nazis and nazi apologists on compulsory re-education courses or in prisons.
Edit: I hope the OP don’t mind me using this post in my https://lemmy.world/c/opisafuckingidiot community with the explanation that this time it is a mod who is an idiot: https://lemmy.world/post/25616034
I am in the shoot them camp and got permabanned from reddit because I am vocal about it.
![Nazi lives DO matter according to the mods of [email protected]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c2cd108d-170e-429d-bb92-f6f2bbf6bf4a.jpeg){kind=link}