Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Delta4Embassy]

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anyone who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.

 

[hunarcy]

Thats why I said initially true tolerance is not possible. As of now individuals have to decide for themselves. We all know what that means.

Yes it has been proven countless times comments or opinons made by people with airtime or a platform have influenced others to act. You never know if what you say may give someone the wrong idea or to you the perfect idea. Thats why it should be kept to yourself if it involves harming someone else or their rights.

I SO disagree with that. It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was. Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.

Do you mean slavery in the US or slavery in general? 2 different things. I am intolerant of the opinion people should be enslaved. Am I trampling someone's right to life and liberty? Even if I was the person wanting slavery forfeited their rights as soon as they trampled someone elses right to life and liberty by enslaving them. Thats a perfect example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.

Slavery in the US was what I was thinking of specifically, but it applies to slavery in general, I believe. I don't agree with the idea that people should be enslaved, but if you are intolerant of that view, you never have the opportunity to argue against it because you deprive the person of ever expressing it, so they never hear a different point of view.

 

[Statistikhengst]

But who gets to decide what is allowed to be said that might influence somebody to harm someone else? When Nancy Pelosi describes Republicans or Tea Partiers as Nazis or bullies or obstructionists or whatever the unflattering characterization of the day is, is she influencing somebody to target Republicans or Tea Partiers? Does anybody really think that an extemporaneous or scripted controversial comment by a politician or radio or televsion personality or preacher or even the President himself carries anywhere near the influence that violent video games or movies or television shows or rap music carries?

Who gets to make the rules about what will be considered 'harmful influence' and what is permissable?

Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?

No, I rarely have links for questions I ask. But here are some links I had noted in my files:
Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics

When I clicked on the quote function, a link appeared, apparently you interpolated that link after originally writing your response, or you deleted it, but the program still has it in the quote settings.

Here again is the link:

Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics

The text under the video:

Nancy Pelosi claims protesters are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

The video is now defunct.


So, just to clarify, there is no evidence that she said this, and if she did and it is factually correct, meaning that SOME people who went to Republican town-hall meetings indeed did carry swastikas, then I would still ask myself why you, after explaining in the OP that this was not supposed to get partisan, just got very partisan.

I do apologize for the false inquiry.

I meant to ask if you had a link for your question. Apparently, that oversight upset you. I promise to do better in the future. Ok?

 

[hunarcy]

Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?

No, I rarely have links for questions I ask.

The alleged Nancy Pelosi statement. Do you have a link.

You do enjoy supporting trolls, don't you. Could you not look it up yourself? Here, let me.

Pelosi Compares Tea Party Protesters To Nazis: 'They're Carrying Swastikas" | The Gateway Pundit

 

[Foxfyre]

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anytime who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.

It starts off rather innocuously in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states. First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed. It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.

I have no problem with anybody barking. I have tried to be very clear about that. It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anyone who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.

The bolded: I would say that that would make a strong argument for public television, which is not beholden to private sponsors or advertisements.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

nancy pelosi compared tea party to nazis - Google Search

Many occasions of politicians comparing opposition to Nazis. Unless someone proposed rouding people up and murdering them I don't approve of such remarks. Projected foward, allowing that sort of comparison to go unchallenged will just cheapen what the actual Nazis have done. Making little political squabbles seem like what Nazis did in other words instead of murdering millions of people.

 

[Asclepias]

I SO disagree with that. It was intolerance that led to slavery because they didn't believe that people who didn't look like them or had some other difference weren't as good as the slave owner was. Intolerance leads to only one type of people ruling the rest. . When you have intolerance, the people who dominate will most likely be the most vile and violent because it will take those traits to eliminate and silence all the other people.

Do you mean slavery in the US or slavery in general? 2 different things. I am intolerant of the opinion people should be enslaved. Am I trampling someone's right to life and liberty? Even if I was the person wanting slavery forfeited their rights as soon as they trampled someone elses right to life and liberty by enslaving them. Thats a perfect example of being intolerant of intolerant ideas.

Slavery in the US was what I was thinking of specifically, but it applies to slavery in general, I believe. I don't agree with the idea that people should be enslaved, but if you are intolerant of that view, you never have the opportunity to argue against it because you deprive the person of ever expressing it, so they never hear a different point of view.

Slavery in ancient times was different. There was no thought of people being subhuman in earlier instances of slavery to my knowledge. That was the Christian rationalization for it here in the US.

We must be talking about 2 different things then. I don't mind someone expressing their point of view to me respectfully but there is no room IMO for things like slavery, misogyny etc. There is nothing anyone could say that would make me think it was OK.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anyone who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.

The bolded: I would say that that would make a strong argument for public television, which is not beholden to private sponsors or advertisements.

Well not beholden as much maybe. Growing up with PBS I remember "Brought to you by the generous contribution of viewers like you and a generous grant from the Arthur C MIller Foundation" and the like. They're thus somewhat vulnerable to political considerations, just not as much as a for profit station would be. They're not operating free of costs in other words. In some ways then, they're more vulnerable to manipulation as the people donating and making their airtime possible can force them to do their bidding. In theory anyway.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anytime who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.

It starts off rather innocuously in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states. First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed. It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.

I have no problem with anybody barking. I have tried to be very clear about that. It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.

Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly. In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you have a quote or some links for that statement, perhaps?

No, I rarely have links for questions I ask. But here are some links I had noted in my files:
Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics

When I clicked on the quote function, a link appeared, apparently you interpolated that link after originally writing your response, or you deleted it, but the program still has it in the quote settings.

Here again is the link:

Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics

The text under the video:

Nancy Pelosi claims protesters are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

The video is now defunct.


So, just to clarify, there is no evidence that she said this, and if she did and it is factually correct, meaning that SOME people who went to Republican town-hall meetings indeed did carry swastikas, then I would still ask myself why you, after explaining in the OP that this was not supposed to get partisan, just got very partisan.

I do apologize for the false inquiry.

I meant to ask if you had a link for your question. Apparently, that oversight upset you. I promise to do better in the future. Ok?

You have no clue what does and does not upset me. And yes, there has been one or two swastikas with a line drawn through them--that means 'no nazis, yes?, out of tens of thousands of signs that have been photographed at Tea Party or town hall events. Pelosi made it sound like they were all doing that. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. I don't CARE whether she was referring to one sign or thousands. The obvious point I was making is that she has had nothing complimentary to say about anybody on the right, ever. And has characterized the Tea Party and other conservative groups in very ugly terms.

The point is whether her stating her very partisan and biased and sometimes downright hateful opinion about people on the right is influencing people to do harm to those people on the right? Or, is Pelosi as entitled to her opinion as anybody else? She should be allowed her opinion as much as anybody else? Or would it be okay for an angry mob, group, or organization to do everything in their power to destroy her purely for an opinion she expressed?

Could you please focus on that and not try to steer the thread to something entirely different? Thank you very much.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anyone who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.

The bolded: I would say that that would make a strong argument for public television, which is not beholden to private sponsors or advertisements.

Well not beholden as much maybe. Growing up with PBS I remember "Brought to you by the generous contribution of viewers like you and a generous grant from the Arthur C MIller Foundation" and the like. They're thus somewhat vulnerable to political considerations, just not as much as a for profit station would be. They're not operating free of costs in other words. In some ways then, they're more vulnerable to manipulation as the people donating and making their airtime possible can force them to do their bidding. In theory anyway.

Interesting. I never thought of that before. Thanks for the information.

 

[Katzndogz]

Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?

Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?

Sarah Palin thougyt so. She didn't say he should be fired.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, I rarely have links for questions I ask. But here are some links I had noted in my files:
Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics

When I clicked on the quote function, a link appeared, apparently you interpolated that link after originally writing your response, or you deleted it, but the program still has it in the quote settings.

Here again is the link:

Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" | RealClearPolitics

The text under the video:

Nancy Pelosi claims protesters are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

The video is now defunct.


So, just to clarify, there is no evidence that she said this, and if she did and it is factually correct, meaning that SOME people who went to Republican town-hall meetings indeed did carry swastikas, then I would still ask myself why you, after explaining in the OP that this was not supposed to get partisan, just got very partisan.

I do apologize for the false inquiry.

I meant to ask if you had a link for your question. Apparently, that oversight upset you. I promise to do better in the future. Ok?

You have no clue what does and does not upset me. And yes, there has been one or two swastikas with a line drawn through them--that means 'no nazis, yes?, out of tens of thousands of signs that have been photographed at Tea Party or town hall events. Pelosi made it sound like they were all doing that. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. I don't CARE whether she was referring to one sign or thousands. The obvious point I was making is that she has had nothing complimentary to say about anybody on the right, ever. And has characterized the Tea Party and other conservative groups in very ugly terms.

The point is whether her stating her very partisan and biased and sometimes downright hateful opinion about people on the right is influencing people to do harm to those people on the right? Or, is Pelosi as entitled to her opinion as anybody else? She should be allowed her opinion as much as anybody else? Or would it be okay for an angry mob, group, or organization to do everything in their power to destroy her purely for an opinion she expressed?

Could you please focus on that and not try to steer the thread to something entirely different? Thank you very much.

First bolded: oh, I was under the impression that we were supposed to be civil to each other here.

Second bolded: I am not trying to steer this thread away from anything. I responded directly to input from YOU.

As for the NAZI signs with strike-marks or lines through them, I will research that. But I will again remind: YOU brought it up first, I am merely responding.

The part of your quote, which I put in red: why did you not simply say that in the first place? And no, it is not apparent to all that you meant that. I will also note that you are making a blanket statement about a political figure like Nancy Pelosi, without actual fact to back up the statement. Or are you aware of every single statement that Nancy Pelosi has ever said? And exactly what is the direct tie-in between her and the actual intent of your OP?

I just want to write this so that the whole world can see: I have approached you with respect here on this thread and you have simply been nasty to me. It's all there in black and white for the whole world to see.

Are you really interested in any kind of debate with people who are not exactly of the same mind as you?

For this reason I feel compelled to ask you to behave in accordance with the rules of the CDZ. Thank you.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

As to the other part about intolerance of other's ideas costing us our Constitutional rights, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Much of the vitriol in politics is all bark, no bite. Anytime who proposed taking an eraser to the Bill of Rights would be run out of town on a rail. That said, there are occasions where rights are being suppressed, but lost completely and permanently no. I think educating Americans on what those rights are should be a continuing process so when such suppression occurs, people understand it's unconstitutional and don't just roll over and accept it. Lawsuits work well for this.

But at least on tv, freedom to voice dissent or disagree is being suppressed fairly often. But then there's the fact that on-air tv is business, and if someone's saying things that will negatively impact that business you get rid of them. Better to take a little hit than allow somoene fundamentally at odds with your business to keep shooting their mouth off.

It starts off rather innocuously in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states. First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed. It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.

I have no problem with anybody barking. I have tried to be very clear about that. It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.

Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly. In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.

I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.

Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?

Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?

Sarah Palin thougyt so. She didn't say he should be fired.

Yep. Sarah handled it with class. And she DOES understand the difference between opinions and intentionally doing something to somebody. So its pretty obvious which of those two came out looking best in that deal.

Sarah Palin is almost as opinionated as I am and holds her convictions almost as strongly as I do. (Maybe more--I'm drawing an assumption there.) But she also understands what unalienable rights are and what liberty is and how suppressing people's ideas, thoughts, and opinions is ultimately deadly to a free society.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Was it "intolerant" for people to be outraged and demand the firing of Martin Bashir for his comments about Sarah Palin?

Was it "intolerant" of MSNBC to fire him?

Sarah Palin thougyt so. She didn't say he should be fired.

I concur.

What Martin Bashir said was truly disgusting and I would want to have no part of it. And in this case, I think that Sarah Palin handled it quite well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It starts off rather innocuously in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states. First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed. It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.

I have no problem with anybody barking. I have tried to be very clear about that. It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.

Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly. In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.

I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.

Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.

That begs an important question: why do people ever "need" a scapegoat? What a waste of energy.

As for your statements about the Republican Party, considering that both parties have made some grievous mistakes in the past, I am not willing to say that Republicans are copying Nazi strategy. I don't think they are, and definitely not consciously. But some on the Right have said and done things that are extremely intolerant. My concern, also as a Jew, like you, and as a straight-ally, is that there are forces behind the scene who want to profit from the constantly ideological battling within the USA.

 

[Foxfyre]

It starts off rather innocuously in all countries that become oppressive totalitarian states. First this group, then that group is demonized until it becomes politically correct for the angry mobs, groups, or organizations use strongarm (figuratively or actually) tactics to shut people up--only politically correct speech is allowed. It is a slow creep from there to having all freedoms first suppressed, and then removed altogether.

I have no problem with anybody barking. I have tried to be very clear about that. It's when they choose to bite purely because of who are what somebody is that it becomes an infringement on peoples' unalienable rights.

Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly. In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.

I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.

Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.

And I respect your right to characterize Republicans that way even though everything you just said about what Republicans have done or attempted is a flat out untruth if not an intentional lie. And I have every right to call you on it and say bullshit that Republicans have copied anything Nazi or utilized Nazi-like tactics in any respect.

But PLEASE let's don't sidetrack the thread on who and who isn't Nazis, or whether the Democrats or Republicans most deserve to wear Hitler mustaches. That is appropriate for another thread, not this one.

But the exchange between you and me on the subject IS pertinent to this thread. Should you be able to express your contempt for Republicans without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away your livelihood and otherwise ruin your life? Yes you should.

And should I be able to say what you said is a bunch of crap without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away my livelihood and otherwise ruin my life? Yes I should.

And what Stat said about the Nazis accomplishing what they did very quickly is worth a second look. My understanding of history is that it took the Nazi party close to a decade and a half to accomplish a totalitarian state, and while that was very fast in the whole scope of world history, it didn't happen just overnight but in increments as society was conditioned or lulled to accept what was happening as a good, noble, virtuous thing. And while I do NOT want to get into a discussion of Hitler's Germany outside of that very narrow concept, I do think we can learn from it. Most especially the component in which the Nazis first controlled the message that would be acceptable. Any who dared veer from the politically correct version could expect swift and certain reprimand in various ways.

So who is now trying to--demanding to--control the message in the USA. And urging swift and certain reprimand to those who wander off the politically correct reservation?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Actually, I have to challenge that somewhat (the bolded): history has shown us that most dictatorships have evolved very, very quickly. In more recent history, NAZI Germany sprung out of the Weimar Republic within less than one year of Hitler's appointment to the Chancellorship of said Republic under President Paul Hindenburg. And the Nürnberg Laws were already being drafted and the lion's share of them, which caused suppression, pretty much happened all at once.

We love to take the romantic view that dictatorships can spring up slowly because people tend to be like frogs in a pot of water that is heating up very, very slowly, but historical facts are quite actually NOT on the side of that form of argument at all.

We have come to hear the phrase "first they came for the XXX, but I didn't do anything, and then they came for the XXX, and I still didn't do anything", etc.... but in NAZI Germany, they actually pretty much went after everyone on their hit list all at once.

The question I have of you is whether you really think anything like 1933-1945 Germany, 1927-1945 Japan, 1917-1990 UDSSR is even possible in the USA. I believe very much that it is quite impossible.

I think what's happened in the past is more or less impossible now because of global communications. People know better. And if some Hitler'esque figure came onto the world stage saying how this group and that group was responsible for all our woes, they'd be found out and debunked that same day.

Problem is, people need a scapegoat so denouncing those with opinions and ideas opposite to our own is a common tactic in politics. The Republicans have indeed borrow some plays from the Nazi playbook like denouncing immigrants. And their attempts to deny basic human rights to the LGBT community harkens back to Nazi Germany as well (orign of the inverted pink triangle being the symbol used marking concentration camp prisoners as homosexuals.) And going over to Africa to push their anti-gay rhetoric onto countries so poor anyone offering help will have their ideology implemented in law as in Uganda recently is much as the Nazis spread around the world empowering politicial underdogs into power positions if they supported the Nazi agenda. So while I wouldn't say the Republicans are like Nazis, I would say they're copying a lot of things Nazis did so that it's becomming a bit of a concern to me as a Jew and member of the LGBT community.

And I respect your right to characterize Republicans that way even though everything you just said about what Republicans have done or attempted is a flat out untruth if not an intentional lie. And I have every right to call you on it and say bullshit that Republicans have copied anything Nazi or utilized Nazi-like tactics in any respect.

But PLEASE let's don't sidetrack the thread on who and who isn't Nazis, or whether the Democrats or Republicans most deserve to wear Hitler mustaches. That is appropriate for another thread, not this one.

But the exchange between you and me on the subject IS pertinent to this thread. Should you be able to express your contempt for Republicans without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away your livelihood and otherwise ruin your life? Yes you should.

And should I be able to say what you said is a bunch of crap without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will try to take away my livelihood and otherwise ruin my life? Yes I should.

And what Stat said about the Nazis accomplishing what they did very quickly is worth a second look. My understanding of history is that it took the Nazi party close to a decade and a half to accomplish a totalitarian state, and while that was very fast in the whole scope of world history, it didn't happen just overnight but in increments as society was conditioned or lulled to accept what was happening as a good, noble, virtuous thing. And while I do NOT want to get into a discussion of Hitler's Germany outside of that very narrow concept, I do think we can learn from it. Most especially the component in which the Nazis first controlled the message that would be acceptable. Any who dared veer from the politically correct version could expect swift and certain reprimand in various ways.

So who is now trying to--demanding to--control the message in the USA. And urging swift and certain reprimand to those who wander off the politically correct reservation?

The Nazi Party was created in 1920. There was a forerunnner to the party (the German Workers Party, formed by Anton Drexler) created in 1919 as a direct protest to the hard reparations levied upon Germany for it's particpation in WWI.

Hitler was jailed in 1924 for an attempt at a bloody coup in Munich on November 9, 1923 (for this very reason, he selected November 9, 15 years later, to burn down all the synagogues in the land).

He was back on the streets in 1925.

The Nazi party had little or no influence from 1925-1928.

When the Great Depression hit, and the Weimar Republic took a hit with it, the NAZI party rose in power but still lost the 1928 elections miserably and only got 37% in 1932.

Only through sleight of hand did Hitler get appointed to be Chancellor from then President Paul Hindenberg, and by 1933, the Weimar Republic was destroyed. The first drafts of the Nürnberg laws were already being written and open persecution of Jews, Roma, gays, Leftists (including politicians from the Social Democrats, who were herded up, put in large dog cages and instructed to bark or get shot in the head - and that already in 1935), the handicapped and people of any other religious other than Christian (although Hitler himself scorned Christianity) - all of this was happenining as early as 1935, just two years after the "Machtübernahme" of Hitler. So, it wasn't 15 years, it went much, much faster than that. Some people like to think fifteen years between 1928-1943, but that is simply incorrect.

But no matter what, the destruction he brought is apparent for all to see.

As for your last sentence: I was unaware that we are all on a reservation.

And as for who is trying to control thought - well, thought is free, it can hardly be controlled. The very fact that you and I can openly argue about a number of thngs pretty much proves that. If you are suggesting that the Left is trying to stifle people, I challenge that suggestion, very strongly. I also do not think that the Right, by and large, is trying to stifle people, either.