"I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth." - Theodore Roosevelt
basically the same stupid as fuck thought process
This kind of thinking needs to die off with the nazis you hate so much
A retelling and combination of two very old sayings that usually go along the lines of “judge them by the company they keep” and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my enemy.... etc.” logically false. Priests, gurus, teachers, healers, councilors, etc- all associate with sorts one might not want to be lumped in with. However- how can you help a person by shunning them? Placing them and those like them together in a resonance chamber without any fresh perspectives, only their initial issues reinforced by resentment and lack of attachment to the society that shunned them, bouncing around growing stronger and stronger? This is how radicals are created. And is the enemy of your friend really your enemy? Or could sometimes things be more complex- or perhaps even your friend be wrong? And what would that then say of you? No. It doesn’t work that way. At s certain depth we have to concede that a person is enabling or condoning “bad” behavior- but a superficial...
... association shouldn’t be enough to label someone as “just as bad” as those they might spend company with. Life is surprisingly complex, and few humans of any, even the “worst” of us in hate and violence and selfishness and poison are truly completely “bad.” More often than not there may even be more “good” than “bad” and perhaps a person not only worth “saving” but who is “savable” should we simply show them there are better ways. Not always of course. Sometimes it’s just a practical matter and it is what it is. But to have the luxury to be able to find out and not even try out of blind labels is not much better of any better in principal than those we would label as “bad.”
@bethorien Nazism is the same as ISIS is the same as facism is the same as being a republican or a democrat in the sense that its an ideology. A choice. You can't compare those 2 quotes when 1 is racial, unless you're assuming all white people are Nazi's, which is clearly as far from the truth as you can get. Nobody can choose their race but everyone can choose whether or not you hate people based on their race. This saying doesn't discriminate on anyone, it refers to ideologies only. Because it's ok to hate on toxic ideologies (in fact, its necessary). But not to hate a person for race or sexual orientation or whatever aspect of their life they had no control over, as Teddy Roosevelt did
you can compare the two statements as both are the same stupid idea that lumping people together based on those around them and treating them like shit because of who a they are around is apparently a good idea. Its the same thought process. Its the same idea reskinned.
its just another excuse to condemn people. Just another excuse to treat undeserving people like shit because fuckwits and assholes sometimes need something to make themselves feel better about trashing someone, hitting someone, killing someone.
it makes you no better than the hateful groups you lump people into.
@king_me- the litmus rest of a system of civics isn’t wether it stops or deters or punished or reforms “bad guys,” because who is “bad” is relative and ever changing. Some aspect of each of us could make us a “bad guy” tomorrow of the winds and politics blew that way, and those very same principals and laws we apply to “bad guys” when we are not in the cross hairs, could then apply to us. The possibility of abuse and use for targeted prejudices in such a system make it inherently dangerous. Native peoples, Blacks, Asians, Irish- looking back through history we can easily say “those people were idiots for what they did and thought of these groups”- but at the time many felt those groups were a legitimate menace. What might we think in 2,4,8 generations? So it is important that we set up a framework and precedence for the future that certain behaviors are unacceptable regardless of who it is we are talking about. There are limits to tolerance of course...
... the paradox of inclusive tolerance is that by its nature it must not tolerate that which would seek to exclude. So while philosophies like Nazi ideology can not be abided, we also cannot do the same to Nazis lest we become the same as what we seek to remove from society. In other words- if all you do is change the group in the sentence but not anything else- you’re still committing the same wrong. The fact that most people we would agree are of sound judgment would form a concensus that “these guys are bad,” doesn’t matter because once upon a time a majority concensus agreed other innocent groups were bad because of prejudices. It’s a delicate line to walk- especially when dealing with “special kinds of wrong” like Nazis who have a core philosophy that is not salvageable or defensible. Howeverbeing conscious and careful in our actions is the first step to being better than them.
So, the principle of being intolerant of intolerance then? Something I can get behind, but people don't seem to follow it too often. Islam is low hanging fruit in this regard, because even the majority of muslims living in the UK, believe that being gay is immoral, for instance. If you need any other examples, just look at the deranged far-left sections of the US left wing, some of which have basically stated that they won't vote for Bernie Sanders because he's a white guy. Which is definitely intolerant, even though they will deny it.
So yeah, good in principle, but a very hard balance to strike. Especially since these days, people's feelings are being catered to, and not facts. I don't even know what the solution would be, aside from wiping the political landscape clean, which is obviously impossible.
@guest_ You're arguing not to deal in absolutes because "absolutes" is a construct. An absolute is not a construct though. Mathematically, in base 10, 2+2 is always going to equal four. That's a verifiable absolute. It exists, there are multiple proofs (not that you need more than one), and they all are absolute. Is Nazism' equability comparable towards 2+2=4? No, because we both know I can make 2+2=5 if I really wanted. There is some sort of basic human treatment (the golden rule) that is the 2+2=4... and not the 5. You have to twist the baseline logic to pull up the 5.
Still waiting on the sighting of a 7.... that'd be spesho.
It gets complicated. Using Nazis as a clear example- there were people seen as “collaborators” who did basically this. They either actively catered to and helped or courted the Nazis, or socialized and did business with them. But.... many were saboteurs, spies, or using that association to do good. Oscar Schindler died a penniless war criminal supported on charity from those he had saved and their relatives. Had he not done business with or had dinner with Nazis, the number of People he was able to save would have likely been far less if any. During the “Cold War” diplomats- official and non official crossed lines to dine and chat with their bitter ideological enemies. This exchange of good will is credited with possibly helping avert a much “hotter” war. So there are clear real examples of where one might be seen to be condoning such acts when they are in fact working actively to make positive change....
.... likewise- this message of tacit complicity is one used by terrorists the world over to justify attacks on civilians. Those who live in first world countries and reap the benefits of their governments shady dealings and the exploitation’s of commerce are in this view- just as guilty of those deeds as if they themselves were the ones making the decisions to ruin lives. While it is true that there is a level of culpability in our personal choices- are you as guilty of killing union leaders for popular world wide name brands in South America as the executives who made the orders? Every time you fly on a plane or use any of the medical or safety advancements gained through plea bargains with nazi and Japanese war criminals guilty of gross and extreme human rights violations- are you just as guilty as the doctors at the camps or in mainland China freezing pregnant women to death, cutting out their babies, or replacing human blood with animal blood? Or are you less guilty, or etc?
I'm pretty sure the main point they're trying to make is that accepting or enabling someone whose thoughts are extremely radical is in itself a problem. But then again if you consider that being a Nazi is actually a crime in Germany this could very well be a simple heads up to help you keep out if jail.
In this world we cannot help but be complicit in certain aspects of government related things but we sure as hell can avoid things on a smaller, more interpersonal level, and we should where we can. The idea being don't associate yourself with those who could sway you to their line of thought (even if remotely) as it could lead you to 1 bad decision at the wrong time and you could end up with a lifetime of regret. Or perhaps lead you to their line of thought entirely. The only way to guarantee that won't happen is to avoid it entirely
While I don’t argue your point in that it at least removes an element of possible influence on ones self- we could also argue that being ignorant or inexperienced in dealing with certain types of people also can increase ones chances of being swayed by propaganda. Many have been turned to radical causes or crime simply because they lived a shielded life and when exposed to the realities of things and confronted with a different version of truth than they expected- were caught off guard. Perhaps even questioning the foundations of their beliefs because of how wrong they were in certain regards. Of course- influence is a two way street. How is one supposed to change the views of people like this if one does t expose such people to a broader philosophy and world view? As I say in one of these posts- there are practical limits of course- but outside extreme examples we can hardly label a person trash because they associate with trash. Most of us have associated whom wether or not we are...
.. aware or willing to admit- do not have “clean” hands. We excuse them their sins and failings on the grounds that “thats not who THEY really are.” “You do t understand the whole story..” “that isn’t their fault..” So the only way to reconcile that behavior with this philosophy would be to “rank” evils- to say “yes, I am complicit in this evil, but it’s a lesser evil..” or to say “I am not complicit because any evil below tier 7 evil doesn’t count...” It doesn’t pencil out because it follows that same self defeating logic that allows us to decide who is justified and whonisnt in their wrongs. I can’t subscribe to the philosophy. The brother of a crook is not a crook by default. The child of the devil is not their parent automatically. Anyone who has done great food has done great harm. That’s the balance of power. The only way you’re remotely “clean” is if you never have done anything with your life. There’s always dirt.
All true, but I think the main point is to avoid associating with them. Not to avoid them, or to avoid trying to educate them. As an example (and i know this is loosely related, but anyway) if you're in a crackhouse when the police raid it you're going to get arrested. Even if You went in to educate them against drug use, or just to chill with your friends, or even if it was fetch your drug addicted brother. And this point is still relevant because being a Nazi is a punishable crime in Germany. So while yes there is always dirt, and yes complete sheltering can have adverse effects, it still remains best to tow the line. Although where to draw the line is another issue and a discussion we can table for another day
if you feel you need to stay away from people because they might sway your line of thinking you need to reevaluate how strongly you believe your own stance
Don't worry mate, it's actually worse. Because there isn't anyone to explain to the rest of the world that communism is a much bigger cancer.
And much more popular right now, which is even more dangerous.
I guess this extremely depends on the part of the world you're at and the definition of communism.
Where I am I only see a massive spreading of nationalism and the racism that naturally comes along with it, which is outrageously disappointing considering we were on a good way to overcome such bs. Hopefully the majority of people, which is actually not interested in this backwards oriented and progress blocking crap will find their way back to actually vote. We'll see soon in Europe, elections are close.
Depends on what you define as racism then. Because the duty of a country is to tend to the interest of its citizens. Those who aren't, have literally no obligation from that country to grant them anything, including citizenship. Which is why people can vote for completely closing immigration from a specific country, or to the citizens of a specific country, and they have the full moral and legal right to do so.
Nationalism isn't a bad thing, it's why the world got as far as it did. Competition breeds competence. And competition between countries does so even more.
@vitklim actual communism has never been practiced by any government. Anywhere. Ever. Fascism has, multiple times, under the guise of both socialism and communism... and under "The democratic people's republic of Korea". You naming stuff or them naming stuff doesn't actually mean these things mean what you think they mean. Fascism takes many guises, nationalist among them.
Does this make any of those ideas "bad"? No... just as it makes none of them "good".
Would a pure version of any of them ever work? Fuck no. That's why they are ideologies. Wanna know what happens under pure capitalism?
example of free capitalism run amok: Jeff Bezos could buy Arlington Cemetery, bulldoze the graves and then build an Amazon shipping center over it.
free =/= fair =/= regulated. Learn these words.
I completely agree, and the dilution needs to happen everywhere. Free market is great, but we need regulation to prevent monopolies and exploitation. Having a government is a good thing overall, but giving it the power to censor political or cultural speech is a path towards tyranny. Free speech is a good thing, but there have to be even minimal restrictions, regarding things like incitement of violence.
Problem is, that makes it very difficult to figure out when you leaned too far in a single direction, and people who don't pay attention, will never even figure out that it happened. And that's a problem I have no answer for.
I can largely agree with much of what vitklik says in their last post save perhaps the part about incitement to violence- although I do agree that all speech must be “minimally” infringed on- the sticking point is how we define minimally in regards to practicality. The evil of Nazis isn’t inherent to just Nazism. It’s radical nationalism combined with systemic prejudice and xenophobia, coupled with an idea of manifest destiny and an “ends justify the means” attitude- the same attitudes we can see in extreme measure in many governments which have or are perpetrating heinous crime against humanity. In 2019 essentially no one needs to be told Nazis are bad. The distinction here isn’t if Nazis are bad, but if one can or should automatically be judged by the affiliations or actions of their associates. We must be very careful about persecution based on ideologies or political affiliations. One of the great evils the Nazis are known for is exactly that. They labeled certain groups “bad,”...
... and said anyone associating with those groups in any way was “bad,” and we all know how far they took that. So one can’t “take the moral high ground” for doing in essence the same thing that they did only exchanging the group(s) we decide to call “bad” and in need of control or eradication for another- even if those groups are legitimately (in our view,) terrible by nature. If we agree that such philosophies are counter productive to the peaceful and mutually beneficial co existence of the human race- we must then work constructively and in the most enlightened way to change hearts and minds without indoctrination to pave way for a better future. There is no true communism- and communism might work great if we could trust a computer to run everything. That itself has its own dangers and draw backs though. Capitalism needs regulation because ethical capitalism is a nobel idea, unchecked capitalism is little better than just letting the strong take what they want through violence.
I dont know man.. I come from a Jewish family and one of the most iconic friendships I've ever held was with a mercenary who used to operate in Africa. He was covered tattoos including the old south African flag, the eagle and swastika. He was a bigot of note but never failed to show respect where respect was due - regardless of religion, race or gender. He was deployed on missions as platoon leader to protect refugee camps from rebels and gorillas for Peace Corps and the UN. This man had done more good for the world than I probably ever will but will be held in less esteem because of his tattoos. Who you are, what you do and the motive that drives you is what defines you - not your image, not your label nor the company you keep. This man was a walking mystery and I'm proud to have known him
basically the same stupid as fuck thought process
This kind of thinking needs to die off with the nazis you hate so much
its just another excuse to condemn people. Just another excuse to treat undeserving people like shit because fuckwits and assholes sometimes need something to make themselves feel better about trashing someone, hitting someone, killing someone.
it makes you no better than the hateful groups you lump people into.
So yeah, good in principle, but a very hard balance to strike. Especially since these days, people's feelings are being catered to, and not facts. I don't even know what the solution would be, aside from wiping the political landscape clean, which is obviously impossible.
Still waiting on the sighting of a 7.... that'd be spesho.
In this world we cannot help but be complicit in certain aspects of government related things but we sure as hell can avoid things on a smaller, more interpersonal level, and we should where we can. The idea being don't associate yourself with those who could sway you to their line of thought (even if remotely) as it could lead you to 1 bad decision at the wrong time and you could end up with a lifetime of regret. Or perhaps lead you to their line of thought entirely. The only way to guarantee that won't happen is to avoid it entirely
And much more popular right now, which is even more dangerous.
Where I am I only see a massive spreading of nationalism and the racism that naturally comes along with it, which is outrageously disappointing considering we were on a good way to overcome such bs. Hopefully the majority of people, which is actually not interested in this backwards oriented and progress blocking crap will find their way back to actually vote. We'll see soon in Europe, elections are close.
Nationalism isn't a bad thing, it's why the world got as far as it did. Competition breeds competence. And competition between countries does so even more.
Does this make any of those ideas "bad"? No... just as it makes none of them "good".
Would a pure version of any of them ever work? Fuck no. That's why they are ideologies. Wanna know what happens under pure capitalism?
free =/= fair =/= regulated. Learn these words.
Problem is, that makes it very difficult to figure out when you leaned too far in a single direction, and people who don't pay attention, will never even figure out that it happened. And that's a problem I have no answer for.