Liberalism is Dead and Evangelicals Don't Deserve It Anyway

[drbrumley]

I don't think that the white race is inherently superior to others, and even if I think that there is, to whatever extent, a Jewish problem, I don't think that this problem arises at the level of biology.

A Jewish problem? So what exactly is the Jewish problem?

 

[drbrumley]

Commies, Nazis, Dems, and GOP
All agree the State must expand continuously

That's all you need to know.

 

[Town Heretic]

No, some of them stepped back and let others do it.

lain:

Trying to separate the Nazis from the thrust of their historical identity is as nonsensical an effort as trying to separate the Klan from racial issues. If anyone, Trad on, feels the need to link to that tradition it speaks to a fundamental truth in identity no amount of whitewash can cover.

 

[Tambora]

Yes I saw that in your previous post but cut it off in my quote because I don't think it's a good comparison. People aren't dogs and cats and reasons for liking them and wanting to be around them aren't going to be the same. I don't know how you'd translate the dog example to people.

Good grief.
It had nothing to do with being a dog or people.
The point is you can prefer to be separate without hating.

 

[Tambora]

First of all- don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't.
Where are you getting that????

Secondly, the right to free speech does apply to Nazis.

Tell us why free speech does not apply to Nazis.

 

[Tambora]

How are you defining non-extremist Nazism?

It has been suggested that only Muslims that do the killing are extremists, and the ones that don't do the killing are not.
I compare that with the Nazis that did not do any killing.
It was suggested that even thought not all Nazis killed Jews, they were still happy other Nazis were doing the killing.
I compare that with Muslims that don't do the killing but were still happy other Muslims were doing the killing.

With Muslims it was suggested that they should be critiqued individually.
But all Nazis get grouped together as "bad" no matter what they individually did.
Seems to be a double standard as to why one entire group can be hated for what their extremists did, but not the other.

 

[kmoney]

Good grief.
It had nothing to do with being a dog or people.
The point is you can prefer to be separate without hating.

I know the point you're trying to make. And it makes sense in a lot of contexts. I don't think it makes sense here.

 

[kmoney]

It has been suggested that only Muslims that do the killing are extremists, and the ones that don't do the killing are not.
I compare that with the Nazis that did not do any killing.
It was suggested that even thought not all Nazis killed Jews, they were still happy other Nazis were doing the killing.
I compare that with Muslims that don't do the killing but were still happy other Muslims were doing the killing.

With Muslims it was suggested that they should be critiqued individually.
But all Nazis get grouped together as "bad" no matter what they individually did.
Seems to be a double standard as to why one entire group can be hated for what their extremists did, but not the other.

I get all that but I'd like to know how you are defining Nazis who aren't extremists. Because I think the response here is that Nazism is inherently violent whereas Islam is not.

For Islam you have the violent extremists, perhaps some that aren't personally violent but support those who are, and then you have those who aren't personally violent and don't support violence. My initial thought is that the 3rd category doesn't exist for Nazism. Or are you thinking about what Traditio appears to be suggesting here where people simply live in isolation?

 

[Tambora]

Maybe it depends on the context? :idunno:

A political cartoon pic of Trump using a Nazi symbol (armband, or flag, or uniform, etc.)
The context being to identify him as being a Nazi.
No complaints about the Nazi symbol that identifies him as a Nazi.
Trad, who does identify as Nazi, also uses a Nazi symbol.
Complaints about the Nazi symbol that identifies him as Nazi.

 

[kmoney]

A political cartoon pic of Trump using a Nazi symbol (armband, or flag, or uniform, etc.)
The context being to identify him as being a Nazi.
No complaints about the Nazi symbol that identifies him as a Nazi.
Trad, who does identify as Nazi, also uses a Nazi symbol.
Complaints about the Nazi symbol that identifies him as Nazi.

Political satire or commentary is not the same as personally espousing the symbol so I don't think there is a double standard.

Having said that, as a rule I wouldn't advocate using Nazi symbols for Trump even in a cartoon because I tend to think using Nazism hurts productive dialogue rather than helping it.

 

[Tambora]

I get all that but I'd like to know how you are defining Nazis who aren't extremists. Because I think the response here is that Nazism is inherently violent whereas Islam is not.

For Islam you have the violent extremists, perhaps some that aren't personally violent but support those who are, and then you have those who aren't personally violent and don't support violence. My initial thought is that the 3rd category doesn't exist for Nazism. Or are you thinking about what Traditio appears to be suggesting here where people simply live in isolation?

OK, tell me what your definition of what Nazi should be.

Was Nazi Germany a term just for certain individuals or for the whole country?
Or was the term Nazi only for the soldiers/police that enforced the laws of rounding up Jews and killing them?
Could a regular factory worker that had nothing to do with killing anyone be a Nazi?
Just goes to work, pays his taxes, abides by the law, and goes home to his family at the end of the day.

Where exactly should the line be drawn as to who was considered an actual Nazi there at that time and who was not?
I'm all ears and would actually like to hear opinions on this, as to what the opinion of who was considered a Nazi at the time of Nazi Germany.
Could open up some dialogue I have not considered.

 

[chair]

Tell us why free speech does not apply to Nazis.

Did I say that? Read again.

 

[kmoney]

OK, tell me what your definition of what Nazi should be.

Was Nazi Germany a term just for certain individuals or for the whole country?
Or was the term Nazi only for the soldiers/police that enforced the laws of rounding up Jews and killing them?
Could a regular factory worker that had nothing to do with killing anyone be a Nazi?
Just goes to work, pays his taxes, abides by the law, and goes home to his family at the end of the day.

Where exactly should the line be drawn as to who was considered an actual Nazi there at that time and who was not?
I'm all ears and would actually like to hear opinions on this, as to what the opinion of who was considered a Nazi at the time of Nazi Germany.
Could open up some dialogue I have not considered.

Well first off, I thought we were talking about today, not during Hitler's reign. And nowadays I suspect that anyone who would take on that label is doing so because they do hold to the more extreme and violent tendencies of nationalism. Who else would want to?

But if you're interested in back then.....It was a political party so Nazis were anyone who associated with the party. At the beginning there would have been Nazis that weren't all about killing Jews. Hitler didn't rise to power talking about concentration camps. Things evolved. Once it became known what Hitler was doing, however, it would be much more suspect for someone to still label themselves 'Nazi' while saying they didn't support the concentration camps. That can't be looked past.

 

[Tambora]

Political satire or commentary is not the same as personally espousing the symbol so I don't think there is a double standard.

I don't freak out at political satire, so I'm not against them at all.
So I'm not making any point to discourage such.

The point was simply why is it OK to use Nazi symbols galore to identify someone as a Nazi that doesn't even identify themself as Nazi.
It would seem that using the symbols to identify a non-Nazi as Nazi would be even worse use of the symbols than one that actually identifies himself as a Nazi.
Use the symbols all you want to with anyone not identifying as such. Good.
But use the symbols for someone that does identify as such. Not good.
Town made the argument using a very sad story of a woman and child being treated barbarically by Nazis, and expressed that by Trad using that symbol would stir up offensive emotions because of the horrors those symbols bring to mind.
But why do the same symbols used for non-identifying Nazis not stir up the same horrid emotions, if it is indeed the symbol itself that stirs such emotions?

Having said that, as a rule I wouldn't advocate using Nazi symbols for Trump even in a cartoon because I tend to think using Nazism hurts productive dialogue rather than helping it.

Some people tend to let emotions rule their actions.
And no, I'm not saying that emotions are always wrong (before someone accuses me of that too).
I'm suggesting that if it is the symbols that stir those horrid emotions, then the symbols should be abhorrent anywhere used.
But as we can see, they are not.

TOL is a Christian site.
GOD is tops.
Satan is the lowest (way way below Nazis).
And yet TOL would allow a pentagram symbol as an avatar.
Just think about that comparison for a second.
We allow Satanic symbols to be used, but Nazi symbols are too horrid.
Sounds a little off kilter, don't ya think?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Go flush yourself down the toilet.

And join you? No thanks...

 

[Town Heretic]

And join you? No thanks...

That's no way to speak to someone who just invited you into his home. lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The German people justified the evil of the Nazis. Muslims justify the evil of their extremists. They even believe Europe belongs to them

A lot of Muslims fight against the extremists, have died in the process and have no truck with it at all. On here, there's far right, fundamentalist "Christian" cesspools who would murder people for not living a "moral" enough life. Go figure.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Trying to separate the Nazis from the thrust of their historical identity is as nonsensical an effort as trying to separate the Klan from racial issues. If anyone, Trad on, feels the need to link to that tradition it speaks to a fundamental truth in identity no amount of whitewash can cover.

Completely.

:thumb:

 

[Tambora]

Well first off, I thought we were talking about today, not during Hitler's reign. And nowadays I suspect that anyone who would take on that label is doing so because they do hold to the more extreme and violent tendencies of nationalism. Who else would want to?

But if you're interested in back then.....It was a political party so Nazis were anyone who associated with the party. At the beginning there would have been Nazis that weren't all about killing Jews. Hitler didn't rise to power talking about concentration camps. Things evolved. Once it became known what Hitler was doing, however, it would be much more suspect for someone to still label themselves 'Nazi' while saying they didn't support the concentration camps. That can't be looked past.

I get your gist.
But let me ask .....
If a person in Germany at the time Hitler was at his peak was told to help gas Jews with the threat of death, would he be considered a Nazi if he chose to do it rather than be killed? (I only helped to kill them to keep myself alive.)
I ask this with the notion that there were probably several soldiers that did what they did for precisely that same reason.
And so did some Jews.
Were they considered Nazis because they carried out the orders?
Or does 'Nazi' only truly fit those that WANTED to do it?
And if so, then how do we determine if someone really did WANT to do it, because that might eliminate many of the soldiers that carried out their orders to stay alive as being a real Nazi.
There are just so many things to consider.

I do appreciate your candor in trying to narrow this down as much as we can as to what constitutes a real Nazi when it comes to who did the killing.

 

[quip]

I get all that but I'd like to know how you are defining Nazis who aren't extremists. Because I think the response here is that Nazism is inherently violent whereas Islam is not.

For Islam you have the violent extremists, perhaps some that aren't personally violent but support those who are, and then you have those who aren't personally violent and don't support violence. My initial thought is that the 3rd category doesn't exist for Nazism. Or are you thinking about what Traditio appears to be suggesting here where people simply live in isolation?

Nazism is supremacist, a hate incepted ideology (extremist in it conception.); Islam, a religion with varying degrees of dogmatic austerity. (Not unlike Christianity.)

The difference should be obvious to all but the stubbornly dense. (Ex. Tam)