Punching Nazis

[Synobun]

I'm just pointing out that you think it's incredibly obvious how bad the Nazis are, so why are you apparently worried about these ideas gaining support? Do you think other people will be swayed by listening to him speak?

Humans are a diverse species. Nazism has been proven to garner support with a charismatic and dedicated enough propaganda program. Pockets keep emerging in various states over and over and over again. Shout something enough and you will gain followers. See: every cult in existence, every ideology based on extermination in existence, and just about any unhealthy belief system in existence. To believe that everyone will naturally reject Nazism is to be ignorant.

 

[Lexicus]

Religion as a motivator for political or social action or organization is theocratic.

Theocracy is rule by priests. By your definition any society that allows religious people any say in politics at all is theocratic. That's preposterous.

You've made it pretty goddamn clear that you're a Nazi/white supremacist yourself. We've been over this.

Have we? Didn't you vote for Trump?

But you're not okay if they're working to pay restitution to their victims? Hell yeah I'm okay with it.

Prison laborers work for the benefit of corporations. There's nothing remotely like restitution involved in it. This whole line of argument you're using is silly.

 

[caketastydelish]

I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for Bill Gates. We've been over this.

 

[inthesomeday]

I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for Bill Gates. We've been over this.

So, depending on the state you live in, the answer to Lexicus's question is yes.

Theocracy is rule by priests. By your definition any society that allows religious people any say in politics at all is theocratic. That's preposterous.

No, my definition is basic secularism. People ought to leave their religious beliefs out of politics, period. In the lens of politics, religion ought to be an aspect of somebody's life, nothing more.

 

[Lexicus]

No, my definition is basic secularism. People ought to leave their religious beliefs out of politics, period. In the lens of politics, religion ought to be an aspect of somebody's life, nothing more.

Religion as a motivator for political or social action or organization is theocratic.


By the above definition no country in the world is "basically secular." Not a single one. Every one has government-sanctioned religious institutions and every one has religious influence in politics.

 

[civver_764]

You've made it pretty goddamn clear that you're a Nazi/white supremacist yourself. We've been over this.

If most of the Palestinians are like you, can we really blame the Israelis for how they treat you?

Man what the hell is wrong with you? Why is there so much hate in your heart?

Seriously, this is beyond acceptable. Why would you think it would be ok to say something like this?

 

[Berzerker]

Prison laborers work for the benefit of corporations. There's nothing remotely like restitution involved in it. This whole line of argument you're using is silly.

Payment Options

"The CDCR garnishes 55 percent (50 percent goes towards the obligation and the remainder is an administration fee) of deposits made to your inmate trust account to pay restitution ordered by the court. The CDCR can also take 55 percent of prison wages you earn to collect court ordered restitution. Direct orders are collected first, then restitution fines are collected. It is your responsibility to keep track of how much money has been taken from you while at different institutions. If you make payments somewhere other than the institution, you must provide CDCR with a receipt as proof of payment.

Restitution does not stop when you parole."

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Victim_Services/restitution_responsibilities.html

So you guys think its slavery for criminals to compensate their victims? Doesn't equating slaves with criminals strike you as insulting to the slaves?

 

[inthesomeday]

Religion as a motivator for political or social action or organization is theocratic.


By the above definition no country in the world is "basically secular." Not a single one. Every one has government-sanctioned religious institutions and every one has religious influence in politics.

The DPRK is secular. China is fairly secular. Not to say that either government is good (governments are bad, by and large) but neither allows much influence of religion or religious institutions.

And I'm actually inclined to agree with civver. That comment is really messed up, cake.

 

[Berzerker]

Man what the hell is wrong with you? Why is there so much hate in your heart?

Seriously, this is beyond acceptable. Why would you think it would be ok to say something like this?

he did that to me and ran away

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/why-yall-always-trying-to-defend-nazis.621464/page-33

TF too...

 

[caketastydelish]

So, depending on the state you live in, the answer to Lexicus's question is yes.

No, it doesn't. Even in a swing state that wouldn't be true (which I don't live in a swing state anyway)

 

[civver_764]

Humans are a diverse species. Nazism has been proven to garner support with a charismatic and dedicated enough propaganda program. Pockets keep emerging in various states over and over and over again. Shout something enough and you will gain followers. See: every cult in existence, every ideology based on extermination in existence, and just about any unhealthy belief system in existence. To believe that everyone will naturally reject Nazism is to be ignorant.

I read some of your posts earlier in this thread. You were arguing that punching a Nazi back in 1920s Germany wouldn't have stopped the rise of the NSDAP. I pretty much agree with that. In fact I think it has the opposite effect. I think it gives Nazis the ability to play the victim card, which is a method by which they gain more supporters. In fact as far as I know they received a lot of support in Germany partly because people were sick of violent communists, no?

I think there's two things to consider here. One is nationalist ideals. I think by and large people can be receptive to nationalist ideals, especially from a charismatic leaders, ie. Trump. In my opinion I think this is because nationalism is fundamentally a good idea which resonates with people.

But then when we consider the genocidal aspects of Nazism, which is what I think you are mostly scared of here, I don't people will ever be receptive to such a thing. As far as I'm aware, the Nazis did not literally have in their party platform to 'gas six million Jews'. I think if they did, they wouldn't have gotten into power, because people are generally good and don't want to commit genocide. Do you disagree with that?

If we're going to believe in democracy, then we need to believe that people are going to be able to make the right decisions. To say that certain ideas are too dangerous for people to hear suggests to me that you don't actually believe democracy can work. If people can't even be trusted to not support politicians who openly want to commit genocide, can we even have a democracy at all?

 

[Lexicus]

The DPRK is secular. China is fairly secular.

Those are countries that have replaced traditional religion with the de facto religion that is the dogma of their respective "Communist" parties. In any case it is false that no one in China is motivated by religious beliefs. Indeed, more recent CCP narratives have stressed the supposed continuity between modern China with its "Confucian" institutions from the past...North Korea is less easy to talk about but I really don't think you want to hold it up as an example of a secular society if you are attempting to argue for a secular society. In any case Juche-thought and the cult of personality around Kim Jong Un (or whomever the Supreme Leader happens to be) are, in my view, more than sufficient substitutes for "religion".

Not to say that either government is good (governments are bad, by and large) but neither allows much influence of religion or religious institutions.

Both governments have simply substituted other things for what we call religion, just as in the West the most important faith is in free markets rather than God.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ascribing morality to the free market must be the most dangerous cult out there.

It is one thing to study market forces. It's another to worship it.

 

[Lexicus]

Ascribing morality to the free market must be the most dangerous cult out there.

It is one thing to study market forces. It's another to worship it.

The problem comes when there is little rational analysis of the market, and it is instead invoked uncritically to ethically justify power relationships in society. The market acts as a god which ensures the efficient distribution of resources as long as it is allowed to work freely, showering rewards on the virtuous and punishing the sinful. Both major political parties in the US subscribe to essentially this view; one party admits that sometimes there are "market failures" and seeks to protect people from these to a degree and to have some redistribution to correct what are generally characterized as unfortunate minor flaws. The only serious view of the matter though is that the market is a device that's entirely socially constructed and that the rules under which it operates (and thus, the way it works, the material effects it has on the distribution of wealth, and so on) are a choice that we make collectively.

And I'm actually inclined to agree with civver. That comment is really messed up, cake.

He may have confused me with civver, who is afaik of Palestinian descent (ironic given some of his views, eh?) and for whom the accusation there might actually make sense. Given that civver has repeatedly expressed repugnant anti-Semitism it also generally makes more sense. Not that I'm defending the statement itself, but it would seem a lot less bizarre and uncalled for if directed at civver.

 

[inthesomeday]

Those are countries that have replaced traditional religion with the de facto religion that is the dogma of their respective "Communist" parties.

Eh... This is a tough thing to argue. There's certainly some degree of cult of personality in both countries but I think that equating that to religion is a little bit wrong.

In any case it is false that no one in China is motivated by religious beliefs. Indeed, more recent CCP narratives have stressed the supposed continuity between modern China with its "Confucian" institutions from the past...

Confucianism isn't really a religion in the same way party supremacy isn't a religion. Both are dangerous but neither is a religion.

North Korea is less easy to talk about but I really don't think you want to hold it up as an example of a secular society if you are attempting to argue for a secular society. In any case Juche-thought and the cult of personality around Kim Jong Un (or whomever the Supreme Leader happens to be) are, in my view, more than sufficient substitutes for "religion".

But they are not religions, or else the DPRK would be a theocracy, even by your definition. And it is most decidedly not. The way the people view the Kim family is no different, in reality, from how Americans view celebrities. Moreso ideals than deities.

Both governments have simply substituted other things for what we call religion, just as in the West the most important faith is in free markets rather than God.

This doesn't make any sense. Free market obedience is different from religion. Both distinctly coexist and feed into each other. There are, likewise, situations in which the religion of a region coexists alongside its party cult. Religions are a very specific historical set of occurrences, and while they do operate similarly in society, they are pretty well-defined based on their content and structure.

 

[Ajidica]

No, my definition is basic secularism. People ought to leave their religious beliefs out of politics, period. In the lens of politics, religion ought to be an aspect of somebody's life, nothing more.

I have to disagree with that. When MLK was giving his speeches on civil rights, his rhetoric on civil rights was inseparable from his rhetoric on religion. Civil rights went hand in hand with religion. That was also shared by Humphrey, Carter, and McCarthy.

The DPRK is secular. China is fairly secular. Not to say that either government is good (governments are bad, by and large) but neither allows much influence of religion or religious institutions.

Best Korea is weird and I would not say they are secular. Their propaganda refers to conflict with those living in not-Best Korea as a "sacred war" and the way the Kims are referred to is wrapped up in cultural/religious concepts of a divine ancestor.

 

[Synobun]

But then when we consider the genocidal aspects of Nazism, which is what I think you are mostly scared of here, I don't people will ever be receptive to such a thing. As far as I'm aware, the Nazis did not literally have in their party platform to 'gas six million Jews'. I think if they did, they wouldn't have gotten into power, because people are generally good and don't want to commit genocide. Do you disagree with that?

NSDAP Platform:

1. A union of all Germans to from a great Germany on the basis of the right to self-determination of peoples.
2. Abolition of the Treaty of Versailles.
3. Land and territory (colonies) for our surplus population.
4. German blood as a requirement for German citizenship. No Jew can be a member of the nation.
5. Non-citizens can live in Germany only as foreigners, subject to the law of aliens.
6. Only citizens can vote or hold public office.
7. The state insures that every citizen live decently and earn his livelihood. If it is impossible to provide food for the whole population, then aliens must be expelled.
8. No further immigration of non-Germans. Any non-German who entered Germany after August 2,1914, shall leave immediately.
9. A thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The science of citizenship shall be taught from the beginning.
10. All newspapers must be published in the German language by German citizens and owners.

Some of Hitler's race-centric decrees prior to WW2.

Snippets of Hitler talking about the Jews.

The Nazi regime's approach to the undesirables wasn't a sudden surprise foisted upon the people. They were pretty clear about what they thought about those who weren't Aryan.

 

[Lexicus]

I have to disagree with that. When MLK was giving his speeches on civil rights, his rhetoric on civil rights was inseparable from his rhetoric on religion. Civil rights went hand in hand with religion. That was also shared by Humphrey, Carter, and McCarthy.

There is hardly any major political figure in US history who was not significantly influenced by religion. There are hardly any political leaders in history, period, who were not influenced by religious beliefs. Most of them make very unlikely theocrats. Theocracy means rule by priests, it doesn't even refer to any system in which there is a state religion. It's properly used of a government like Iran's where the head of state is a religious cleric.

The way the people view the Kim family is no different, in reality, from how Americans view celebrities. Moreso ideals than deities.

This is simply a preposterous argument and it's the kind of statement that leads people not to take leftists seriously. The way that the Kim family is venerated in North Korea is very, very different from how the US treats celebrities. No one in the US has ever gone to prison for failing to applaud the Kardashians hard enough.

Free market obedience is different from religion.

No, it isn't. Your definition of religion seems totally arbitrary. Sociologically belief in the free market functions exactly like a religion, with economists acting as the priests (there are even heretics struggling to overthrow the false idols of the orthodox faith). Cults of personality and Marxist-Leninst and Maoist dogma also function almost exactly the same as religions.

 

[Ajidica]

This is simply a preposterous argument and it's the kind of statement that leads people not to take leftists seriously. The way that the Kim family is venerated in North Korea is very, very different from how the US treats celebrities. No one in the US has ever gone to prison for failing to applaud the Kardashians hard enough.

We don't sing songs like this about our celebrities.

 

[inthesomeday]

There is hardly any major political figure in US history who was not significantly influenced by religion. There are hardly any political leaders in history, period, who were not influenced by religious beliefs. Most of them make very unlikely theocrats. Theocracy means rule by priests, it doesn't even refer to any system in which there is a state religion. It's properly used of a government like Iran's where the head of state is a religious cleric.

Being influenced by religious beliefs, personally, is different from infusing religion itself into politics. Islamism is, generally, applied to the belief that Islam or Islamic values ought to be infused into political or social organization.

This is simply a preposterous argument and it's the kind of statement that leads people not to take leftists seriously. The way that the Kim family is venerated in North Korea is very, very different from how the US treats celebrities. No one in the US has ever gone to prison for failing to applaud the Kardashians hard enough.

No, but that's an external thing that has no bearing on how people in their own minds view others. The idea that citizens of the DPRK view the Kim family as gods is simply false and western propaganda. The citizens of the DPRK view the Kim family as celebrities, and the government of the Kim family makes sure that people who don't treat those celebrities with the proper respect are punished.

No, it isn't. Your definition of religion seems totally arbitrary. Sociologically belief in the free market functions exactly like a religion, with economists acting as the priests (there are even heretics struggling to overthrow the false idols of the orthodox faith). Cults of personality and Marxist-Leninst and Maoist dogma also function almost exactly the same as religions.

I view religion as a historical occurrence that still exists as an aspect of people's lives. New religions don't really occur; fringe developments of existing religions, or adaptations of existing ones, sometimes occur, but thats about it. New things that behave similarly to religions aren't religions, they're just things that sociologically behave similarly to religions.