Why do the Nazis always come up in debates?

Ranicand · 03-02-2013 11:51PM

A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic

The above quote is from Joseph Stalin.

Ranicand · 03-02-2013 11:53PM

One more.

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

Pottler · 03-02-2013 11:53PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Stalin created political correctness? Gun control? Would you ever go and find out what you are talking about. Yes it could be argued that Stalin was worse than Hitler but he had little to do with political correctness.

If your politics was different to his, he'd soon correct you.

jam_mac_jam · 03-02-2013 11:55PM

Pottler wrote: »

If your politics was different to his, he'd soon correct you.

As would all authoritarian states, but that's not what the phrase political correctness means though is it?

armchair fusilier · 03-02-2013 11:55PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Isn't there a restaurant in Duberlin named after Chairman Mao?*

You even see idiots walking around in t-shirts with his face plastered on the front of it! People are stupid

*

http://www.dublinks.com/index.cfm/loc/17/pt/0/spid/E7993AA6-BE3E-42B1-AB9E440AA82A5117.htm

ffs!

There was the Swastika laundry in Ballsbridge, which had a big chimney above it emblazoned with a Swastika untill the early '80's.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzu48dDktO1rnamkbo1_1280.jpg

Stained Class · 03-02-2013 11:55PM

Biggins wrote: »

How did Hitler get home?
He drove in his folks wagon.

Folks off Biggs.:D

The post I made before goes over most folks heads here.

Remember the Yellow Pages ads?

Madam_X · 03-02-2013 11:59PM

Ranicand wrote: »

The above quote is from Joseph Stalin.

Yeh we know he was a monster. Just because Hitler/the nazis get mentioned more, doesn't mean there's some sort of agenda going on. I don't know, it's probably just the handiest example to reference. The only people who get upset by that are people who are a bit too right-wing.

You need to learn what political correctness means because you obviously don't know exactly what it means. Its origins were very much beneficial to society, e.g. for disabled people.
These days, it may go too far at times (although sometimes that's just in some folks' imaginations) but I'd rather it was implemented than not. All it basically was, was "Be civil to each other rather than dicks." Not exactly something one would associate with a totalitarian communist regime.

Pottler · 04-02-2013 12:06AM

Stalin was a first rate shit who got lucky as the shit next door had a funny tache and picked on the wrong people.

His generals were also shits.

Leaving aside his pogroms and ethnic cleansing, anyone whose idea of having hundreds of thousands of conscripts herded at machine gun point into the enemys guns, with the man in front having a gun and some meagre ammunititon, to be picked up by the man behind when he fell and so on, and so on, had utterly no regard for human life or his own people.

If the unarmed, half starved conscripts faltered, they faced a line of machine gunners(their own) behind them who would open fire on them for their "cowardice". If they were unlucky enough to be capturd and taken prisoner, no matter what bravery they had displayed fighting, their reward on their return after the war was the gulags, for treason.. A vile nutter who does not get given out about half enough. Stalin - a dick of the highest order of dickhood.

Ranicand · 04-02-2013 12:07AM

Madam_X wrote: »

Yeh we know he was a monster. Just because Hitler/the nazis get mentioned more, doesn't mean there's some sort of agenda going on. I don't know, it's probably just the handiest example to reference. The only people who get upset by that are people who are a bit too right-wing.

Yes being right wing is out of fashion these days.

The right wing when is does not go too far does not pander to different groups and give welfare to the lazy.

The left wing on the other hand creates all kinds of problems for everybody and it's solution it to introduce loads of rules and demonize anybody who does not agree.

Germany created the Jet.
The USSR created the Lada.

ejmaztec · 04-02-2013 12:10AM

Ranicand wrote: »

Going around calling everybody comrade.

Sending Russians into the other Republics to steal and make collectives out of farms anybody who disagreed was a racist.

Loads of people were sent to re education champs or metal hospitals if they did not agree with Soviet propaganda.

Is that where they cured rust?

jam_mac_jam · 04-02-2013 12:12AM

Ranicand wrote: »

Yes being right wing is out of fashion these days.

The right wing when is does not go too far does not pander to different groups and give welfare to the lazy.

The left wing on the other hand creates all kinds of problems for everybody and it's solution it to introduce loads of rules and demonize anybody who does not agree.

Germany created the Jet.
The USSR created the Lada.

No, both extremes are a load of ****. And the Jet engine was invented before the Nazis came to power.

Madam_X · 04-02-2013 12:21AM

Ranicand wrote: »

Yes being right wing is out of fashion these days.

Sigh... a political ideology is not about ****ing "fashion". And actually, plenty have blinkered, idiotic far-right views, so it's all ok...

The right wing when is does not go too far does not pander to different groups and give welfare to the lazy.

Oh so going too far to the right is ok once the lazy and the welfare recipients aren't pandered to. Christ. How can someone with Aspergers and asking for tolerance think this way...?!

The left wing on the other hand creates all kinds of problems for everybody and it's solution it to introduce loads of rules and demonize anybody who does not agree.

For example? Be specific now.

Ranicand · 04-02-2013 12:37AM

Madam_X wrote: »

How can someone with Aspergers and asking for tolerance think this way...?!

For example? Be specific now.

I work and I have found fitting in with a group a struggle as I find sticking to social rules difficult.

Now if people were to pander to me I might get loads of welfare and sit at home.

I am happy when I am working it fills a void it my life.

I think everybody who can work should work and get help finding work.

As regards why I dislike political correctness it the more social rules to follow the harder it is for people like me.

Another thing is I got next to no help I had to find some strength inside myself.

I often wonder if I had been pandered too would I just not have put in any effort at all?

I did not always feel this way there are times I would like to have been pandered too.:)

franktheplank · 04-02-2013 12:43AM

I think

what's being argued is that because right wing atrocities get more media attention that this is somehow proof of a bias against right-wing ideology.

If i'm correct in what you're saying, I still don't think your argument stands. It may will be the case that the reason the Nazi Holocaust gets more attention than Stalin's or Mao's atrocities, is simply because it happened in our back yard and was committed by a 'modern' European nation.

Also, I don't think the Western world became fully aware of the extent of Stalin or Mao's atrocities until (relatively) long after the fact. What might further have lessened the impact is that we just haven't seen the same horrific graphic images of what actually occurred in China and Russia.

Another possible reason why they don't get the same attention could simply be that people feel extreme left wing ideology is less of a threat in today's world. Whereas people might feel we still need to be vigilant about the threat of the far-right.

I don't know where gun-control comes into it though???

Ranicand · 04-02-2013 12:47AM

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't know where gun-control comes into it though???

An armed population is not going to be marched into concentration champs or Gulags.

Madam_X · 04-02-2013 12:49AM

Ranicand wrote: »

I think everybody who can work should work and get help finding work.

What's the relevance of that? I and most people would agree with you on that point.

As regards why I dislike political correctness it the more social rules to follow the harder it is for people like me.

Political correctness was originally about making life easier for minorities, marginalised people. It was to prevent people e.g. like yourself being sneered at and called "retards". I really don't understand your dislike of it. I think you misunderstand it, and have gotten your definition of it from a source that pines for the days when you could be a dick to gay, disabled, non white, whatever people make them uncomfortable.

It's not about "pandering" - it's about making people feel that bit more included in society. For most of time, they weren't.

Ranicand wrote: »

An armed population is not going to be marched into concentration champs or Gulags.

Can't see how they wouldn't be... What would the civilian do? Shoot the soldiers, and then what? They'd be in even more trouble.

franktheplank · 04-02-2013 12:54AM

Ranicand wrote: »

An armed population is not going to be marched into concentration champs or Gulags.

Well, for one thing that's a separate argument than portrayals of left wing/right wing atrocities.

Also, I'm pretty sure Stalin sent many of his army generals to the Gulags. I'm also pretty sure they had guns.

You could also argue that it would be easier for a dictator to rise to power with easy access to weapons.

Ranicand · 04-02-2013 01:01AM

Political correctness was originally about making life easier for minorities, marginalised people. It was to prevent people e.g. like yourself being sneered at and called "retards". I really don't understand your dislike of it. I think you misunderstand it, and have gotten your definition of it from a source that pines for the days when you could be a dick to gay, disabled, non white, whatever people make them uncomfortable.

It's not about "pandering" - it's about making people feel that bit more included in society. For most of time, they weren't.

I was called retard among many other names.
I have found bullies seem to have the social skills to work their way around these rules and get away with it.
When I did fight back which was not often I was in trouble.

In my opinion it;s not endless rules we need it is for the rules we already had to be enforced fairly.

Can't see how they wouldn't be... What would the civilian do? Shoot the soldiers, and then what? They'd be in even more trouble.

Your being sent to a death camp how can you be in anymore trouble?:)

Gbear · 04-02-2013 01:07AM

I really don't see why some people need to try to shift the "wing" of various people, as if it's ****ing relevant.

It's not terribly important whether Stalin, Mao, or Hitler were right or left wing. Neither wing is correct.

What isn't correct is totalitarianism, autocracy and murdering large numbers of people.
In most of these cases you're dealing with sociopathic nutters - Mao for example was a grade A narcissist and had nothing but contempt for others. Every move was about more power for him. He probably wasn't even much of a Communist. It was merely a means to an end - absolute rule.

It's the same misunderstanding that crops up with everything - religion, politics, philosophy - what's dangerous about them is not the wrongness of any particular one but their ability to co-opt people's sense of logic by replacing it with unthinking fanaticism.
Whether it's the Taliban or the Nazi's you have the same suspension of critical faculties that has been developed through coercion, brain washing and the stifling of dissent.

On a side note, Godwin's law really pisses me off. I think that there should be a counter-law that can be invoked any time someone attempts to invoke Godwin's law. Taking something to it's logical conclusion is quite important when testing how robust an idea is and it helps to use really extreme examples, like Nazism, to test them to breaking point.

Ranicand · 04-02-2013 01:29AM

Stinicker wrote: »

The Nazi's did alot of good things also but these have been airbrushed from History. The Autobahn for example.

Great now they can blame Hitler for all the Motorway pileups.:D

Capt'n Midnight · 04-02-2013 01:33AM

Why do the Nazis always come up in debates?

Because they were snappy dressers with cool uniforms. :cool:

Madam_X · 04-02-2013 01:35AM

Gbear wrote: »

Mao for example was a grade A narcissist and had nothing but contempt for others. Every move was about more power for him. He probably wasn't even much of a Communist. It was merely a means to an end - absolute rule.

Exactly. Not like Stalin was toiling away in the fields himself. He was living a life of luxury, so not exactly a great representative of socialist ideology.

Ranicand · 04-02-2013 01:36AM

Madam_X wrote: »

Exactly. Not like Stalin was toiling away in the fields himself. He was living a life of luxury, so not exactly a great representative of socialist ideology.

He was a Champagne socialist.:cool:

Merch · 04-02-2013 02:04AM

Ranicand wrote: »

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/?pagination=false

The above debate is a mute point anyway.

Chairman Mao Zedong killed between 20 to 80 million people depending on who you believe.

Hitler was the excess of the right wing.

The other two were the excess of the left wing.

Hitler was evil no doubt what the left wing never is mention Stalin and Mao.

Now some will say but Hitler was racist however Stalin went after and killed countless Christians.

My point in the 20th century the left wing and the likes of Stalin who crated the ideas of hate speech and Political correctness killed far more then the Nazis.

Hitler was racist and Stalin was intolerant of Christians??
I think both sides are the same, Communism of the Soviet Union, Ive heard described as another form of facism, Id consider Stalin more despotic and Mao even more so (according to the propoganda Ive been fed anyway, maybe they were nice guys!) but I actually have heard people defend Stalin!
When you get into the isms they seem to meet up somewhere but under different names, they were all Totalitarian ehrm ism.

Biggins wrote: »

What about Pol Pot?
He was also a right wacko responsible for possibly hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of deaths.

One of the many despots supported by democracies.

Madam_X wrote: »

You need to learn what political correctness means because you obviously don't know exactly what it means. Its origins were very much beneficial to society, e.g. for disabled people.
These days, it may go too far at times (although sometimes that's just in some folks' imaginations) but I'd rather it was implemented than not. All it basically was, was "Be civil to each other rather than dicks." Not exactly something one would associate with a totalitarian communist regime.

Unless they smell, now those fvckers should be rounded up and shot!

Ranicand wrote: »

An armed population is not going to be marched into concentration champs or Gulags.

You are dead right, they wont be marched anywhere! they will die in the shoot out with the superior firepower of their autocratic overlords, its cheaper and can be turned for propoganada effects too, all that razor wire isn't cheap, the survivors will dig the pits and roll the bodies in, climb in themselves then the bulldozers will finish the job. Of course they have to shoot the bulldozer driver, its just doesnt end, unless the last guy shoots himself and falls into a hole.

Madam_X wrote: »

What's the relevance of that? I and most people would agree with you on that point.

Political correctness was originally about making life easier for minorities, marginalised people. It was to prevent people e.g. like yourself being sneered at and called "retards". I really don't understand your dislike of it. I think you misunderstand it, and have gotten your definition of it from a source that pines for the days when you could be a dick to gay, disabled, non white, whatever people make them uncomfortable.

It's not about "pandering" - it's about making people feel that bit more included in society. For most of time, they weren't.

Can't see how they wouldn't be... What would the civilian do? Shoot the soldiers, and then what? They'd be in even more trouble.

Maybe you arent the person I saw posting in the other thread after all, fvck it, I still think round up the smelly people, thats what my Uncle Joe and Adolf were at, misunderstood.
Dicks to gays? I dont believe they find that uncomfortable, or thats what I heard.

the_syco · 04-02-2013 02:10AM

I think Hitler was the first government to ban smoking in the work place? Truly a futuristic visionary?

Capt'n Midnight · 04-02-2013 02:12AM

the_syco wrote: »

I think Hitler was the first government to ban smoking in the work place? Truly a futuristic visionary?

Iran is the first country where transsexuals can have a choice of execution or having their sex change operation paid for by the state.

Merch · 04-02-2013 02:22AM

the_syco wrote: »

I think Hitler was the first government to ban smoking in the work place? Truly a futuristic visionary?

He was very animal friendly too, but not actually a Government

Wonder what it says about our former "leaders" that brought in the non smoking ban though, bloody Nazi's, I mean FF, I can nearly see that in place of SS as we blitkrieg our way across Europe and take back our Freeeeedom!

Merch · 04-02-2013 02:22AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Iran is the first country where transsexuals can have a choice of execution or having their sex change operation paid for by the state.

eh? do you mean they put it in the salami slicer?

Merch · 04-02-2013 02:26AM

Ranicand wrote: »

He was a Champagne socialist.:cool:

Reminds me of our own left leaning parties, now when I say left, I think its left of those who occupied left of center, but those that occupied left of center shifted to the right, so the left leaning have become more right of center (it doesnt suprise me they dress so snapily either, getting paid enough, bloody Nazis)

Capt'n Midnight · 04-02-2013 03:05AM

the_syco wrote: »

I think Hitler was the first government to ban smoking in the work place? Truly a futuristic visionary?

And he relaxed some of the more restrictive gun laws imposed by the Weimar Republic.

Why do the Nazis always come up in debates?

Comments