Concerning the US Protests and Our Rules

[Teddy]

Hm I wonder if the Holocaust didn't happen, would Germany have worked hard enough against their reputation to become the leader of EU 70 or so years down the road.

If nukes didn't drop on Japan would weebs exist

 

[Tamerlane]

@Halo
Sorry, poor choice of words, what I meant to say was that no one is saying that one excuses the other.

There's no denying that the Holodomer was an intentional genocide (man-made famine) by the Soviet, with modern estimates putting the death toll at upwards of 7.5 million people. Saying that other ideologies did more atrocities is not meant to diminish or otherwise lower the sense of horror of the atrocities. It instead is to give you a frame of reference to understand just how bad the system was.
Comparing two genocides does not mean you are not denying one or saying one is less bad than the other, or that one is admonished of all guilt because the other was worse. Saying person A did a crime and person B did a worse crime does not mean you're saying that person A is pure and innocent, but rather saying that if you think person A is the most vile of people, person B must also fall into that category.

Also, I am not defending Nazis. If you cherry-pick my points and ignore how much I've condemned them, then squint your eyes, turn your head and wear sunglasses at night then maybe it could possibly look like that, but that's painting your own biases on what you want me to say onto what I'm actually saying.

Instead, I'm making a general point about shutting down conversations and how it leads to hostility and bad ideas not being engaged with in honest terms. You've yet to demonstrate how this comparison is retarded and so far you've just thrown the accusation of people being Nazis left and right without thinking whether or not the label actually fits.

Hence my comparison to a witch-hunt or McCarthyism.

 

[anon763]

@Halo It's pretty baffling to me to watch you actually trying to downplay the USSR's genocide and other crimes against humanity. I would have thought one of the things we could all agree on was that the systematic murder of millions by a brutal dictatorship was a terrible thing, but I guess I expected too much, and now we're sitting here watching you claim "But it's not that bad! They only murdered 8 million people, not 11, so it's totally different!".

 

[Fuckwit]

My genocide could beat up your genocide.

 

[Halo]

@Tamerlane Trying to start the genocide Olympics citing the "black book of communism" as your source and then saying something about my biases 🙄

Comparing two genocides does not mean you are not denying one...

It's a way of denying The Holocaust without explicitly stating that. By comparing it to a famine, you're downplaying and normalizing this event, even if unintentionally. When it comes from a person who said "Hitler did a lot that was praiseworthy", I can only assume we're dealing with a nazi here. Or, at the very least, a wehraboo, but this is just semantics.

You've yet to demonstrate how this comparison is retarded

This conversation started with our freund saying "statues of Marx are no different than statues of Hitler". If you think comparing an ideological lunatic to a psychopath who was directly responsible for The Holocaust is a fair statement, I can only hope it's a temporary condition 😔

 

[Fuckwit]

@Halo I only hope the irony was intentional when you complained about downplaying and normalizing an event, then referring to the Russian incident as a famine.

 

[Halo]

@Fuckwit my bad, I should have used its proper name, Holodomor, a man-made and genocidal famine.

 

[Fuckwit]

@Halo And don't you forget it!

 

[Halo]

@Fuckwit forget what?

 

[Tamerlane]

Trying to start the genocide Olympics citing the "black book of communism" as your source and then saying something about my biases

I am not starting the genocide Olympics. I have outright said that Nazi Germany killed the most people in any individual genocide. (The Final Solution, Genocide of the Poles, and Generalplan Ost are all typically considered one overarching genocide because they were all carried out simultaneously and with the same purpose, and the Nazis made not distinction in where they were sending POWs, which brings the total closer to 11-12 million as a whole, which is absolutely terrible on every level.) I have condemned the Nazi regime as tyrannical and genocidal on levels unseen. Calling what I am saying when we are comparing numbers between genocides to give people a sense of perspective a means of diminishing the atrocities committed by the Nazis. It is not a zero-sum game. One party doing something vile does not mean that the other person is less evil.

The entire argument is that there are others capable of similar levels of evil to the Nazis and that Nazi ideology is not a singular occurrence that is uniquely morally reprehensible nor a one-time occurrence, at that we must be careful of these ideologies lest they gain root again, lest similar atrocities occur.

It's a way of denying The Holocaust without explicitly stating that.

That's not an argument, that's a way of projecting preconceived beliefs about a person onto them. It's guilt by association at best and the start of a Kafka Trap at worst.

But to address the argument itself, if I acknowledge the Genocide in Rwanda that killed upwards of 1 million people, the Cambodian Genocide that killed upwards of 3 million people, the Armenian Genocide that killed almost 2 million people, and that the upper estimates of the Bosnian Genocide were 300,000, it does not mean that I am saying any other genocide is excused because of it. A small genocide is still a genocide.

If a person is telling you about the horrible conditions of Uighyr muslims in China, of the growing tensions in South Africa and Zimbawbe, and of the instability in the Middle East, trying to argue that I'm undermining the memory of the Holocaust because I point these things out is actively dishonest and neglects my point.

When it comes from a person who said "Hitler did a lot that was praiseworthy", I can only assume we're dealing with a nazi here. Or, at the very least, a wehraboo, but this is just semantics.

Not really. It's important to remember that evil people can still do good things or do things people consider moral, just as good people can do bad things. There are shades of grey, just as there is with everything and turning to absolutes when it comes to morality usually will lead down the same path Hitler did.

He who does not learn from his enemy, who does not know his faults and know is strengths, know his virtues and know his vices, will end up leading themselves down the same path he did.

Perhaps it's just the Hegelian in me, but at the root of every bad ideology is some virtue that they manipulate to their own ends. Communism preys upon a people's sense of equality and justice, Fascism preys upon the desire for unity and national pride, Anarchism preys upon a people's desire for freedom, etc. It's for this reason you can't fully reject anything in association with those you consider immoral because it fundamentally not only dehumanizes them, but paints everything they believed as unmistakably evil, removing any belief that they could have a point and then alienating them because of it.

I have more quotes from my usual Chinese scholars that I feel share insight, but since there's a few, I'll spoiler them for the people who want to read

Spoiler

Laozi in the Tao Te Ching

Spoiler

The generals have a saying:
"Rather than make the first move
it is better to wait and see.
Rather than advance an inch
it is better to retreat a yard."

This is called
going forward without advancing,
pushing back without using weapons.

There is no greater misfortune
than underestimating your enemy.
Underestimating your enemy
means thinking that he is evil.
Thus you destroy your three treasures
and become an enemy yourself.

When two great forces oppose each other,
the victory will go
to the one that knows how to yield.​

Spoiler

When a country is in harmony with the Tao,
the factories make trucks and tractors.
When a country goes counter to the Tao,
warheads are stockpiled outside the cities.

There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy.

Whoever can see through all fear
will always be safe.

Spoiler

When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.
Humility means trusting the Tao,
thus never needing to be defensive.

A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.

If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.​

Sun Tzu in the Art of War:

Spoiler

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Spoiler

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Spoiler

Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

More to the point of Hitler specifically, there is something to admire in being able to reforge a nation from a weak, improvised state into a major world power, and in his status as a self-made billionaire after being dropped from art school and poor. More personally, his self-discipline in regards to veganism and abstinence from alcohol and cigarettes due to his desire to promote public health in Germany and his love of animals are typically considered good qualities. Do these make up for his crimes? Absolutely not, as he's still a monster who deserves the revile and vitriol he gets, but even the most wicked and reviled of mankind have some redeeming factors, as no one is pure good or pure evil. It's too simplistic to characterize people in such a light and ignores the human element that is found in us all.

The old saying goes "say what you will about Mussolini, but at least he made the trains run on time"-with the point being that even the most disgusting of ideologues with unworkable and wicked beliefs can do good things, even if they did mostly bad.

It is lacking nuance and understanding that turns men into monsters, and the lack of understanding makes people turn blind to the reality that they are just as capable of evil as men like Adolf Hitler were, and that the road to hell is paved with good intentions toward horrible.

If you think comparing an ideological lunatic to a psychopath who was directly responsible for The Holocaust is a fair statement, I can only hope it's a temporary condition

I wouldn't say Hitler and Marx are a fair statement, but Goebbels and Marx might be as both were responsible for creating toxic ideologies that lead to the deaths of millions of people. Hitler just enacted these ideologies, which is why it's more apt to compare him to Stalin in my opinion-which I was doing with the Holodomer.


@Halo

 

[Fuckwit]

@Halo I dunno, the Alamo I guess.

 

[Halo]

It's guilt by association at best and the start of a Kafka Trap at worst.

Nice fallacy fallacy.

But to address the argument itself, if I acknowledge yada yada, it does not mean that I am saying any other genocide is excused because of it.

There is a difference between "acknowledging" and whataboutism.

Anyways, good wall of text. Still not convinced.

@Tamerlane

@Fuckwit who's that?

 

[M0NST3R]

@bigtiddyoneesan A man of culture I see.

 

[Baddan]

Dude is unironically posting political cartoons filled with strawmen. This thread is unsalvageable at this point.

 

[Tamerlane]

@Halo The fallacy fallacy only applies if I don't go on to explain why you're wrong. Which I did. Meaning, ironically, you've committed the fallacy fallacy by not explaining why I'm wrong.

Additionally, what's going on isn't so much whataboutism if the argument was about predicated on the idea of Marx's ideology being as bad as Hitler's, because it's natural that you'd have to bring up counter examples to prove your point. It's not bringing up a red herring to make the conversation go off topic, but it means to express how one ideology is just as flawed as another. If the argument was solely about how bad the Holocaust is, and he was bringing up the Holodomer, you'd be correct, however, in the context of this debate, it doesn't apply because it's predicated on a comparison.

The comic you've posted is meant to show the centrist fallacy, which I don't understand how it would apply here. Is it because I said people aren't all black and white? Because they're not and refusing to acknowledge that reality isn't a dichotomy, and that trying to understand the complexities of many opposing viewpoints isn't equivalent to saying the answer is found in the exact middle of two extreme positions. So your point doesn't really apply here and I'm confused as to what you're even trying to get at, so clarification would help a lot.

I think the reason you're not convinced is because you're not engaging with the ideas in a way that makes it clear that you are trying to be convinced. When I respond with an detailed counter argument, you tend to pick out individual claims and sentences, ignoring the greater context in which they are found and then proceed to not respond with counter evidence or a line of reasoning, but instead respond with "got'chas," sarcastic remarks that impede the conversation, and snipes about post length or assumptions about position I or others hold. It seems to be a very bad faith way of addresses someone and is more evident of trying to one-up them instead of honestly addressing the ideas at hand and engaging with them in any meaningful way. If you can, I'd like you to try and not think about what you're going to say next and try to address my actual point instead of the constant jabs and derision. I do not mean to insult or deride you, personally, I just find your means of argumentation poor and I'd rather have an honest conversation where we engage one another the best we can.

 

[bigtiddyoneesan]

@Halo Genuinely curious, do you believe that communism could ever work well in practice? And if so, then in what conditions?

 

[TetsuwanAtom]

It’s clear as daylight that this anon763 brought up Hitler in this platform, in a discussion that didn’t require bringing Hitler up. His previous defence of Hitler is also absolutely deplorable. anon763 literally said in a previous forum discussion (and even just a chapter discussion at that, in a place where even legitimate political discussions are discouraged on this site) that Hitler did a lot that was praiseworthy. Absolutely nobody with whatsoever ideology needs people like that on any platform. That's the worst thing that can happen on any platform. I hope the moderators would soon notice this anonymous Hitler-supporter and take the necessary steps, be it perma-ban or whatever to dissuade gullible people to come into his aid without acknowledging what damage this anon character is doing here, to the whole platform.

There's no sides to this discussion. No political parties would EVER support such arguments that anon763 has been presenting on this site from a long time ago, and if they somehow hypothetically do, not just millions but billions of people would lash out against that political party, obliterating it. The whole humanity had suffered. And eventually, Hitler had lost, and anyone who still believes "Hitler did a lot that is praiseworthy" is lost, too. This anon763-fuelled Hitler discussion should never have to exist here or anywhere. Countless souls suffered.

Thanks to Halo for bringing truth to light. However, whoever you are, Halo, you do not deserve to keep talking to someone who had already done similar despicable lowest humanly possible trash level discussion elsewhere that's clear as daylight for everyone to see.

Dear moderators including @Plykiya , we hope and trust that you'll do what’s necessary to protect everyone. There's no side here. It’s a consensus unanimously acknowledged throughout the world. For the safety of everyone, that should be dealt with, and only the calm moderators can do the best, we trust.

As for the person who's bringing up Kafka trap, I don't think you understand what it means. As someone who studied Kafka and his works for many years, I know that Kafka trap is a made up term that has nothing to do with Kafka - not an actual fallacy. In The Trial, a man is incriminated without any crime. He's charged to be guilty until proven otherwise. That's what happens to countless people of color who are jailed despite being innocent (including many of my completely innocent friends, not in US; thankfully they were eventually released when proven not guilty through long hardship, but they were beaten night after night - tortured for nothing) - that's why criminal justice reform is necessary; that's what happened in "To Kill a Mockingbird". In the case of anon763, he'd already been proven guilty a long time ago. He's not on your side. He's not on humanity's side - not on anyone’s side. This is not a place for any of those discussions - not this site, not even this earth; only hell is a place for that discussion, even there this "There’s something to admire about Hitler" crap would only be brought up to be condemned. No ideology on earth can support that. Not only so, nobody of us deserves to see such Hitler-admiring texts anywhere.

 

[Halo]

@Tamerlane
I guess using that cartoon was really pushing it. But to be fair, I made my disinterest in "debating" you very obvious since the start. I wasn't even the one who debated or called out the nazi, you mistakenly @ me trying to tone police, going ahead with your walls of text because I asked not to be mentioned next to The Holocaust deniers.

@bigtiddyoneesan no, why?

 

[Tamerlane]

@Halo
Fair enough, if you want the discussion to end here, I won't harass you about it or anything, though I will edit this post in a little bit to address @TetsuwanAtom 's point

@Bigtiddyoneesan
To defend Halo for a bit, he's repeatedly demonstrated that he absolutely does not support communism and finds the ideology abhorrent. Saying he is supporting communism is like saying I'm supporting Nazis.

@TetsuwanAtom

In defense of @anon763, I very much don't think he's a holocaust denier nor is he is support of the Nazis.

Here are all the posts he said on that thread

I've often heard people claim Hitler poisoning his dog shortly before his own suicide as evidence he was a monster on a personal level as opposed to a political one, but realistically speaking it's better than the unimaginable things the Soviets would have done to her if they caught her.
It's a rough fate being the pet of a defeated leader, a real no-win situation.

I think it was pretty self-explanatory. The chapter's talking about well-cared-for pets of leaders of evil organizations, and asking what happens after the organization is defeated, with tragic implications. Someone went on to mention a case where the pet must have been killed when the base was destroyed. I gave an example of a case where the pet's only likely fates were death, or torture and slow death.

He specifically constructed scenario

What? I "constructed" nothing. Hitler's not a bogeyman for video game devs who need a final boss or for leftists to invoke whenever they don't like somebody; he was a real historical person and that was a real historical situation. The Red Army was at his doorstep, and their notorious cruelty would have spelt a terrible fate for their enemy's leader's pet if they caught her.

Also you literally praising Hitler.

I figured the fact I was comparing him to stereotypical Bond villains would dissuade that interpretation, but if you're going to bring it up, sure, he did a lot that was praiseworthy.

It's clear to me that he's no sympathetic to the Nazis in this as he says that the Nazis are an "evil organization," and compares them to a Bond villains. Saying that Hitler "Did a lot that was praiseworthy" is too vague and nebulous to deduce any meaning from in itself, as you would need to know what specifically he thought that was praiseworthy before you can condemn him. Given how he outright says Hitler was a "political monster" rather than a "personal one" (which to me is a distinction without a difference but let's go with it for the sake of argument) demonstrates that he thought Hitler's policies like the Holocaust, Invasion of sovereign nations and various war crimes were all "monstrous" things as they are extensions of his politics.

The most charitable interpretation of what he's saying I think is that Hitler wasn't completely evil in his personal life, and some of his policies were good. He's not meaning this in the sense of apologetics but more in the sense of "hey, despite how horrible this guy is, it's interesting that he had some qualities about him that weren't absolutely awful!" Which isn't a very strong position, and he could have worded it better, but isn't itself worthy of a ban or could be considered hatespeech. Poor wording at best. (Plus I really hate the idea of digging up old individual comments and saying that a person is worthy of a ban because of them.)

Granted, I don't agree with anon, but I can understand his perspective and I don't think it's a fair characterization of him to think he's some closeted Neo-Nazi as much as someone who has a hard time with choosing exactly what he wants to say.

As for my own defense, The Trial is about a man who is accused of crimes which are never specified, which isn't really what's happening, but I'd rather not discuss your entire point just to say I disagree. Rather, I want to be specific here and defend my usage when I said the argument is "the start of a Kafka Trap at worst."

A Kafka trap is where the denial of guilt is used as evidence that the person in question is guilty, or that someone is guilty because they have denied an accusation, leaving no room for the possibility for the defendant to actually be innocent.

The reason I said that it sounded like the start of one was that it seemed to me to be heading down a line of logic in which denial of being a holocaust denier would be the logical outcome as it seemed that anon was acknowledging the horrors of the Holocaust in order to compare to another atrocity for reference. Meaning that his acknowledgement of the Holocaust to compare it to something else would be used as evidence he didn't believe in the Holocaust. It's not fully a Kafka Trap yet, but it's the making of one that's yet to be fully formed, if you catch my drift.

The rest of what you said I think is a little too hyperbolic and is jumping to conclusions in my opinion. I'd rather not engage in such inflammatory language as it undermines any point either of us would be trying to make.

 

[justforthelulz]