Hacker News Reader

Comment by joering2 | Hacker News Reader

> Not when they start organizing murder, no.

I think you are misinformed (I assume you talk about natzis).

Not all natzis are violent or are looking for violence. There are plenty of pre-war natzis that loved how Hitler pulled their country from dispair of economical and technological swamp, created economy of solid growth and created hundreds of thausands of jobs. Up to this point Hitler was an incredible leader and actually all those real successes as a politican made him being voted to become Germans fuerer.

As with any other group or person views, a reasonable person never agrees with anyything they say or believe. Thats called fanatism. Look at Trump. Mamy things he do or say are reasonable and as a POTUS he sould be praised for. On the other hand you shouldnt agree with him when he talks crap.

So its wrong to say all natzis are looking for violence, just like its wrong to say all Muslims are looking to blow thmeselves up in crouded spot.

View on HN

So your point is some of the Nazis were reasonable other than the ones that want to commit genocide?

It doesn't even hold up today because you are saying historically there were Germans that supported the Nazi party because of Hitler's leadership in other areas. But we're in 2017 where everyone knows that Nazis committed a genocide. So anyone like the Daily Stormer that supports Nazis we know to be dangerous. And It's okay to not do business with dangerous people who want to harm innocents.

To your point about Muslims, we know that there are millions of peaceful non-violent practicing Muslims. You are trying to make a logical equivalency here and what I believe is more important is the facts that we know about the real world we live in. Supporting Nazis is explicit support of genocide. Practicing Islam has an unfortunate overlap with violent terrorists. But practicing Christianity also has an unfortunate overlap with domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Dylan Roof. I don't think existing in this theoretical world of forced equivalency even benefits your argument as much as you believe it does.

> So anyone like the Daily Stormer that supports Nazis we know to be dangerous.

How is it exactly dangerous? How did they views hurt you or your family? How did they affect you? IF you children happen to be listening and turn to Natzis, I can bet even if DS never existed in the first place, they would get to be Natzis somehow anyways.

Point being, limiting free speech is never a good idea. Especially of something SO silly as a website where it is NOT pushing itself on you, but to the contrary - you have to visit it to be a "part" of it.

> Not all natzis are violent or are looking for violence [...] Up to this point Hitler was an incredible leader

Hitler was openly advocating persecution of Jews and annexing countries through war. Supporting Hitler at the time, even without hindsight, was to be in active support of violence to say the least.

Normally you don't need to point out the link between Nazism and violence, but these don't seem to be normal times.

>Hitler was openly advocating persecution of Jews and annexing countries through war.

The US (and France and co) were quite antisemitic at the time as well. Hitler took that sentiment and run with it to unprecedented murdering levels, but it was there (and of course, when it was millions of developing worlds colonial slaves who got the axe, nobody really cared. Heck, people didn't even care that much for Jews at the time either: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267 ).

As for "annexing countries through war" the European colonial powers had been doing exactly the same to 2/3 of the world for centuries (and continued to do so after WWII).

The difference is that Hitler did that "annexing" to other European countries, not to third world people (for whom hypocritical Europeans could not care less).

(Of course European countries have also had a long bloody history of fighting and annexing each other for centuries up to WWI as well).

> As for "annexing countries through war" the European colonial powers had been doing exactly the same to 2/3 of the world for centuries (and continued to do so after WWII).

How is this relevant? Get back to me when people proudly call themselves neo-colonialists, and I will gladly call them idiots. No one is defending that part of British history (for example).

>No one is defending that part of British history (for example)

You'd be surprised. I recall the British being quite fond of their Falklands war -- for an astonishingly remote land that has absolutely no historical connection to the isle and population of Britain apart from the colonial plundering.

Plus, it's not like the big powers are not invading and bombing countries here and there to this day under various pretexts...

> You'd be surprised. I recall the British being quite fond of their Falklands war -- for an astonishingly remote land that has absolutely no historical connection to the isle and population of Britain apart from the colonial plundering.

Yes, I would be surprised, because it's inane. You've got a poll? I must've missed the large gatherings of Brits protesting to take back India.

> Plus, it's not like the big powers are not invading and bombing countries here and there to this day under various pretexts...

Yes, and like I asked last time, what's your point? Show me a movement bent on persecution of a people, leading to invasion of other countries, that is hence emulated elsewhere, and not criticized as neo-Nazis are.

Iraq was unrelated to 9/11, was about oil, but used 9/11 as an excuse to look for WMDs, and is immensely unpopular.

Are you claiming that there are neo-Bushists organizing to take back America from Saddamists that aren't criticized like neo-Nazis are?

Does that proposition sound ridiculous? It's because it is. You are not making a comparison, you are bringing up non-sequitors to gaslight the issue.

There are wars and invasions, and most if not all are very unpopular, and any that revolves around eradication of peoples are historically reviled. Except for neo-nazis views of 1940s Germany, for some reason. Do you have a comparison to that?

As a rhetorical lesson, notice how easily whataboutism can be turned in service of Nazism.

For the parent, I would prefer that you argue the merits of national socialism on their own terms. It makes it easier to see where you stand.

>As a rhetorical lesson, notice how easily whataboutism can be turned in service of Nazism.

I don't consider "whataboutism" an offense -- rather it's what people used to call "calling a spade a spade" and not siding with pots in calling the kettle black, but rather pointing the finger and both the pot and the kettle.

(Of course I don't belong to either the pot or the kettle. I can understand why compatriots of one or the other would take offense at "whataboutism". They'd rather only the other is called out).

I also don't particularly see how if reality proves that both sides in WWII were bastards, or that the best between them dropped nukes on civilians with the same ease the Nazis murdered Jews (but just for 200.000 people, not 4 million) that's "in service of Nazism".

Rather it's in service of the truth those other victims ALSO deserve.

I wouldn't be satisfied if we just didn't repeat Nazism.

I also want us to not repeat imperialism and colonialism [1].

For that, call all out all sides is necessary.

(Well, we never stopped those, but in any case).

> I also want us to not repeat imperialism and colonialism

And I want us to not repeat the murder of JFK. However Oswaldians aren't a side in the conversation.

The opposition to nazis aren't colonialists. They are anti-nazis, democrats, republicans, human beings, ie people that don't like persecution of peoples. That's not a bad, equal, or comparable side to any obfuscation you've managed to dream up.

> actually all those real successes as a politican made him being voted to become Germans fuerer.

Where do you have this from? From a computer game or a movie? From a gumball machine?

Read this book.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/65458.Defying_Hitler

Here I googled it for you:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-achievements-of-Hitler

Amongst all interesting points: 10. Nazis started first checking of drunk drivers.

Your link does not support the claim that that is how Hitler got into power at all.

Read the book. Don't pass "go", don't collect $400, and spare me more pop history. I lead you to water, now drink or don't.

Since you are new to Hacker News, I suggest you read the HN Guideline before you take on any further historical book [1].

Furthermore, your response doesn't support anything at all but only steer conversation off to a different course.

As you can rewind, I was merely responding to previous post not to equal Nazism with violence, just like you can't equal Muslim religion with violence. In that context, I couldn't care less about some historical book. I assume in your country you have access to Amazon, so go ahead dive in their books section. You welcome!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm not new to HN, I just ditch accounts when they approach 500 karma because I'm edgy like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com