thinkfurther

It wasn't really a problem for the Nazis though. Hannah Arendt explained how in a way defying reality is a badge of honor for members (of one of the onion layers of) totalitarian movements.

This is 100% off-topic and just about WP, but something just occured to me: I wish Wikipedia had a way to make new articles as stubs and mark them as such, so they don't show up on the main page, unless people are logged in and want that. Kinda like "showdead" on HN. Even better, make links to stub articles in other articles not be links either. I can't count the times I wanted to add something, but either didn't know enough about the subject or was too lazy to submit enough on the first try. I don't mean to sound entitled, but lowering the bar for "casuals" would be great, if it could be done in a way to not diminish quality (i.e. it would still have to be stubs about something that belongs in WP according to the rules, but not necessarily stubs of good quality). It's a bit disheartening to be shot down by deletionists who aren't even willing to give it some time.. if it can dishearten stubborn me I'm sure it disheartened a lot of people over the years, and who knows what articles could have been grown from tiny kernels by now.

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

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.

Fair enough. I agree in that I think it's lame it had to happen this way, but I'm still glad it happened this way rather than not at all.

> 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

> I would also add that the rules should be as specific as possible, since vague terms like "hateful ideology" can be applied to almost anything controversial.

I didn't say "Yup, hateful ideology", I said "Yup, Nazis."

They run around with torches and swastikas and celebrate murder. What's controversial about that, and what does Twitter have to do with anything? I don't use Twitter. It's very telling how people constantly drag in shit like that to bloat and pad. Face Hannah Arendt, face Sebastian Haffner, face Erich Fromm; but your ignorance and shallowness will not keep me from shaking you and any other comers off.

> All political ideologues think their opposition wants to take away their freedoms. If you make the rule that people who want to remove freedoms don't get them

Analogous would be "if you make the rule that people who you think want to remove freedoms but actually don't" -- instead you're switching goal posts mid-sentence.

Just like the right to free speech is useless without a spirit of tolerance in the population, the same goes for inciting violence being illegal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/charlottesv...

Why does this story about CF dropping the Daily Stormer have not simply one comment saying "Good."? Why is there even a discussion? No one is defending it explicitly, but many do implicitly.

I decided to never even attempt to enter the US somewhere after 2001. Not until a bunch of things change (well, they did change; for the worse). What's the use of flying across the big pond if you can get turned away that nilly willy?

> The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence

Well good luck then. Just like Hitler famously wanted people to not wait for his orders, but distill his wishes and creatively go beyond in doing things in his spirit to get official support later, the guy who drove his car full speed into people didn't need anyone to specifically tell them to do that.

> At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.

Oh, so the second the car approaches the crowd, time just stops and it gets "shut down"? No wait, that's totally not what happened and also what will happen as this shit repeats under a president who implicitly supports it and a populace that would rather berate those who DO want to shut it down than those who need shutting down.

Only very few will call for "specific acts of violence", I won't join you in holding your breath for that. Read Hannah Arendt and Sebastian Haffner or don't. These aren't anecdotes, these are your betters, casting pearls before pigs. Pearls that were bought with suffering the likes of which neither you or I can even begin to imagine. But if you offer yourself as hostage to the Nazis, then you're out of what I consider polite society, too.

I'm not saying it, I'm asking it. What more do you need than swastikas and glorification of the holocaust and so on? I love how the bar there seems to be raised so high that even Adolf Hitler might not qualify as Nazi to some people here, but I simply ask a question, and that's being like a Nazi.

I can do and am things a Nazi cannot do and isn't. I also can be brutal and hateful, like when I get sick of all these snakes on this motherfucking plane. I can do everything they can, but also so much more. That is the difference.

Convenient relabeling? I beg your pardon? Aren't you just conveniently making up shit right now?

Nothing about being German in there? Nothing about hating Jews? Or any of the other things that the Nazis espoused just because they were handy, and which had nothing to do with "the ideology" because there isn't one?

This is people talking to me about grammar who don't even know what a letter is. Read "Origins of Totalitarianism". Read Sebastian Haffner. Everybody is so interested in the subject, so knowledgeable about it, and so against Nazis.

The proof is in the pudding. You cannot disprove my with your straw men and having no clue about the nature of Nazism and related diseases, you can strike yourself from my phone book is all.

What about them? How were they not fascists, for all practical purposes?

> I think the sentiment GP is trying to communicate is that many seem to throw the label out there without any further investigation as to whether its justified.

That's great, but totally irrelevant here, in response to me, in this context. When I call a dog a dog, I don't care that sometimes, somewhere, other people call a vase a dog. And it's incredibly rich in the context of "free speech" and whatnot: what use is my right to free speech, when people then also have the "right" to just replace what I say with some other anecdote in their mind? What use is being allowed to ask a question when people then just talk to each other about anything but the question? The protection of free speech arose in contexts where people suppressed speech because they otherwise would have to face it. If people don't face it anyway, there's no need to suppress any of it. And congratulations, too.

Tell me what "the ideology" is then.

For those who downvote me: so you're actually believing I call "anyone I don't like" a Nazi? How fucking pathetic is that? And no I don't care about the votes, I just want you to stop and realize how incredibly dumb that is. This is a kindergarten level of discourse on a subject that ranks amongst the most important that even exist.

edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer

That's where names like "Daily Stormer" and "Stormfront" come from. Educate yourself at least a tiny shred.

Who's talking about unreliability? I'm talking about perfectly reliable tools of oppression.

> Did not go well.

And you're telling me this, why?

> We should be careful to a) not call everything Nazi

Oh I see, that's why. Well, you should be careful to c) not confuse me with anyone else.

This isn't mere hate, and I'm not "mandating tolerance" either. I'm mandating you at least read people like Hannah Arendt and Sebastian Haffner instead of you projecting your naivety on me.

Yeah, and you'll take it all down with your foolishness.

You too should read this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032018

and maybe this for good measure:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15014737

I forgot nothing, I'd rather say I know things you haven't yet understood.

> I may not be able to understand where White Supremists are coming from, but I fully appreciate their right to free speech.

These two facts are connected. Another example would be not being fully sure what bleach exactly is, but being all for drinking it.

"Yup, they're Nazis".

What more due process do you require?

Sunlight in this case would be doing for Nazis what they themselves won't do because they're unable -- recognize them for who they are and act accordingly.

> In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought

This is not how any of this works.

> My opinion may be unpopular, however. I'm one of those folks that believe that everyone, equally, deserves to be able to express their thoughts, beliefs, and beliefs regardless of whether I agree with them.

You may want to read this comment of mine I put in a thread that probably won't get seen much because it's not intellectually stimulating enough, or something: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032018

I'll add a quote from a White Rose leaflet:

> Do not hide your cowardice under the cloak of cleverness!

http://white-rose-studies.org/Leaflet_3.html

Damning? I find it humble and self-deprecating to call a lucid moment as this a "bad mood".

relevant:

https://twitter.com/zarzarbinkss/status/897880604309684224

from "Der Fremde in uns" ("The Stranger Within Us") by Arno Gruen.. from one of the last chapters, crappy translation below the German:

> Mit liebevoller Toleranz und verständnisvollem Entgegenkommen werden wir gewalttätige Rechtsradikale und Neo-Nazis nicht besänftigen können. Aus der Forschung mit geschändeten und mißhandelten Kindern ist bekannt, daß diese auf liebevolles Entgegenkommen mit Haß und Gewalt reagieren. [..]

> Haß und Gewalt sind jedoch auch nicht die geeigneten Gegenmittel. Im Umgang mit haßerfüllten Menschen gilt es vor allem, konsequent zu sein. Das heißt: Grenzen setzen! Das ist die einzige Sprache, die Menschen ohne innere Identität verstehen. Wer ihnen helfen möchte, braucht eine innere Authorität. [..]

> Konsequenz trägt zunächst zur Beruhigung derjenigen bei, die Autorität für ihr Persönlichkeitsgefüge brauchen. Bei Hitlers Putsch 1923 in München geschah das Gegenteil. Als die bayrische Regierung Hitler mit ein paar Schüssen Einhalt gebot, fiel dessen Bewegung zusammen. Erst als die gerichtlichen Instanzen ihm verständnisvoll als Menschen mit berechtigtem "Leid" entgegenkamen, verkehrte sich der Zusammenbruch in einen Neubeginn.

-----

> With loving tolerance and an understanding approach we won't be able to placate violent right-wing extremists and neo-nazis. From the studies with abused children we know, that they react with hatred and violence to a loving approach. [..]

> But hatred and violence is not the appropriate anti-dote either. When dealing with hateful people the most important thing is to be consequent. This means: setting boundaries! This is the only language that people without an inner identity understand. Who wants to help them needs inner authority. [..]

> Being consequent calms those who need authority for their personality structure. During Hitlers coup [attempt] 1923 in Munich the opposite happened. When the Bavarian government stopped Hitler with a few bullets, the movement collapsed. Only when the judicial instances approached him understandingly as a human with justified "suffering", the collapse reversed into a new beginning.

-----

I'd say the ACLU may be great with many things, but here, they're way out of their depth. As is HN. Even journalists begging Trump for a statement, while well meaning, are way too weak; either you respect the office of President or the person currently holding it, you can hardly have both. Generally it would be great if those who don't have the guts and the grounding for the necessary confrontations would stop trying to stop those who do. Arno Gruen, Hannah Arendt, et al: don't discard the wisdom they extracted from things that can simply not be allowed to happen again. Or ignore all I said, but do read their books. I left out big chunks from the Arno Gruen quote; when he says being consequent and setting boundaries he really means disarming people, not wailing on them or anything. I'm too full of spite for that job, but I'd have the back of anyone who isn't but also isn't a coward. Nothing more, nothing less.

> Most early humans cooperated and shared because they spent their entire lives surrounded by the same a few hundred people.

That and, as far as I understand, when they went hunting, only a few get lucky, and those couldn't eat all the meat themselves before it spoiled.