4 ms·

You're right. Too right. The Nazis are a rightfully perfect metaphor for these times and many others. But there are always exceptions. Nobody is wheelbarrowing

You're right. Too right. The Nazis are a rightfully perfect metaphor for these times and many others. But there are always exceptions. Nobody is wheelbarrowing carts of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread. Race (and the idea of inherent superiority/inferiority) is viewed much differently, in fact until the 70s it was generally accepted that Neanderthals became whites, Homo Erectus became Asians, and so on. And if the post-Cold War era has taught us anything, there is no "End of History" where humanity converges along the One True Path. No analogy is perfect. American slaves had little relation to Roman slaves aside from being owned people. Too much has changed since the 30s to be an exact repeat.

stcredzero 11y ago
Nobody is wheelbarrowing carts of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread. Race (and the idea of inherent superiority/inferiority) is viewed much differently But that's almost never the specific argument of people who fall into the mistake of "Nazi" as analogy. In fact, many people use these overly-specific points as a fallacious straw-man rebuttal. Often, the specific, functional points are complaints of: - stereotyping of a group - quick and prejudicial characterization of a person as member of the group - certain moral/ethical positions irrationally ascribed to the group - said group being demonized with lurid, emotional language - actions by a number of persons against a perceived member of the group - use of exclusionary, inflammatory, and violent tactics against the same MLK and Gandhi carefully and very specifically structured their movements to account for people falling into such patterns of behavior and besmirching their causes. We are all subject to such mental patterns, and they require specific mental effort to combat. In particular, they were aware that people engaged in activism are especially vulnerable to these phenomena. Society and rational thought would be greatly helped by a language and cognitive tools to calmly think and speak about such phenomena.
- Natsu 11y ago
  > MLK and Gandhi carefully and very specifically structured their movements to account for people falling into such patterns of behavior and besmirching their causes. I don't know enough of that history to know specifically what you're referring to, could you elaborate further on this point?
  - tamana 11y ago
    Short version: MLK and Gandhi soufht to make peace and unite with their opponents, not attack and destroy them.
    - stcredzero 11y ago
      It's quite unfortunate that many forget the Nazis in their early days were effectively activists organizing themselves into a political party. Maybe someone needs to write an article outlining historical groups who are good functional analogues and who aren't the Nazis?
      - neffy 11y ago
        Kind of sort of, but at the same time they were also former soldiers, who thought they'd been forced to surrender when they still had a chance of winning, who organized themselves into a political party.
        stcredzero 11y ago
        Kind of sort of Any group that sets itself apart and has a burning collective desire to change things is waking the same psychological mechanisms. So is cheering for sports teams. We're a bit more savvy as a culture about harnessing and controlling that in the case of sports. Yet, look at some of the stupid stuff ports fans still can get up to. Just look at history, and it's quite apparent that politics awakens the exact same tendencies, but without the same cultural/societal checks. Hell, just listen to what people say and observe how they start to prejudge and target each other based on surface-level signals.
        neffy 11y ago
        There are certainly collective behaviour instincts that can kick in with groups and which can be manipulated to cause people to run amok, but it's not any group by any means. Take for example the English Society of Friends (Quakers), and their burning collective desire to stop the Slave Trade. (& for prison reform, but that was arguably self-interest because they kept ending up in them.) So perhaps the more interesting question is still which groups and why.
- Chris2048 11y ago
  The same could be said of terms like "racist", "liberal" and "conservative". There's no Godwins law for these. Tribal-labelling is rife. Banning mention of the Nazis, as opposed to labelling (as "Nazis" or otherwise), has more effect that excluding the above list. I'd also have doubts with regards to the terms: "many people", "Often" and "especially vulnerable". Is it possible that use of these weasel terms is in itself stereotyping?
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    It's possible. There's psychological research that suggests people behave in certain ways in groups. There's literally thousands of years of observations about human behavior that supports these notions as well. > I'd also have doubts with regards to the terms: "many people", "Often" and "especially vulnerable". Is it possible that use of these weasel terms is in itself stereotyping? Curious. Are you using "stereotyping" in the same category as "sin?" I'm referring to it as a particular cognitive pattern that has certain epistemological problems. People who organize themselves in groups, deliberately set apart in matters of thought and ideology are especially vulnerable to certain forms of group-think. Being emotionally invested in a particular group -- such that you think the inherent justice of its cause makes it exceptional -- is a key symptom. The evidence against the exceptionalism of a particular group range all of history, and the structure is much the same as certain arguments against religion. Just as there have been so many different "one true" gods and so many different "one true" religions, there have been many, many exceptional "justified" causes. Often as not, they are arguably actually justified in some way as well. Often as not, these causes grow to become the next oppressors. History is full of examples.
RogtamBar 11y ago
> is viewed much differently, in fact until the 70s it was generally accepted that Neanderthals became whites, Homo Erectus became Asians, and so on Nope. Multi-regional descent was a theory first proposed in 1984, and of a relatively brief lifespan. Before that monogenism was the prevailing theory. Multi-regional ascent was never the pre-eminent theory. Now we know we're all mostly descended from h.sapiens, with some minute neanderthal and denisovan admixture. However, the split between different branches of mankind dates as back as 300 kya. (To put that in perspective, brown and polar bears diverged approximately 500 kya)

stcredzero 11y ago

Nobody is wheelbarrowing carts of Deutschmarks to buy a loaf of bread. Race (and the idea of inherent superiority/inferiority) is viewed much differently But that's almost never the specific argument of people who fall into the mistake of "Nazi" as analogy. In fact, many people use these overly-specific points as a fallacious straw-man rebuttal. Often, the specific, functional points are complaints of: - stereotyping of a group - quick and prejudicial characterization of a person as member of the group - certain moral/ethical positions irrationally ascribed to the group - said group being demonized with lurid, emotional language - actions by a number of persons against a perceived member of the group - use of exclusionary, inflammatory, and violent tactics against the same MLK and Gandhi carefully and very specifically structured their movements to account for people falling into such patterns of behavior and besmirching their causes. We are all subject to such mental patterns, and they require specific mental effort to combat. In particular, they were aware that people engaged in activism are especially vulnerable to these phenomena. Society and rational thought would be greatly helped by a language and cognitive tools to calmly think and speak about such phenomena.

Natsu 11y ago
> MLK and Gandhi carefully and very specifically structured their movements to account for people falling into such patterns of behavior and besmirching their causes. I don't know enough of that history to know specifically what you're referring to, could you elaborate further on this point?
- tamana 11y ago
  Short version: MLK and Gandhi soufht to make peace and unite with their opponents, not attack and destroy them.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    It's quite unfortunate that many forget the Nazis in their early days were effectively activists organizing themselves into a political party. Maybe someone needs to write an article outlining historical groups who are good functional analogues and who aren't the Nazis?
    - neffy 11y ago
      Kind of sort of, but at the same time they were also former soldiers, who thought they'd been forced to surrender when they still had a chance of winning, who organized themselves into a political party.
      - stcredzero 11y ago
        Kind of sort of Any group that sets itself apart and has a burning collective desire to change things is waking the same psychological mechanisms. So is cheering for sports teams. We're a bit more savvy as a culture about harnessing and controlling that in the case of sports. Yet, look at some of the stupid stuff ports fans still can get up to. Just look at history, and it's quite apparent that politics awakens the exact same tendencies, but without the same cultural/societal checks. Hell, just listen to what people say and observe how they start to prejudge and target each other based on surface-level signals.
        neffy 11y ago
        There are certainly collective behaviour instincts that can kick in with groups and which can be manipulated to cause people to run amok, but it's not any group by any means. Take for example the English Society of Friends (Quakers), and their burning collective desire to stop the Slave Trade. (& for prison reform, but that was arguably self-interest because they kept ending up in them.) So perhaps the more interesting question is still which groups and why.
Chris2048 11y ago
The same could be said of terms like "racist", "liberal" and "conservative". There's no Godwins law for these. Tribal-labelling is rife. Banning mention of the Nazis, as opposed to labelling (as "Nazis" or otherwise), has more effect that excluding the above list. I'd also have doubts with regards to the terms: "many people", "Often" and "especially vulnerable". Is it possible that use of these weasel terms is in itself stereotyping?
- stcredzero 11y ago
  It's possible. There's psychological research that suggests people behave in certain ways in groups. There's literally thousands of years of observations about human behavior that supports these notions as well. > I'd also have doubts with regards to the terms: "many people", "Often" and "especially vulnerable". Is it possible that use of these weasel terms is in itself stereotyping? Curious. Are you using "stereotyping" in the same category as "sin?" I'm referring to it as a particular cognitive pattern that has certain epistemological problems. People who organize themselves in groups, deliberately set apart in matters of thought and ideology are especially vulnerable to certain forms of group-think. Being emotionally invested in a particular group -- such that you think the inherent justice of its cause makes it exceptional -- is a key symptom. The evidence against the exceptionalism of a particular group range all of history, and the structure is much the same as certain arguments against religion. Just as there have been so many different "one true" gods and so many different "one true" religions, there have been many, many exceptional "justified" causes. Often as not, they are arguably actually justified in some way as well. Often as not, these causes grow to become the next oppressors. History is full of examples.

RogtamBar 11y ago

> is viewed much differently, in fact until the 70s it was generally accepted that Neanderthals became whites, Homo Erectus became Asians, and so on Nope. Multi-regional descent was a theory first proposed in 1984, and of a relatively brief lifespan. Before that monogenism was the prevailing theory. Multi-regional ascent was never the pre-eminent theory. Now we know we're all mostly descended from h.sapiens, with some minute neanderthal and denisovan admixture. However, the split between different branches of mankind dates as back as 300 kya. (To put that in perspective, brown and polar bears diverged approximately 500 kya)