4 ms·

> Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' That is one HECK of an uncharitable assumption. My original comment spe

> Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' That is one HECK of an uncharitable assumption. My original comment speaks for itself. You are coming uncomfortably close to calling me a Nazi sympathizer. I don't appreciate that. In case the ancestors get edited: >>> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and truth than with violence >> Do you have any evidence to support this claim? > One of the most chilling comments I've ever read on this site. How does one provide evidence of the content of their heart?

anigbrowl 9y ago
I have no doubt you're a good hearted person and have not made any assumptions to the contrary, but it does read as if you are chilled by a request for evidence that reason and truth are the best means of combating racial purity ideologies. It would certainly be nice to rely on reason and truth if those strategies are indeed reliable. But the extant question is what if they're not? The historical record suggests that appeals to reason, truth, and morality actually have a really terrible record as practical responses to autocracy. As we've been talking about Nazis, it's an easily verifiable fact that there was abundant intellectual, political, and religious opposition to their ideology and that none of these proved especially effective. Once the nazis got comfortable and installed their people in key administrative positions, they just started arresting people whose public behavior was politically inconvenient for them. I don't want to start drawing parallels with individual current events which is more likely to confuse than to inform, but they're not hard to imagine.
- pheldagryph 9y ago
  You continue to misrepresent my past comments. I will read nothing further from you, save for an apology.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I'm not misrepresenting it, I'm giving you my best understanding of your rather cryptic utterances. It would be a lot easier to understand your point if you would explain it in greater detail. I realize you think your original comment speaks for itself, but I'm telling you that I'm finding it vague and confusing.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I have no doubt you're a good hearted person and have not made any assumptions to the contrary, but it does read as if you are chilled by a request for evidence that reason and truth are the best means of combating racial purity ideologies. It would certainly be nice to rely on reason and truth if those strategies are indeed reliable. But the extant question is what if they're not? The historical record suggests that appeals to reason, truth, and morality actually have a really terrible record as practical responses to autocracy. As we've been talking about Nazis, it's an easily verifiable fact that there was abundant intellectual, political, and religious opposition to their ideology and that none of these proved especially effective. Once the nazis got comfortable and installed their people in key administrative positions, they just started arresting people whose public behavior was politically inconvenient for them. I don't want to start drawing parallels with individual current events which is more likely to confuse than to inform, but they're not hard to imagine.

pheldagryph 9y ago
You continue to misrepresent my past comments. I will read nothing further from you, save for an apology.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I'm not misrepresenting it, I'm giving you my best understanding of your rather cryptic utterances. It would be a lot easier to understand your point if you would explain it in greater detail. I realize you think your original comment speaks for itself, but I'm telling you that I'm finding it vague and confusing.