4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your point. Atrocities committed in Soviet Russia/Soviet satellites are different from atrocities committed by the Nazis because one

by trgv 9y ago

I'm not sure I understand your point. Atrocities committed in Soviet Russia/Soviet satellites are different from atrocities committed by the Nazis because one set of atrocities was motivated by racism and the other was motivated by various other stuff? I suppose you can argue that they're different. But I'm not sure how important the differences are. As long as people are being subjugated and murdered to "make the world better," it's all pretty much the same to me. I also don't know why you think that what the European colonial powers did is "painted as A-OK." Maybe some people think that, but as an American I was taught that what was done to native Americans was definitely not "A-OK."

IWeldMelons 9y ago
Soviet Union was 2 different countries during the Stalin's time and after him. United States was a way more brutal country (Mai Lai for example) from 1960's all the way towards 1991.
coldtea 9y ago
>Atrocities committed in Soviet Russia/Soviet satellites are different from atrocities committed by the Nazis because one set of atrocities was motivated by racism and the other was motivated by various other stuff? Yes. Basic human morality 101. Even courts understand this, and have since time immemorial. It's another thing to do something out of pure hate/greed/etc and another to do something believing you did something good, or that you did it in self-defense, etc. >As long as people are being subjugated and murdered to "make the world better," it's all pretty much the same to me. Well, then fighting Nazis is the same thing as being a Nazi, after all both kill. Or killing people in the Civil War to abolish slavery is as bad as any civilian murder. But in reality people understand circumstances where killing is considered justified, even if bad. It's just that some only apply those things to the kind of causes and people they care about. >I also don't know why you think that what the European colonial powers did is "painted as A-OK." Maybe some people think that, but as an American I was taught that what was done to native Americans was definitely not "A-OK." >I also don't know why you think that what the European colonial powers did is "painted as A-OK." Because they got out of it with a slap on the wrist (if not on top), because they pull the same shit even today, and because they feel pretty damn good about having done it, when they're not totally ignorant about it. >Maybe some people think that, but as an American I was taught that what was done to native Americans was definitely not "A-OK." And yet everything done still today to native Americans and/or blacks points that few care -- and of course nobody is giving any land back, are they?
- trgv 9y ago
  My opinion is that killing and subjugating people is wrong, regardless of your motivation for doing so, unless your motivation is to stop people from killing and subjugating other people. In general, I'm not comfortable speculating about various groups' motivation for mass killing and subjugation and then ranking those instances of mass murder based on the purity of their supposed motivation. That entire exercise seems incredibly silly to me. I think it's easier to talk about motivation when we're discussing crimes committed by individuals, but even then, I think it's something courts should do less of.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >My opinion is that killing and subjugating people is wrong, regardless of your motivation for doing so, unless your motivation is to stop people from killing and subjugating other people. Well, the motivation of communists was to stop people from "killing and subjugating other people" in the form of imperialism, wage slavery, and so on. So? >That entire exercise seems incredibly silly to me. Well, that's history to you.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  > to do something believing you did something good, or that you did it in self-defense, etc. That is precisely what the Nazis did. They defended themselves from the subversions of the Jewish people, and united the German-speaking peoples.

by trgv 9y ago

IWeldMelons 9y ago

Soviet Union was 2 different countries during the Stalin's time and after him. United States was a way more brutal country (Mai Lai for example) from 1960's all the way towards 1991.

coldtea 9y ago

>Atrocities committed in Soviet Russia/Soviet satellites are different from atrocities committed by the Nazis because one set of atrocities was motivated by racism and the other was motivated by various other stuff? Yes. Basic human morality 101. Even courts understand this, and have since time immemorial. It's another thing to do something out of pure hate/greed/etc and another to do something believing you did something good, or that you did it in self-defense, etc. >As long as people are being subjugated and murdered to "make the world better," it's all pretty much the same to me. Well, then fighting Nazis is the same thing as being a Nazi, after all both kill. Or killing people in the Civil War to abolish slavery is as bad as any civilian murder. But in reality people understand circumstances where killing is considered justified, even if bad. It's just that some only apply those things to the kind of causes and people they care about. >I also don't know why you think that what the European colonial powers did is "painted as A-OK." Maybe some people think that, but as an American I was taught that what was done to native Americans was definitely not "A-OK." >I also don't know why you think that what the European colonial powers did is "painted as A-OK." Because they got out of it with a slap on the wrist (if not on top), because they pull the same shit even today, and because they feel pretty damn good about having done it, when they're not totally ignorant about it. >Maybe some people think that, but as an American I was taught that what was done to native Americans was definitely not "A-OK." And yet everything done still today to native Americans and/or blacks points that few care -- and of course nobody is giving any land back, are they?

trgv 9y ago
My opinion is that killing and subjugating people is wrong, regardless of your motivation for doing so, unless your motivation is to stop people from killing and subjugating other people. In general, I'm not comfortable speculating about various groups' motivation for mass killing and subjugation and then ranking those instances of mass murder based on the purity of their supposed motivation. That entire exercise seems incredibly silly to me. I think it's easier to talk about motivation when we're discussing crimes committed by individuals, but even then, I think it's something courts should do less of.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >My opinion is that killing and subjugating people is wrong, regardless of your motivation for doing so, unless your motivation is to stop people from killing and subjugating other people. Well, the motivation of communists was to stop people from "killing and subjugating other people" in the form of imperialism, wage slavery, and so on. So? >That entire exercise seems incredibly silly to me. Well, that's history to you.
paulddraper 9y ago
> to do something believing you did something good, or that you did it in self-defense, etc. That is precisely what the Nazis did. They defended themselves from the subversions of the Jewish people, and united the German-speaking peoples.