4 ms·

I wonder if during world war 2 people opposed fighting nazis like this...

by djakaitis 6y ago

rubatuga 6y ago
The US is not at war, these are two groups within a single country.
- alphabettsy 6y ago
  Yes because there could never be a war within a country right?
- djakaitis 6y ago
  I think you are missing the point of my question. I’m pointing out that not all opinions should be protected equally. Opinions of hate or violence are bad for society. I don’t understand why the suppression of those things is considered totalitarian? Especially when it comes from private enterprise.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Because if you block 'bad' opinions, you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible and eventually you'll find that opposing a current government is 'bad' (this happened in my country in a short span of 15 years). So it turns out that allowing all speech, even 'bad' is less harmful for society in the long run than trying to suppress some speech.
    - jsmeaton 6y ago
      No. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        This is a third time today I see this hypocritical nonsense. The definition of tolerance is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them. If you carve yourself an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, you are no longer tolerant. And you still think that you are, it's just a hypocrisy.
        nobody9999 6y ago
        Being tolerant of those who believe differently absolutely does not preclude pushing back against those who are not tolerant of those who believe differently from them. There's no hypocrisy there. Acting against intolerance is supporting tolerance.
    - AYBABTME 6y ago
      Canada has restrictions on free speech that prevent things like saying hateful stuff. And so far Canada looks pretty democratic and fair to me. Have a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...
      - refurb 6y ago
        Actually it's fraught with issues. "Hate speech" was used to stop the republishing of the cartoons that got the Danish guy murdered. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdrawing-my-human-rights-complaint-against-ezra-levant/article18444701/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdra...
        AYBABTME 6y ago
        Nothing's perfect, my point us that it didn't lead to a totalitarian state.
        logicchains 6y ago
        Some provinces there literally have curfews and police patrolling the street to arrest anyone breaching curfew. Just because it's justified as an attempt to slow the spread ot covid, doesn't make it any less totalitarian.
        AYBABTME 6y ago
        Temporary emergency measures don't make a totalitarian government. For that matter, similar measures were temporarily taken and then rescinded in the past; proof of non-totalitarianism. Further proof is minority governments and recent changes in governing parties. Totalitarian governments don't have these. I think further burden of proof on wether Canada is a totalitarian state reasonably falls on those who believe it is. It seems reasonable to accept that Canada isn't totalitarian as a premise, when I say that some restrictions on freedom of speech don't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
        6y ago
    - cinquemb 6y ago
      The thing is, even if someone recognizes: >… you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible… By the time this may matter the most, it is already too late… rubicon has already been crossed. Thus, the one who recognizes this must position themselves to expect any of the downsides that will most assuredly come and to expect society to be of no help at all to achieve such ends.
  - ryanSrich 6y ago
    > Opinions of hate or violence are bad for society The issue is making this distinction. You’re out of your mind if you want corporations to make that for you.
    - tclancy 6y ago
      The problem here, and I am not disagreeing with you or blaming you for this, is the Republican Party spent four decades telling us ceding control of things to the marketplace and private industry was going to make the world better. That they are now hoist by their own petard is something for a better person than me to not laugh at.
      - refurb 6y ago
        And on the flip side, the Democrats have been clutching pearls about the monopoly of big tech, but once big tech starts silencing their political opponents they come rushing to big tech's defense and talk about how much they believe in free markets. It's entertaining as hell.
        tclancy 6y ago
        If that does happen, if they were to abandon oversight of Big Tech over this, that would be soulless and wrong. I just don’t see how you know this will happen.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Civil wars are still wars, and we're inching closer.
conradfr 6y ago
Well, IBM didn't ban Germany...
- StriverGuy 6y ago
  but actually...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_(1939%E2%80%931945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_(1939%E2%8...
peruvian 6y ago
No, a lot of the wealthy, powerful people in the US were profiting off Nazis.
hogFeast 6y ago
Yes, they were. In the UK, there was fairly consistent opposition to fighting the Nazis. Even after France was overrun, there was a fairly large minority in the UK saying that the UK should surrender and ally with Germany (some of these were right-wing, some of them were not). In the US, unsurprisingly given the huge number of German migrants to the US, there was fairly unanimous opposition which is why the US joined so late. The connection with Britain and France was only really present in the elites of US society, isolationism was the default. Also, it is worth remembering that what we know about the Nazis today is not necessarily what people knew about the Nazis then. I think myths about WW2 are quite damaging. Everyone today appears to think that they are in a good vs evil battle. Not only is this quite clearly not justified by the facts today (for example, comparing the Capitol with Kristallnacht, as Schwarznegger did, is a chilling inaccuracy...particularly from someone who hails from Austria), it wasn't the situation then...no-one in WW2 in the US regarded it as a good vs evil battle (only Churchill did, and he was lambasted for it).
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It's also worth pointing out that a lot of Nazi ideas about race and social organization came from America. Not all, but enough to make most modern Americans uncomfortable. America had a sizable Nazi party, and eugenics was a hugely popular movement before the Nazis really highlighted the severe downsides of that ideology. America also turned away a lot of Jewish refugees for similar reasons. Most of the ended up victims of the Holocaust. It's only after the war that the "we had to fight this great, singular evil" emerged.

I wonder if during world war 2 people opposed fighting nazis like this...

rubatuga 6y ago

The US is not at war, these are two groups within a single country.

alphabettsy 6y ago
Yes because there could never be a war within a country right?
djakaitis 6y ago
I think you are missing the point of my question. I’m pointing out that not all opinions should be protected equally. Opinions of hate or violence are bad for society. I don’t understand why the suppression of those things is considered totalitarian? Especially when it comes from private enterprise.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Because if you block 'bad' opinions, you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible and eventually you'll find that opposing a current government is 'bad' (this happened in my country in a short span of 15 years). So it turns out that allowing all speech, even 'bad' is less harmful for society in the long run than trying to suppress some speech.
  - jsmeaton 6y ago
    No. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      This is a third time today I see this hypocritical nonsense. The definition of tolerance is willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them. If you carve yourself an exemption to not accept some behaviour or beliefs, you are no longer tolerant. And you still think that you are, it's just a hypocrisy.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        Being tolerant of those who believe differently absolutely does not preclude pushing back against those who are not tolerant of those who believe differently from them. There's no hypocrisy there. Acting against intolerance is supporting tolerance.
  - AYBABTME 6y ago
    Canada has restrictions on free speech that prevent things like saying hateful stuff. And so far Canada looks pretty democratic and fair to me. Have a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_Can...
    - refurb 6y ago
      Actually it's fraught with issues. "Hate speech" was used to stop the republishing of the cartoons that got the Danish guy murdered. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdrawing-my-human-rights-complaint-against-ezra-levant/article18444701/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdra...
      - AYBABTME 6y ago
        Nothing's perfect, my point us that it didn't lead to a totalitarian state.
        logicchains 6y ago
        Some provinces there literally have curfews and police patrolling the street to arrest anyone breaching curfew. Just because it's justified as an attempt to slow the spread ot covid, doesn't make it any less totalitarian.
        AYBABTME 6y ago
        Temporary emergency measures don't make a totalitarian government. For that matter, similar measures were temporarily taken and then rescinded in the past; proof of non-totalitarianism. Further proof is minority governments and recent changes in governing parties. Totalitarian governments don't have these. I think further burden of proof on wether Canada is a totalitarian state reasonably falls on those who believe it is. It seems reasonable to accept that Canada isn't totalitarian as a premise, when I say that some restrictions on freedom of speech don't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.
      - 6y ago
  - cinquemb 6y ago
    The thing is, even if someone recognizes: >… you'll need to arbiter them to distinguish bad ones from good. This process is corruptible… By the time this may matter the most, it is already too late… rubicon has already been crossed. Thus, the one who recognizes this must position themselves to expect any of the downsides that will most assuredly come and to expect society to be of no help at all to achieve such ends.
- ryanSrich 6y ago
  > Opinions of hate or violence are bad for society The issue is making this distinction. You’re out of your mind if you want corporations to make that for you.
  - tclancy 6y ago
    The problem here, and I am not disagreeing with you or blaming you for this, is the Republican Party spent four decades telling us ceding control of things to the marketplace and private industry was going to make the world better. That they are now hoist by their own petard is something for a better person than me to not laugh at.
    - refurb 6y ago
      And on the flip side, the Democrats have been clutching pearls about the monopoly of big tech, but once big tech starts silencing their political opponents they come rushing to big tech's defense and talk about how much they believe in free markets. It's entertaining as hell.
      - tclancy 6y ago
        If that does happen, if they were to abandon oversight of Big Tech over this, that would be soulless and wrong. I just don’t see how you know this will happen.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ashtonkem 6y ago
Civil wars are still wars, and we're inching closer.

conradfr 6y ago

Well, IBM didn't ban Germany...

StriverGuy 6y ago
but actually...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_(1939%E2%80%931945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany_(1939%E2%8...

peruvian 6y ago

No, a lot of the wealthy, powerful people in the US were profiting off Nazis.

hogFeast 6y ago

Yes, they were. In the UK, there was fairly consistent opposition to fighting the Nazis. Even after France was overrun, there was a fairly large minority in the UK saying that the UK should surrender and ally with Germany (some of these were right-wing, some of them were not). In the US, unsurprisingly given the huge number of German migrants to the US, there was fairly unanimous opposition which is why the US joined so late. The connection with Britain and France was only really present in the elites of US society, isolationism was the default. Also, it is worth remembering that what we know about the Nazis today is not necessarily what people knew about the Nazis then. I think myths about WW2 are quite damaging. Everyone today appears to think that they are in a good vs evil battle. Not only is this quite clearly not justified by the facts today (for example, comparing the Capitol with Kristallnacht, as Schwarznegger did, is a chilling inaccuracy...particularly from someone who hails from Austria), it wasn't the situation then...no-one in WW2 in the US regarded it as a good vs evil battle (only Churchill did, and he was lambasted for it).

ashtonkem 6y ago
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of Nazi ideas about race and social organization came from America. Not all, but enough to make most modern Americans uncomfortable. America had a sizable Nazi party, and eugenics was a hugely popular movement before the Nazis really highlighted the severe downsides of that ideology. America also turned away a lot of Jewish refugees for similar reasons. Most of the ended up victims of the Holocaust. It's only after the war that the "we had to fight this great, singular evil" emerged.