4 ms·

Just wait until you get to the part of the They Thought They Were Free where it mentions over-reacting. That strategy doesn't work. There is no moment of egreg

Just wait until you get to the part of the They Thought They Were Free where it mentions over-reacting. That strategy doesn't work. There is no moment of egregious violation. It never comes. Even when the state is clearly totalitarian there were Germans holding out hope that Germany would lose the war. As if that was their final straw. The salami is purposefully sliced thin enough that one slice on it's own will never provoke enough outrage. How do you hope to oppose that?

Jensson 2y ago
So did the over-reactions work? If they didn't then why double down on a losing strategy?
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  The point was that conceding to the over-reactive label isn't a viable strategy The people of 1955 - just 10 years after WW2 - realized that taking a stand, even against a salami was the better strategy than avoiding the over-reactive label. Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time?
  - Jensson 2y ago
    This law and the banning of the other political parties was the egregious step that people should have rebelled and taken up arms against, you can't say this was just a tiny "salami slice": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... You want to have all the political capital left when that law happens, instead of wasting it defending rotten scraps. Wasting so much energy and political capacity on scraps means there is no energy left when the big things hits, that is exactly where your current strategy is taking you. > Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time? People killed Nazis before they came to power, they weren't using legal or nice strategies as defense back then either. That was the wrong way, it only increased support for the Nazis.
    - hayst4ck 2y ago
      By the time that happens, everyone who understands what is happening will have already left because people like you want to wait until power is consolidated to such an extent that it can't be reasonably fought. That law was enacted after they thought they had the power to do it, not before as with every salami slicing action. If they think there will be a response, they back off while they continue to slice. You talk about political capital like it's in a bank account just waiting to be spent, while political capital is being lost through inaction itself, especially in people seeing that it's more rational to run than fight. Schumer's strategy to wait for 40% unpopularity didn't save any political capital, just the opposite, it demoralized everyone on his side, destroyed resolve, and shattered solidarity. What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... Intent is already declared, time passes which allows power to consolidate. When would it be easier to act, after several months of power consolidation?
      - Jensson 2y ago
        > What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... You are crazy if you don't see the difference...
        hayst4ck 2y ago
        You are crazy if you don't see the difference. It's not a difference in goal, it's a difference in level of power consolidation. They would already have enacted that law if they thought they had the power to do it, the fact that they haven't means that they think it would cause a response they couldn't win against. As soon as they think they can win, they will do it. So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? If I am the country with 10,000 citizens and I see my neighbor is producing bullets at maximum capacity, should I wait until I definitely know they will invade to mobilize my own manufacturing base/prepare my citizens for a potential invasion? What if they had already spent 2,000 bullets taking a 2,000 person state?
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  Be clear what over reactions are you talking about in the context of rise of the nazis and what overreactions do you see here? Building a personal army and pissing in the woods whilst you drill and prepare for civil war 2.0 electric boogaloo would be an overreaction, this is a strongly worded letter against arresting judges. This is the absolute minimum anyone could possibly be expected to do.

Jensson 2y ago

So did the over-reactions work? If they didn't then why double down on a losing strategy?

kelseyfrog 2y ago
The point was that conceding to the over-reactive label isn't a viable strategy The people of 1955 - just 10 years after WW2 - realized that taking a stand, even against a salami was the better strategy than avoiding the over-reactive label. Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time?
- Jensson 2y ago
  This law and the banning of the other political parties was the egregious step that people should have rebelled and taken up arms against, you can't say this was just a tiny "salami slice": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... You want to have all the political capital left when that law happens, instead of wasting it defending rotten scraps. Wasting so much energy and political capacity on scraps means there is no energy left when the big things hits, that is exactly where your current strategy is taking you. > Why re-use a strategy that, when we tried it, led to Nazi Germany? Do we expect it to succeed this time? People killed Nazis before they came to power, they weren't using legal or nice strategies as defense back then either. That was the wrong way, it only increased support for the Nazis.
  - hayst4ck 2y ago
    By the time that happens, everyone who understands what is happening will have already left because people like you want to wait until power is consolidated to such an extent that it can't be reasonably fought. That law was enacted after they thought they had the power to do it, not before as with every salami slicing action. If they think there will be a response, they back off while they continue to slice. You talk about political capital like it's in a bank account just waiting to be spent, while political capital is being lost through inaction itself, especially in people seeing that it's more rational to run than fight. Schumer's strategy to wait for 40% unpopularity didn't save any political capital, just the opposite, it demoralized everyone on his side, destroyed resolve, and shattered solidarity. What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... Intent is already declared, time passes which allows power to consolidate. When would it be easier to act, after several months of power consolidation?
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > What is the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_Parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Against_the_Formation_of_P... and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblue-memo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/trump-actblu... You are crazy if you don't see the difference...
      - hayst4ck 2y ago
        You are crazy if you don't see the difference. It's not a difference in goal, it's a difference in level of power consolidation. They would already have enacted that law if they thought they had the power to do it, the fact that they haven't means that they think it would cause a response they couldn't win against. As soon as they think they can win, they will do it. So by not acting now, you ensure that that law is a possibility later. Imagine I have a neighboring country who's land I want. They have 10,000 citizens, but I only have 5,000 bullets. I have a bullet factory that produces 1,000 bullets a month. Do I invade them right now or do I wait at least 5 months? If I am the country with 10,000 citizens and I see my neighbor is producing bullets at maximum capacity, should I wait until I definitely know they will invade to mobilize my own manufacturing base/prepare my citizens for a potential invasion? What if they had already spent 2,000 bullets taking a 2,000 person state?
michaelmrose 2y ago
Be clear what over reactions are you talking about in the context of rise of the nazis and what overreactions do you see here? Building a personal army and pissing in the woods whilst you drill and prepare for civil war 2.0 electric boogaloo would be an overreaction, this is a strongly worded letter against arresting judges. This is the absolute minimum anyone could possibly be expected to do.