6 ms·

I really hope America in the future looks back on the government of this time the same way Germany looks back on the Nazi government (yes, just Godwinned it); w

I really hope America in the future looks back on the government of this time the same way Germany looks back on the Nazi government (yes, just Godwinned it); with shame, and a fierce determination to never allow it to happen again.

busterarm 13y ago
If only we could be so lucky. There were a brief few decades in the United States where you couldn't be born the "wrong color", born the "wrong gender" (let's leave advanced concepts like non-binary gender and fluidity off the table for a moment, but they invalidate my statement), belong to the "wrong religion" or have the "wrong politics". We're just back to the status quo, that's all.
- jwise0 13y ago
  When were these? I can't think of a time like that in the history of the United States, sorting by decade or so...
  - dubfan 13y ago
    For starters, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - busterarm 13y ago
    I hope i'm understanding you correctly in that you think there's never been "good times" with some degree of racial/gender/religious/political equality. Largely I would agree with you, but I don't think that's the general sentiment among Americans thinking of their history, especially with respect to the last quarter of the 1900s. I'm also not trying to claim them all at once, but individually and in very general terms. If you're arguing the opposite though, I don't know where we could begin to discuss the chasm between our understandings.
    - dalke 13y ago
      > I don't think that's the general sentiment among Americans thinking of their history, especially with respect to the last quarter of the 1900s "General" implies majority, yes? In which case isn't your statement almost tautologically true? At least if most Americans are part of the majority? Instead, shouldn't we ask instead how those of the historically "wrong color", "wrong gender", "wrong religion", and "wrong politics" perceive things? Certainly in 2006, "Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years" http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2006/UR_RELEASE_MIG_2816.html http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2006/UR_RELEASE_MIG_2... As it says, there has been a trend of "increasing social tolerance" over the last part of the 20th century, but that's not the same as couldn't.
      - judk 13y ago
        Fun fact: Most people are in some minority group; there are many groups.
        shangxiao 13y ago
        I would even argue that all people belong to some form of minority group ;)
        dalke 13y ago
        Fun fact: there are only four minority groups in this discussion, those being "wrong color", "wrong gender", "wrong religion", and "wrong politics". Fun fact: discrimination in the workplace is generally legal. The law lists only a few exceptions. But when someone talks about anti-discrimination policies, they mean those few exceptions and not the entire universe of all possible ways to discriminate. Fun fact: billionaires in the US are indeed a minority, but not considered a traditionally oppressed minority which, you know, is the point of this conversation. Fun fact: there's plenty of evidence to show that being female, being black, being Muslim, and being a communist in the US is more likely to have a negative effect, compared to someone male, white, Lutheran, and Democrat. Fun facts: California still has a law preventing teachers from being in the Communist party: http://www.dailybulletin.com/social-affairs/20130113/california-law-keeps-communist-party-members-from-teaching http://www.dailybulletin.com/social-affairs/20130113/califor... , and in 2001, Michael Italie was fired from Goodwill for being a member of the Socialist Worker Party. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss_fire_you_for_your_political_beliefs.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2... or http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6543/654302.html http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6543/654302.html .
lukifer 13y ago
Honestly, I wish the Godwin moratorium would end. The lessons of Nazi Germany are not that Germans in the 1930s were the most evil persons in history, making it erroneous and offensive to compare anyone else to them. In fact, it's quite the opposite: the lesson is that all humans have the capacity for extreme evil when it is socially normalized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banality_of_evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banal... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo#The_Lucifer_Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo#The_Lucifer_Eff...
- busterarm 13y ago
  Moratoriums on topics of conversation only tend to exist when people understand the terms in meanings that are directly and completely contradictory. Your statement highlights this point quite nicely because yes, people believe that either "Nazis were the most evil people ever" or "Everyone is just as evil as the Nazis given the right circumstance/context." There are similar problems with topics like "fascism", "socialism", "patriotism", "freedom", "morals" and "religious belief"..and even Godwin's law itself. Following that, willingness to discuss these topics is usually a sign of either incredible intellect or incredible stupidity. Also, congratulations for not appearing stupid. I too do not find for Godwin's Law too favorably.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    Oh come on, don't pat yourself on the back for not liking Godwin's law when you haven't even bothered to understand what he was saying. It's criticism of people who resort to screaming Hitler when it is not warranted! That idiots have used an observation to shout down conversations is not the fault of the observer.
    - busterarm 13y ago
      Well, for sure. I understand what he was saying and I don't even disagree. I'm just stating plainly that people use Godwin's Law in exactly the manner as what he was criticizing to begin with. It's just become another tool to ruin conversations.
yaix 13y ago
Comparing it to the GDR ("East Germany") would be more apropriate, I guess. And you'd avoid Godwin.

busterarm 13y ago

If only we could be so lucky. There were a brief few decades in the United States where you couldn't be born the "wrong color", born the "wrong gender" (let's leave advanced concepts like non-binary gender and fluidity off the table for a moment, but they invalidate my statement), belong to the "wrong religion" or have the "wrong politics". We're just back to the status quo, that's all.

jwise0 13y ago
When were these? I can't think of a time like that in the history of the United States, sorting by decade or so...
- dubfan 13y ago
  For starters, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- busterarm 13y ago
  I hope i'm understanding you correctly in that you think there's never been "good times" with some degree of racial/gender/religious/political equality. Largely I would agree with you, but I don't think that's the general sentiment among Americans thinking of their history, especially with respect to the last quarter of the 1900s. I'm also not trying to claim them all at once, but individually and in very general terms. If you're arguing the opposite though, I don't know where we could begin to discuss the chasm between our understandings.
  - dalke 13y ago
    > I don't think that's the general sentiment among Americans thinking of their history, especially with respect to the last quarter of the 1900s "General" implies majority, yes? In which case isn't your statement almost tautologically true? At least if most Americans are part of the majority? Instead, shouldn't we ask instead how those of the historically "wrong color", "wrong gender", "wrong religion", and "wrong politics" perceive things? Certainly in 2006, "Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years" http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2006/UR_RELEASE_MIG_2816.html http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2006/UR_RELEASE_MIG_2... As it says, there has been a trend of "increasing social tolerance" over the last part of the 20th century, but that's not the same as couldn't.
    - judk 13y ago
      Fun fact: Most people are in some minority group; there are many groups.
      - shangxiao 13y ago
        I would even argue that all people belong to some form of minority group ;)
      - dalke 13y ago
        Fun fact: there are only four minority groups in this discussion, those being "wrong color", "wrong gender", "wrong religion", and "wrong politics". Fun fact: discrimination in the workplace is generally legal. The law lists only a few exceptions. But when someone talks about anti-discrimination policies, they mean those few exceptions and not the entire universe of all possible ways to discriminate. Fun fact: billionaires in the US are indeed a minority, but not considered a traditionally oppressed minority which, you know, is the point of this conversation. Fun fact: there's plenty of evidence to show that being female, being black, being Muslim, and being a communist in the US is more likely to have a negative effect, compared to someone male, white, Lutheran, and Democrat. Fun facts: California still has a law preventing teachers from being in the Communist party: http://www.dailybulletin.com/social-affairs/20130113/california-law-keeps-communist-party-members-from-teaching http://www.dailybulletin.com/social-affairs/20130113/califor... , and in 2001, Michael Italie was fired from Goodwill for being a member of the Socialist Worker Party. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2002/07/can_your_boss_fire_you_for_your_political_beliefs.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2... or http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6543/654302.html http://www.themilitant.com/2001/6543/654302.html .

lukifer 13y ago

Honestly, I wish the Godwin moratorium would end. The lessons of Nazi Germany are not that Germans in the 1930s were the most evil persons in history, making it erroneous and offensive to compare anyone else to them. In fact, it's quite the opposite: the lesson is that all humans have the capacity for extreme evil when it is socially normalized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banality_of_evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#The_banal... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo#The_Lucifer_Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo#The_Lucifer_Eff...

busterarm 13y ago
Moratoriums on topics of conversation only tend to exist when people understand the terms in meanings that are directly and completely contradictory. Your statement highlights this point quite nicely because yes, people believe that either "Nazis were the most evil people ever" or "Everyone is just as evil as the Nazis given the right circumstance/context." There are similar problems with topics like "fascism", "socialism", "patriotism", "freedom", "morals" and "religious belief"..and even Godwin's law itself. Following that, willingness to discuss these topics is usually a sign of either incredible intellect or incredible stupidity. Also, congratulations for not appearing stupid. I too do not find for Godwin's Law too favorably.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Oh come on, don't pat yourself on the back for not liking Godwin's law when you haven't even bothered to understand what he was saying. It's criticism of people who resort to screaming Hitler when it is not warranted! That idiots have used an observation to shout down conversations is not the fault of the observer.
  - busterarm 13y ago
    Well, for sure. I understand what he was saying and I don't even disagree. I'm just stating plainly that people use Godwin's Law in exactly the manner as what he was criticizing to begin with. It's just become another tool to ruin conversations.

yaix 13y ago

Comparing it to the GDR ("East Germany") would be more apropriate, I guess. And you'd avoid Godwin.