Before+after punch lands: Twat. Upon landing: That poor Nazi - Alternative suggestions of methods of engagement welcome

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote: If your point of view is "I think we should lower corporation tax rates," then you're making a suggestion about a complex problem and we can have a nice chat about what the benefits or consequences of that might be. I think it's important that kind of debate happens. Even if you think they're wrong, or whatever, you can't go around punching people for having a radical viewpoint on corporation tax. Or if you think "Oh, I don't think we should eat animals," then we can examine which ideas in moral philosophy lead to that opinion and sit down to discuss them. These are conversations where you might meet a middle-ground with someone or come away with a better understanding of them as a person and a moral agent and that's an enriching experience.

But if your point of view is "I think all non-white people should be killed," then to be fair we'd all agree that's a somewhat less deep viewpoint. It's hard to see how you can sit across from someone who says "I think all non-white people should be killed" and negotiate towards mutual understanding. Look, I mean, I'm not saying I would punch a Nazi myself. I'm just saying that maybe the argument "I think all non-white people should be killed" leads to few opportunities for meaningful debate. You're going to have a tough time reaching a middle-ground with someone who goes around telling people "I think all non-white people should be killed." They've very much put themselves in a situation where it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them. And I hope they all get punched.

When did Nazi ideology get boiled down to "I think all non-white people should be killed"?

I think this is an excellent point. You know, you go out to the right-wing rallies or you find those crazy people on the street wearing swastikas, and they say the same old things to you like "I think all non-white people should be killed," don't they? And that's a real shame because there's actually a wealth of more historically legitimate Nazi rhetoric and ideology. You always see them overusing "I think all non-white people should be killed" and getting all excited about that idea. And it's disappointing, because just once I want to hear a neo-Nazi, red-faced, shouting with all spittle coming out of his mouth, "Oh, I think all Modernist artists should return to a Classicist set of artistic values" at a terrified but ultimately baffled Muslim woman on a bus. That's what real Nazi ideology is.

WWII and the pursuit of Nazi ideologies caused the deaths of an estimated 70 million people. A significant proportion of those deaths were white people. I don't think we need to use the colour of someones skin as a limiting factor in the capacity of Nazi hatred.

Dual wrote:He did Nazi that coming! (Not see.)

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote: If your point of view is "I think we should lower corporation tax rates," then you're making a suggestion about a complex problem and we can have a nice chat about what the benefits or consequences of that might be. I think it's important that kind of debate happens. Even if you think they're wrong, or whatever, you can't go around punching people for having a radical viewpoint on corporation tax. Or if you think "Oh, I don't think we should eat animals," then we can examine which ideas in moral philosophy lead to that opinion and sit down to discuss them. These are conversations where you might meet a middle-ground with someone or come away with a better understanding of them as a person and a moral agent and that's an enriching experience.

But if your point of view is "I think all non-white people should be killed," then to be fair we'd all agree that's a somewhat less deep viewpoint. It's hard to see how you can sit across from someone who says "I think all non-white people should be killed" and negotiate towards mutual understanding. Look, I mean, I'm not saying I would punch a Nazi myself. I'm just saying that maybe the argument "I think all non-white people should be killed" leads to few opportunities for meaningful debate. You're going to have a tough time reaching a middle-ground with someone who goes around telling people "I think all non-white people should be killed." They've very much put themselves in a situation where it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them. And I hope they all get punched.

When did Nazi ideology get boiled down to "I think all non-white people should be killed"?

I think this is an excellent point. You know, you go out to the right-wing rallies or you find those crazy people on the street wearing swastikas, and they say the same old things to you like "I think all non-white people should be killed," don't they? And that's a real shame because there's actually a wealth of more historically legitimate Nazi rhetoric and ideology. You always see them overusing "I think all non-white people should be killed" and getting all excited about that idea. And it's disappointing, because just once I want to hear a neo-Nazi, red-faced, shouting with all spittle coming out of his mouth, "Oh, I think all Modernist artists should return to a Classicist set of artistic values" at a terrified but ultimately baffled Muslim woman on a bus. That's what real Nazi ideology is.

WWII and the pursuit of Nazi ideologies caused the deaths of an estimated 70 million people. A significant proportion of those deaths were white people. I don't think we need to use the colour of someones skin as a limiting factor in the capacity of Nazi hatred.

I get what you are saying but I think you're missing the point.

Marching people to gas chambers is different to people dying in acts of war.

Jenuall wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote: If your point of view is "I think we should lower corporation tax rates," then you're making a suggestion about a complex problem and we can have a nice chat about what the benefits or consequences of that might be. I think it's important that kind of debate happens. Even if you think they're wrong, or whatever, you can't go around punching people for having a radical viewpoint on corporation tax. Or if you think "Oh, I don't think we should eat animals," then we can examine which ideas in moral philosophy lead to that opinion and sit down to discuss them. These are conversations where you might meet a middle-ground with someone or come away with a better understanding of them as a person and a moral agent and that's an enriching experience.

But if your point of view is "I think all non-white people should be killed," then to be fair we'd all agree that's a somewhat less deep viewpoint. It's hard to see how you can sit across from someone who says "I think all non-white people should be killed" and negotiate towards mutual understanding. Look, I mean, I'm not saying I would punch a Nazi myself. I'm just saying that maybe the argument "I think all non-white people should be killed" leads to few opportunities for meaningful debate. You're going to have a tough time reaching a middle-ground with someone who goes around telling people "I think all non-white people should be killed." They've very much put themselves in a situation where it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them. And I hope they all get punched.

When did Nazi ideology get boiled down to "I think all non-white people should be killed"?

I think this is an excellent point. You know, you go out to the right-wing rallies or you find those crazy people on the street wearing swastikas, and they say the same old things to you like "I think all non-white people should be killed," don't they? And that's a real shame because there's actually a wealth of more historically legitimate Nazi rhetoric and ideology. You always see them overusing "I think all non-white people should be killed" and getting all excited about that idea. And it's disappointing, because just once I want to hear a neo-Nazi, red-faced, shouting with all spittle coming out of his mouth, "Oh, I think all Modernist artists should return to a Classicist set of artistic values" at a terrified but ultimately baffled Muslim woman on a bus. That's what real Nazi ideology is.

WWII and the pursuit of Nazi ideologies caused the deaths of an estimated 70 million people. A significant proportion of those deaths were white people. I don't think we need to use the colour of someones skin as a limiting factor in the capacity of Nazi hatred.

I get what you are saying but I think you're missing the point.

Marching people to gas chambers is different to people dying in acts of war.

Yes, but the people marched to gas chambers were Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, Poles, the physically and mentally disabled (and many others). I don't see how this equates to "all non-white people"?

Karl wrote:Yes Jenuall, we understand they wanted to kill a lot of white people as well.

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote: If your point of view is "I think we should lower corporation tax rates," then you're making a suggestion about a complex problem and we can have a nice chat about what the benefits or consequences of that might be. I think it's important that kind of debate happens. Even if you think they're wrong, or whatever, you can't go around punching people for having a radical viewpoint on corporation tax. Or if you think "Oh, I don't think we should eat animals," then we can examine which ideas in moral philosophy lead to that opinion and sit down to discuss them. These are conversations where you might meet a middle-ground with someone or come away with a better understanding of them as a person and a moral agent and that's an enriching experience.

But if your point of view is "I think all non-white people should be killed," then to be fair we'd all agree that's a somewhat less deep viewpoint. It's hard to see how you can sit across from someone who says "I think all non-white people should be killed" and negotiate towards mutual understanding. Look, I mean, I'm not saying I would punch a Nazi myself. I'm just saying that maybe the argument "I think all non-white people should be killed" leads to few opportunities for meaningful debate. You're going to have a tough time reaching a middle-ground with someone who goes around telling people "I think all non-white people should be killed." They've very much put themselves in a situation where it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them. And I hope they all get punched.

When did Nazi ideology get boiled down to "I think all non-white people should be killed"?

I think this is an excellent point. You know, you go out to the right-wing rallies or you find those crazy people on the street wearing swastikas, and they say the same old things to you like "I think all non-white people should be killed," don't they? And that's a real shame because there's actually a wealth of more historically legitimate Nazi rhetoric and ideology. You always see them overusing "I think all non-white people should be killed" and getting all excited about that idea. And it's disappointing, because just once I want to hear a neo-Nazi, red-faced, shouting with all spittle coming out of his mouth, "Oh, I think all Modernist artists should return to a Classicist set of artistic values" at a terrified but ultimately baffled Muslim woman on a bus. That's what real Nazi ideology is.

WWII and the pursuit of Nazi ideologies caused the deaths of an estimated 70 million people. A significant proportion of those deaths were white people. I don't think we need to use the colour of someones skin as a limiting factor in the capacity of Nazi hatred.

I get what you are saying but I think you're missing the point.

Marching people to gas chambers is different to people dying in acts of war.

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote: If your point of view is "I think we should lower corporation tax rates," then you're making a suggestion about a complex problem and we can have a nice chat about what the benefits or consequences of that might be. I think it's important that kind of debate happens. Even if you think they're wrong, or whatever, you can't go around punching people for having a radical viewpoint on corporation tax. Or if you think "Oh, I don't think we should eat animals," then we can examine which ideas in moral philosophy lead to that opinion and sit down to discuss them. These are conversations where you might meet a middle-ground with someone or come away with a better understanding of them as a person and a moral agent and that's an enriching experience.

But if your point of view is "I think all non-white people should be killed," then to be fair we'd all agree that's a somewhat less deep viewpoint. It's hard to see how you can sit across from someone who says "I think all non-white people should be killed" and negotiate towards mutual understanding. Look, I mean, I'm not saying I would punch a Nazi myself. I'm just saying that maybe the argument "I think all non-white people should be killed" leads to few opportunities for meaningful debate. You're going to have a tough time reaching a middle-ground with someone who goes around telling people "I think all non-white people should be killed." They've very much put themselves in a situation where it's going to be impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them. And I hope they all get punched.

When did Nazi ideology get boiled down to "I think all non-white people should be killed"?

I think this is an excellent point. You know, you go out to the right-wing rallies or you find those crazy people on the street wearing swastikas, and they say the same old things to you like "I think all non-white people should be killed," don't they? And that's a real shame because there's actually a wealth of more historically legitimate Nazi rhetoric and ideology. You always see them overusing "I think all non-white people should be killed" and getting all excited about that idea. And it's disappointing, because just once I want to hear a neo-Nazi, red-faced, shouting with all spittle coming out of his mouth, "Oh, I think all Modernist artists should return to a Classicist set of artistic values" at a terrified but ultimately baffled Muslim woman on a bus. That's what real Nazi ideology is.

WWII and the pursuit of Nazi ideologies caused the deaths of an estimated 70 million people. A significant proportion of those deaths were white people. I don't think we need to use the colour of someones skin as a limiting factor in the capacity of Nazi hatred.

I get what you are saying but I think you're missing the point.

Marching people to gas chambers is different to people dying in acts of war.

In point of fact Hitler was allegedly pretty pissed off when Jesse Owens beat all the white men in the field at the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin.

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote:Yes Jenuall, we understand they wanted to kill a lot of white people as well.

This isn't about white people, this is about making clear that the National Socialist movement in Germany was one of the most abhorrent regimes in modern history and to limit their transgressions to a flippant sound byte about skin colour is fairly offensive to all those groups who suffered by their hands.

Denster wrote:It's gotten very Nazti in here.

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Denster wrote:It's gotten very Nazti in here.

10/10. Bravo.

Dual wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:

Denster wrote:It's gotten very Nazti in here.

10/10. Bravo.

Really?

Karl wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Karl wrote:Yes Jenuall, we understand they wanted to kill a lot of white people as well.

This isn't about white people, this is about making clear that the National Socialist movement in Germany was one of the most abhorrent regimes in modern history and to limit their transgressions to a flippant sound byte about skin colour is fairly offensive to all those groups who suffered by their hands.

Crikey. I was making a point about racist neo-Nazis in something of a tongue-in-cheek way, not writing a thesis on the atrocities of World War 2.

This kind of needless hysterics is why I avoid Twitter...

Jenuall wrote:I wouldn't say my comments quite deserve the title of hysterics, nor were they needless. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. It's a touchy subject.