First, I don't mean I hate racists because I follow any PC type nonsense.
Intolerance is part of the reason, but a lot of it is that they are just, pathetic...
For example, how pathetic does someone have to be that they start taking pride in the accomplishments of their entire race that they didn't have anything to do with? (more evidence that racists are a drain on society) Not only take pride in accomplishments they didn't work toward, but they have to blame all their problems on entire groups of people. Plus they are idiotic enough to believe complete gak that is clearly made up.
The words that come to mind the fastest when thinking of racists are words like bottom feeder and leben unwertes leben.
Racists are killing innocent people, and they aren't contributing anything back to society. Why do we even need these people around?
Video is NSFW due to language
Spoiler:
I've also noticed a trend that people have been becoming less racist as time progresses. This would seem to indicate that less racist people are more evolutionarily successful, and that racists are the leftovers of an earlier stage of evolution. Because they are part of an earlier phase of Humanity, they are probably not able to grasp important concepts essential to rationality, and would not be able to be educated in the reasons behind non-racism. Racists are clearly more barbaric and far less civilized than non racist people. It is doubtful that a racist is even able to approach the level of civility and cultural advancement of even a non racist child. Combine this with the irrational fear that racists have that the White Race is dying, and I don't think it's safe to allow racists near White women.
When I laugh at a racist joke, I don't think racism is funny. I think that anyone who would actually seriously believe it is an idiot, and I laugh at them.
I have a fairly dark sense of humor and need to rip on people. No one is going to be offended by ripping on racists.
For the record that guy is kind of guy that gets his ass kicked on the reg, with those crazy eyes that look one direction when they talk. Can't stand to look at him, even if what he is saying is mostly correct.
I've encountered different varieties of racist. Some are chauvinists; some are tribal minded; others are afraid they'll be made worse off by changes to the social landscape; some see race as a battle for supremacy; prejudice, for whatever reason, can also be a factor.
To turn such people around likely requires us to understand what brought them to think in such a manner in the first place.
People are often prideful of the accomplishment of their "people" even if they have nothing to do with it. That doesn't make you racist. We just had a little something called the Olympics that made lots of people proud.
I will admit to having prejudice against certain people, and I work my way past those every day. I think most people have them, but not that many people are outwardly racist. Prejudice is a result of having cultures, and we should recognize when we have them so we can overcome them.
I do feel bad about mine and know that they are irrational, I feel even more bad considering that almost all of my close friends (and I) are in interracial marriages between different cultures. We have American/European/white/black/Mexican/Pilipino between all of us.
I felt that the video was quite misguided. It seems more like it was intended to fuel anger from skinhead types than anything else.
There is nothing wrong with anyone feeling prideful in the accomplishments of someone from their ethnic group. The problem arises when that pride turns into arrogant superior viewpoints.
The only time i become racist is when people try playing the "race card" or when they are trying to hurt my friends, myself or my family because at that point its feth their feelings and their physical well being (note the "feth their physical well being" only applies if they are being violent/ doing something that deserves a broken limb)
Other then that i dont care if you black, white, asian, ect. if your nice to myself and my friends/ family il be nice to you.
Wow.. can we also agree that water is wet?
What's the point of this thread besides making yourself feel better by stating that you despise the despised?
Cheesecat wrote: I'm a racist and I'm offended by this thread, reported.
Poe's Law
Regardless of your inability to infer the hunour in his post, this thread is in violation of Rule #1.
Probably won't be inforced, of course, and shouldn't be, but it does show the limitations of Dakka's rules.
On a related note, there was a Aube Doré (golden dawn?) food and goods collect in the Greek quarter of Montreal, earlier today.
Couldn't go there, but I'm hoping the anti-facho showed up and broke a few jaws.
I actually find people who assume that others are racist to be more annoying than racists themselves.
There's something about that culture of false accusation and jumping to conclusions that really gets on my nerves.
Once lived in a student house with a mixed-race lady who just could not get that chip off her shoulder and assumed that everything everywhere was all about her being black (If she got a bad grade it was all because "I am black, tutor is racist" and not "I did bugger all work and went out drinking 3 nights in a row instead of doing coursework").
I actually initially made the mistake of assuming that she wasn't being serious about it simply because it was repeated so often and OTT-dramatized. Then after getting an earful after saying something based on that assumption, I realised "Oh god she's serious".
The sad thing about it is that you can't actually mention this to someone, even politely, because "being over-sensitive about being black" is now part of the the "black" stereotype.
It would be great if people would move on and accept that no-one actually gives a crap about what colour your skin is anymore apart from a minority of nutters with sociopathic tendencies, and people who are afraid of the economic competition.
I disagree with Scarletsquig. I feel that most people are still racist, but it's a different kind of racism. Instead of actively discriminating against black people, people make subconscious assumptions without thinking.
Like, when people see a white dude on average they won't assume he's a criminal.
But when people see a black dude, they're way more likely to assume he's a criminal.
So then we see a lot more juries putting black people in jail.
The problem with this kind of racism is that its almost impossible to combat. People aren't trying to be racist. They're just being stupid and making assumptions.
LoneLictor wrote: I disagree with Scarletsquig. I feel that most people are still racist, but it's a different kind of racism. Instead of actively discriminating against black people, people make subconscious assumptions without thinking.
Like, when people see a white dude on average they won't assume he's a criminal.
But when people see a black dude, they're way more likely to assume he's a criminal.
So then we see a lot more juries putting black people in jail.
The problem with this kind of racism is that its almost impossible to combat. People aren't trying to be racist. They're just being stupid and making assumptions.
That's because the media portrays that image constantly.
After seeing how they portray Israel, I have to wonder if maybe they aren't run by anti-Semites. But seriously...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
scarletsquig wrote: I actually find people who assume that others are racist to be more annoying than racists themselves.
There's something about that culture of false accusation and jumping to conclusions that really gets on my nerves.
Once lived in a student house with a mixed-race lady who just could not get that chip off her shoulder and assumed that everything everywhere was all about her being black (If she got a bad grade it was all because "I am black, tutor is racist" and not "I did bugger all work and went out drinking 3 nights in a row instead of doing coursework").
I actually initially made the mistake of assuming that she wasn't being serious about it simply because it was repeated so often and OTT-dramatized. Then after getting an earful after saying something based on that assumption, I realised "Oh god she's serious".
The sad thing about it is that you can't actually mention this to someone, even politely, because "being over-sensitive about being black" is now part of the the "black" stereotype.
It would be great if people would move on and accept that no-one actually gives a crap about what colour your skin is anymore apart from a minority of nutters with sociopathic tendencies, and people who are afraid of the economic competition.
Those people end up causing more racism because no one takes it seriously when someone has a serious complaint of racial discrimination.
MadEdric wrote: Wow.. can we also agree that water is wet?
What's the point of this thread besides making yourself feel better by stating that you despise the despised?
Pretty much, you hate racists? Congratulations for being an ordinary human being in Western society.
MadEdric wrote: Wow.. can we also agree that water is wet?
What's the point of this thread besides making yourself feel better by stating that you despise the despised?
Pretty much, you hate racists? Congratulations for being an ordinary human being in Western society.
Agreed... sometimes I feel like its bandied about because that person doesn't want to have a real discussion... it'll devolve into this:
I admit I'm guilty of profiling a bit while walking on the street. The don't have to be black for me to be wary of them though. I'd be more nervous if a white guy with a tattoo on his face gave me a funny look than a black guy with a tattoo on his face gave me a funny look. I could be robbed by either of them. Or by anyone of any other distinction. People are people.
The only people who I totally overlook are women, and guys in khakis. I wonder how many people have been viciously murdered by guys wearing khakis with a polo tucked into it?
Samus_aran115 wrote: I admit I'm guilty of profiling a bit while walking on the street. The don't have to be black for me to be wary of them though. I'd be more nervous if a white guy with a tattoo on his face gave me a funny look than a black guy with a tattoo on his face gave me a funny look. I could be robbed by either of them. Or by anyone of any other distinction. People are people.
I don't really understand how 'profiling=racist'.
If you have an empirical study that tells you that you have a much higher chance of getting jumped by x than by y in said area, why shouldn't you feel more wary about meeting unknown x in said area?
Samus_aran wrote:I admit I'm guilty of profiling a bit while walking on the street. The don't have to be black for me to be wary of them though. I'd be more nervous if a white guy with a tattoo on his face gave me a funny look than a black guy with a tattoo on his face gave me a funny look. I could be robbed by either of them. Or by anyone of any other distinction. People are people.
I don't really understand how 'profiling=racist'.
If you have an empirical study that tells you that you have a much higher chance of getting jumped by x than by y in said area, why shouldn't you feel more wary about meeting unknown x in said area?
Whether or not racial profiling works depends on whether or not you believe the justice system works. Most liberals (myself included), believe that the justice system is highly biased against non-white people. Just because it convicts more black people doesn't mean black people are inherently bad.
Samus_aran115 wrote: I admit I'm guilty of profiling a bit while walking on the street. The don't have to be black for me to be wary of them though. I'd be more nervous if a white guy with a tattoo on his face gave me a funny look than a black guy with a tattoo on his face gave me a funny look. I could be robbed by either of them. Or by anyone of any other distinction. People are people.
I don't really understand how 'profiling=racist'.
If you have an empirical study that tells you that you have a much higher chance of getting jumped by x than by y in said area, why shouldn't you feel more wary about meeting unknown x in said area?
You're thinking about this too much. I was just thinking about my own behavior, and how I make the distinction between racism and just normal profiling. I'm not saying profiling is racist at all.
Whether or not racial profiling works depends on whether or not you believe the justice system works. Most liberals (myself included), believe that the justice system is highly biased against non-white people. Just because it convicts more black people doesn't mean black people are inherently bad.
Ah, possibly. Well, certainly, I've seen first hand how some of my friends were targetted by cops simply due to different skin colour. The sad thing being they most often were guilty of what they were under suspicion off, weither or not they got caught. But it still means that as many whitey might have been committing the same crimes and wouldn't have been suspected.
And it's not a question 'inherent badness', more a question of different social pressures. If those empirical studies are valid, assuming the liberal criticism is wrong (which it probably isn't), then it would be imprudent on the part of any subject not to act upon the information it gives. Of course, that's on a personnal level. On the macroscale, the question becomes 'what can be done to positively affect this social group?'
Anyone think it will ever be legal to hunt racists?
One of two possiblities:
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed 2) We make them legally game animals
And I'm sick of people trying to claim that we should fight Nazis without violence. Go back to WWII and see how that works; we didn't do it then, I don't see why now has to be any different. The fact is, that at the minimum, they are traitors to the state because they are supporting a foreign military that declared war on the United States. There is no reason they shouldn't be executed for that alone. They are killing people, and we sit around getting bullgak from Closet-Nazi-Hippies who claim that they have some sort of devine right to what they do.
The way to a more peaceful world is to stamp these fethers out! Organize a Jewish Protection Echelon. Such an organization would not have to be made up of Jews, but anyone who would be willing to return the brutality that is the only thing the Nazis respect. We'll see how the Nazis react when there's a JSS instead of everyone just taking it.
How does a Nazi steal a bike? Picks it up and runs.
What do you call 10,000 Nazis at the bottom of the sea? A good start.
Inglorious basterds glorifies animal cruelty.
Arthur Harris was a Nazi baker.
Who do you call to get rid of Nazis? An exterminator.
What do you use to get rid of Nazis? Insecticide.
A lot of this may have intentionally been over the top. But seriously...
...
And thank you to Hitler for helping us win the war. Proof of racist intelligence.
I know what you're thinking; I need to start an anti racist blog.
Not sure what the point of this thread is. People can't really disagree since racism is against the dakka rules. So you have a premise that is against the forum's rules to disagree with...are we all supposed to simply agree?
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
And I'm sick of people trying to claim that we should fight Nazis without violence. Go back to WWII and see how that works; we didn't do it then, I don't see why now has to be any different. The fact is, that at the minimum, they are traitors to the state because they are supporting a foreign military that declared war on the United States. There is no reason they shouldn't be executed for that alone. They are killing people, and we sit around getting bullgak from Closet-Nazi-Hippies who claim that they have some sort of devine right to what they do.
The way to a more peaceful world is to stamp these fethers out! Organize a Jewish Protection Echelon. Such an organization would not have to be made up of Jews, but anyone who would be willing to return the brutality that is the only thing the Nazis respect. We'll see how the Nazis react when there's a JSS instead of everyone just taking it.
How does a Nazi steal a bike? Picks it up and runs.
What do you call 10,000 Nazis at the bottom of the sea? A good start.
Inglorious basterds glorifies animal cruelty.
Arthur Harris was a Nazi baker.
Who do you call to get rid of Nazis? An exterminator.
What do you use to get rid of Nazis? Insecticide.
A lot of this may have intentionally been over the top. But seriously...
...
And thank you to Hitler for helping us win the war. Proof of racist intelligence.
I know what you're thinking; I need to start an anti racist blog.
I didn't know Nazism is so prevalent in your country.
Testify wrote: Not sure what the point of this thread is. People can't really disagree since racism is against the dakka rules. So you have a premise that is against the forum's rules to disagree with...are we all supposed to simply agree?
Nah, I think the point of this thread is to argue over what's racist and what's not, rather than is racism bad or not.
People should start yelling at each other about...
6. The fact that the cast of most TV shows are almost entirely white.
Spoiler:
Only a little bit racist
7. Political Correctness
Spoiler:
86% of the time when people are complaining about political correctness, they are actually complaining about not being able to act racist
8. The term 'African American' vs the term 'Black'.
Spoiler:
Saying 'black' is fine. Martin Luther King Jr described himself as black.
9. Whether or not the phrase 'chink in the armor' is an extremely racist saying about the Chinese.
Spoiler:
I have no idea.
10. The Siamese Cats from The Lady and the Tramp.
Spoiler:
Horribly fething racist.
11. Birther theories
Spoiler:
More racist than Uncle Bob ranting about Martin Luther King Jr Day
12. Lack of black women in porn
Spoiler:
Only a little bit racist
13. The movie Space Jam.
Spoiler:
Not racist
14. The Amish
Spoiler:
Some Amish are racist, some aren't
15. The story of Cain and Able in the Bible.
Spoiler:
This story can be racist, depending on your interpretation
16. Confederate Flags
Spoiler:
50% of people with Confederate Flags are racist feths, and the other 50% are highly uninformed about what the Confederacy stood for
17. People who say 'everyone is racist'
Spoiler:
Funfact: You control what you say and do. If you want to stop being racist, just stop being racist. So no, you can't justify your racism by saying 'everyone is racist'.
18. Mitt Romney
Spoiler:
Raaaaaacist.
19. Ayn Rand
Spoiler:
Can't tell if racist or stupid. Possibly both. Must remember to investigate further.
20. Sports teams names.
Spoiler:
'The Redskins'? Can you imagine if there was a team called 'The Whities'? Fox News would throw one helluva tantrum. So yeah, a lot of sports teams names are raaaaacist.
Testify wrote: Not sure what the point of this thread is. People can't really disagree since racism is against the dakka rules. So you have a premise that is against the forum's rules to disagree with...are we all supposed to simply agree?
Maybe the point of the thread is that since Inquisitor Ehrenstein can't go five posts without referencing Nazis's he's/she's worried someone might think he/she is a racist, so Inquisitor Ehrenstein is here to clear any misconceptions about being a racist.
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
Going back to Roman era morals won't really make us any superior to them. In fact, you exemplify a quite strange conundrum ; racism against racists. Good going there.
And I'm sick of people trying to claim that we should fight Nazis without violence.
Well at least we agree on this. Go join an anti-facho group, I'm sure there's one in your city.
The fact is, that at the minimum, they are traitors to the state because they are supporting a foreign military that declared war on the United States. There is no reason they shouldn't be executed for that alone.
Well, huh, yes, there are many reasons. All the reasons against death penalty, for starters.
They are killing people, and we sit around getting bullgak from Closet-Nazi-Hippies who claim that they have some sort of devine right to what they do.
Wait, what, who?
Organize a Jewish Protection Echelon.
Already exists, there are jewish security organisations in my area. They don't go hunting racists, mind you. They're just a confessionnal neighbourhood watch.
Can't tell if racist or stupid. Possibly both. Must remember to investigate further.
Well, certainly stupid. I mean, there's no fething doubt about that. I'm really sad that a nice little term like 'objectivism' got spoiled to crap by this fethhead. But can you be racists against a moral character? Like ''Social workers really are an inferior race''?
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
Going back to Roman era morals won't really make us any superior to them. In fact, you exemplify a quite strange conundrum ; racism against racists. Good going there.
First, this is mostly a joke. Second, in what way is this "racist?"
First, this is mostly a joke. Second, in what way is this "racist?"
Classifying someone as worthy of being hunted for fun pretty much allows the inference that you are considering them inferior on an natural level. Racism isn't just about displaying hatred toward a group that is colloquially described as a race, it's also the entire mindset that allows you to attribute superiority and inferiority on entire groups and create a divide between humans, based on their nature.
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
Going back to Roman era morals won't really make us any superior to them. In fact, you exemplify a quite strange conundrum ; racism against racists. Good going there.
First, this is mostly a joke. Second, in what way is this "racist?"
But using hyperbole all the time isn't funny, it just makes one look delusional.
First, this is mostly a joke. Second, in what way is this "racist?"
Classifying someone as worthy of being hunted for fun pretty much allows the inference that you are considering them inferior on an natural level. Racism isn't just about displaying hatred toward a group that is colloquially described as a race, it's also the entire mindset that allows you to attribute superiority and inferiority on entire groups and create a divide between humans, based on their nature.
What you described is more prejudice, discrimination, bias, condescension, etc racists aren't the only people who do this you know. Your description could describe antisemitism, anti-theism, atheism, theism, extreme patriotism, ageism, sexism, creationism, homophobia, evolutionism etc
basically anything that you can have show pride, fear, hate, disgust, bigotry and/or love towards.
Cheesecat wrote: What you described is more prejudice, discrimination, bias, condescension, etc racists aren't the only people who do this you know. Your description could describe antisemitism, anti-theism, atheism, theism, extreme patriotism, ageism, sexism, creationism, homophobia, evolutionism etc
basically anything that you can have show pride, fear, hate, disgust, bigotry and/or love towards.
I can discriminate, be condescending, etc, because I rationnaly have come to the conclusion that the lifestyle in question is less than optimal. I can think (and possibly be correct) that being a SOCIALIIIIIIIISTS is a proof of your stupidity (I don't). That's not racism, because it doesn't construct a group by natural conditions.
I'll give you sexism and homophobia ; I've always felt they, with racism, came down from the same inability to cope with evident difference.
Anyway, I think this goes more to show that I don't think the term race is appropriate when describing humans, and is pretty much 'sinnlos'.
Anyway, Ehrenstein, have you red Neuman's Behemoth?
Cheesecat wrote: What you described is more prejudice, discrimination, bias, condescension, etc racists aren't the only people who do this you know. Your description could describe antisemitism, anti-theism, atheism, theism, extreme patriotism, ageism, sexism, creationism, homophobia, evolutionism etc
basically anything that you can have show pride, fear, hate, disgust, bigotry and/or love towards.
I can discriminate, be condescending, etc, because I rationnaly have come to the conclusion that the lifestyle in question is less than optimal. I can think (and possibly be correct) that being a SOCIALIIIIIIIISTS is a proof of your stupidity (I don't). That's not racism, because it doesn't construct a group by natural conditions.
I'll give you sexism and homophobia ; I've always felt they, with racism, came down from the same inability to cope with evident difference.
Anyway, I think this goes more to show that I don't think the term race is appropriate when describing humans, and is pretty much 'sinnlos'.
Anyway, Ehrenstein, have you red Neuman's Behemoth?
I guess this is something we'll have to agree to disagree, to me racism is just racial discrimination nothing more or less.
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
Going back to Roman era morals won't really make us any superior to them. In fact, you exemplify a quite strange conundrum ; racism against racists. Good going there.
First, this is mostly a joke. Second, in what way is this "racist?"
But using hyperbole all the time isn't funny, it just makes one look delusional.
That's why I try to take the time to point it out.
And this isn't a Canadian problem, this is an American problem.
You should able to find the documentary Hate.com that has plenty of examples. There's also the Oklahoma City bombing that was planned by a Nazi, and set at the exact time as a bomb in a Nazi novel.
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
Going back to Roman era morals won't really make us any superior to them. In fact, you exemplify a quite strange conundrum ; racism against racists. Good going there.
First, this is mostly a joke. Second, in what way is this "racist?"
But using hyperbole all the time isn't funny, it just makes one look delusional.
That's why I try to take the time to point it out.
If you have to explain to people your joke is a joke then I think the humour in it failed.
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
Going back to Roman era morals won't really make us any superior to them. In fact, you exemplify a quite strange conundrum ; racism against racists. Good going there.
First, this is mostly a joke. Second, in what way is this "racist?"
But using hyperbole all the time isn't funny, it just makes one look delusional.
That's why I try to take the time to point it out.
If you have to explain to people your joke is a joke then I think the humour in it failed.
It's not always intended to be funny, but it's just how I feel at the moment.
That's why I try to take the time to point it out.
And this isn't a Canadian problem, this is an American problem.
You should able to find the documentary Hate.com that has plenty of examples. There's also the Oklahoma City bombing that was planned by a Nazi, and set at the exact time as a bomb in a Nazi novel.
Islamic terrorism dwarfs the threat posed by far-right terrorism.
So does nationalist terrorism.
Those of you who think racist is bad should come live here in Australia. Specifically, far northern queensland. If you live here for a year or two, you will understand.
That's why I try to take the time to point it out.
And this isn't a Canadian problem, this is an American problem.
You should able to find the documentary Hate.com that has plenty of examples. There's also the Oklahoma City bombing that was planned by a Nazi, and set at the exact time as a bomb in a Nazi novel.
Islamic terrorism dwarfs the threat posed by far-right terrorism.
So does nationalist terrorism.
That's why I try to take the time to point it out.
And this isn't a Canadian problem, this is an American problem.
You should able to find the documentary Hate.com that has plenty of examples. There's also the Oklahoma City bombing that was planned by a Nazi, and set at the exact time as a bomb in a Nazi novel.
Islamic terrorism dwarfs the threat posed by far-right terrorism.
So does nationalist terrorism.
I'm pretty sure Islamic terrorism is on the far right wing on the left/right wing scale of politics.
And this isn't a Canadian problem, this is an American problem.
Well, I guess I got confused by the little red rag next to your picture (props to anyone who can pin down the reference)
You should able to find the documentary Hate.com that has plenty of examples. There's also the Oklahoma City bombing that was planned by a Nazi, and set at the exact time as a bomb in a Nazi novel.
Okay, now, can we agree that most (and by this I mean just about all) racists aren't fascist who will kill people for their beleifs? Lovecraft was a racist, he even made jew jokes in front of his (jewish) wife. Still, he was reported to be appaled by the reports of deportation and mass killings.
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
And I'm sick of people trying to claim that we should fight Nazis without violence. Go back to WWII and see how that works; we didn't do it then, I don't see why now has to be any different. The fact is, that at the minimum, they are traitors to the state because they are supporting a foreign military that declared war on the United States. There is no reason they shouldn't be executed for that alone. They are killing people, and we sit around getting bullgak from Closet-Nazi-Hippies who claim that they have some sort of devine right to what they do.
The way to a more peaceful world is to stamp these fethers out! Organize a Jewish Protection Echelon. Such an organization would not have to be made up of Jews, but anyone who would be willing to return the brutality that is the only thing the Nazis respect. We'll see how the Nazis react when there's a JSS instead of everyone just taking it.
How does a Nazi steal a bike? Picks it up and runs.
What do you call 10,000 Nazis at the bottom of the sea? A good start.
Inglorious basterds glorifies animal cruelty.
Arthur Harris was a Nazi baker.
Who do you call to get rid of Nazis? An exterminator.
What do you use to get rid of Nazis? Insecticide.
A lot of this may have intentionally been over the top. But seriously...
...
And thank you to Hitler for helping us win the war. Proof of racist intelligence.
I know what you're thinking; I need to start an anti racist blog.
If you changed every instant of 'Nazi' into 'Jew' you'd have typical Nazi rhetoric. You aren't any better than they were/are it would seem.
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
And I'm sick of people trying to claim that we should fight Nazis without violence. Go back to WWII and see how that works; we didn't do it then, I don't see why now has to be any different. The fact is, that at the minimum, they are traitors to the state because they are supporting a foreign military that declared war on the United States. There is no reason they shouldn't be executed for that alone. They are killing people, and we sit around getting bullgak from Closet-Nazi-Hippies who claim that they have some sort of devine right to what they do.
The way to a more peaceful world is to stamp these fethers out! Organize a Jewish Protection Echelon. Such an organization would not have to be made up of Jews, but anyone who would be willing to return the brutality that is the only thing the Nazis respect. We'll see how the Nazis react when there's a JSS instead of everyone just taking it.
How does a Nazi steal a bike? Picks it up and runs.
What do you call 10,000 Nazis at the bottom of the sea? A good start.
Inglorious basterds glorifies animal cruelty.
Arthur Harris was a Nazi baker.
Who do you call to get rid of Nazis? An exterminator.
What do you use to get rid of Nazis? Insecticide.
A lot of this may have intentionally been over the top. But seriously...
...
And thank you to Hitler for helping us win the war. Proof of racist intelligence.
I know what you're thinking; I need to start an anti racist blog.
If you changed every instant of 'Nazi' into 'Jew' you'd have typical Nazi rhetoric. You aren't any better than they were/are it would seem.
I really hope this is some sort of bad joke, because otherwise, it's just standing up for racists.
Nazis killed 60 million people. What did Jews do? They did not ever do anything approaching that. That is the difference, there is no comparison.
Why don't you go condemn Inglorious Basterds and say that it's "Nazi like;" see how far you get with that. Everyone will think that you're like David Duke in this video:
NSFW, racist
Spoiler:
I also happen to be very familiar with the tactics of various Nazis and racists, and the argument you are making is entirely consistent with their arguments. According to you, people like Arthur Harris, Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, Carl Spaatz, James Doolittle, and everyone else you owe your freedom to is "no different that the Nazis."
Really? I always thought that was just Ludlum reaching for a plot device...
Yeah, there is good evidence to suggest the Nazis intended to leverage antisemitism and nationalism in the Middle East in order to realize the final solution. After which they probably would have killed off the Arabs.
One of the levels of IB was that it turned the mirror on the audience, that our protagonists were also psychos and mass murderers. That in cheering brutal murder and torture, even of Nazis, we weren't really sitting on a moral high ground.
This also makes a broader point about how beating up even cartoon villains isn't exactly noble. Nazis are such a popular antagonist and villain precisely because they're irredeemable scum, representatives and fighters on behalf of the organization which instituted and performed the greatest crimes and atrocities in history. But we should be careful about allowing outselves freedom from moral judgement just because the guys we're fighting are the worst of the worst. It's not somehow made okay for us to be brutal monsters, just because we're beating up on even worse monsters.
This is a lesson which is very applicable today. And all in a movie with cheerful violence and humor and fun actors and Tarantino dialogue. Which for my money is a pretty cool combination.
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell the OP meant by 'not because of political correctness or anything like that', but then went on to condemn racism, which to the extent there's any kind of coherent meaning to political correctness, it's anti-racism.
MrDwhitey wrote: Inglorious Basterds, wasn't that the movie that actually made Germans seem sympathetic when compared to some of the "Good guys" ?
Yes, that Nazi officer that refused to give up his men's position. He seemed more noble than any other protagonist.
I can't remember; was he actually a Nazi, or just a Wehrmacht officer?
Most people would say those are synonymous terms, but just an officer of the Heer.
I would have to agree with that. The Wehrmacht was responsible for the rape of 10,000,000 Russian women, and everything else during the Holocaust, and we need to stop exaggerating them because of pre-war traditions of not being part of political parties. The end result is that people exonerate the Wehrmacht, in blatant acts of Holocaust denial, and start thinking it's cool to make Imperial Guard Nazi armies and gak like that.
And relate, stop fething using complete German in 40k! It looks wrong! There is no reason why there should be pure German in 40k. Krieg isn't pure German, Sturmkrieg isn't pure German. Nothing in 40k is pure German. It doesn't fit. If you need your army to be pure German, I find that highly suspectable.
The Schutzstaffel did almost all of the concentration camp things, if I remember correctly. Most of the Heer and other branches had no idea that was going on-- forget about the German People. A lot of people still didn't know it was the truth until the nuremburg trials, much later.
I wonder how "racist" your average soldier in the heer was, come to think of it?
Samus_aran115 wrote: The Schutzstaffel did almost all of the concentration camp things, if I remember correctly. Most of the Heer and other branches had no idea that was going on-- forget about the German People. A lot of people still didn't know it was the truth until the nuremburg trials, much later.
I wonder how "racist" your average soldier in the heer was, come to think of it?
No, the Wehrmacht was heavily involved with the Holocaust, mostly on the Eastern Front. And the Germans who lived in towns could smell the camps and bone fragments and hair rained onto the towns. Then they tried to say they didn't know anything when the Allies showed up.
1) We classify them legally as mentally slowed
2) We make them legally game animals
Going back to Roman era morals won't really make us any superior to them. In fact, you exemplify a quite strange conundrum ; racism against racists. Good going there.
First, this is mostly a joke. Second, in what way is this "racist?"
But using hyperbole all the time isn't funny, it just makes one look delusional.
Or a troll (or even worse a contrarian), yes I just quoted myself deal with it.
Samus_aran115 wrote: The Schutzstaffel did almost all of the concentration camp things, if I remember correctly. Most of the Heer and other branches had no idea that was going on-- forget about the German People. A lot of people still didn't know it was the truth until the nuremburg trials, much later.
I wonder how "racist" your average soldier in the heer was, come to think of it?
No, the Wehrmacht was heavily involved with the Holocaust, mostly on the Eastern Front. And the Germans who lived in towns could smell the camps and bone fragments and hair rained onto the towns. Then they tried to say they didn't know anything when the Allies showed up.
Really? That makes total sense. The final solution wasn't secret by any means. I doubt anyone who read the papers wouldn't know about the organized eradication of six million people, not including everyone else who was in the concentration camps.
Samus_aran115 wrote: The Schutzstaffel did almost all of the concentration camp things, if I remember correctly. Most of the Heer and other branches had no idea that was going on-- forget about the German People. A lot of people still didn't know it was the truth until the nuremburg trials, much later.
I wonder how "racist" your average soldier in the heer was, come to think of it?
The construction of the camps and transport of the Jews and other ethnic groups to them involved the co-operation of just about every major bureacracy within Germany. From the Reichsban, who charged a the standard way one fare price for every victim shoved into their cattle cars, to the countless businessmen and industry heads tasked with various minor or major parts of the project. Never mind the co-operation and awareness of every section of the army.
Many tens of thousands of Germans were directly involved in the extermination. The deportations were undertaken in broad daylight. From there, anyone who cared to find out about what was happening to the Jews could easily have done so.
There was later great effort undertaken by normal German citizens to convince themselves they were entirely ignorant, when the truth is that they were on the whole wilfully ignorant. Ian Kershaw summed up the holocaust perfectly "the road to Auschwitz was built by hatred, but paved by ignorance.'
I would have to agree with that. The Wehrmacht was responsible for the rape of 10,000,000 Russian women, and everything else during the Holocaust, and we need to stop exaggerating them because of pre-war traditions of not being part of political parties. The end result is that people exonerate the Wehrmacht, in blatant acts of Holocaust denial, and start thinking it's cool to make Imperial Guard Nazi armies and gak like that.
The aim of the Werchact was to defeat the Reich's enemy's. The aim of the nazis was to exterminate humanity on a large scale.
To quote a wikipedia entry:
The Nuremberg Trials of the major war criminals at the end of World War II found that the Wehrmacht was not an inherently criminal organization, but that it had committed crimes in the course of the war.
Pretty much all nazis were scumbags, but most of the Wermacht were ordinary German people, not particularly cruel or heartless, though obviously there are always spankers
MrDwhitey wrote: Inglorious Basterds, wasn't that the movie that actually made Germans seem sympathetic when compared to some of the "Good guys" ?
Yes, that Nazi officer that refused to give up his men's position. He seemed more noble than any other protagonist.
I can't remember; was he actually a Nazi, or just a Wehrmacht officer?
I thought Wehrmacht.
Go Aldo! Once again Brad Pitt proves he can actually act when given good non pretty boy roles. I thought the Germans stole that movie though (Fassbender, Christof Waltz, and of course the delectable Dianne Krueger)
and who can forget:
(when told the Dachshund legions had sided with the Allies:
Mannahnin wrote: Waltz is Austrian, and Fassbender's a Brit, of German/Irish parentage. But yeah, all four of those actors were great.
Austrians are just Germans with better music. Fassbender speaks fluent German. The story goes Tarantino didn't believe Kreuger was actually German because her English was so good.
I would have to agree with that. The Wehrmacht was responsible for the rape of 10,000,000 Russian women, and everything else during the Holocaust, and we need to stop exaggerating them because of pre-war traditions of not being part of political parties. The end result is that people exonerate the Wehrmacht, in blatant acts of Holocaust denial, and start thinking it's cool to make Imperial Guard Nazi armies and gak like that.
The aim of the Werchact was to defeat the Reich's enemy's. The aim of the nazis was to exterminate humanity on a large scale.
To quote a wikipedia entry:
The Nuremberg Trials of the major war criminals at the end of World War II found that the Wehrmacht was not an inherently criminal organization, but that it had committed crimes in the course of the war.
Pretty much all nazis were scumbags, but most of the Wermacht were ordinary German people, not particularly cruel or heartless, though obviously there are always spankers
Some of the most brutal and horrifying atrocities of the Nazis at war are laid bare in secretly recorded conversations of captured German soldiers published in Britain for the first time today.
The prisoners, mostly ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen as opposed to SS hardliners, are overheard bragging about shooting women and children for sport as well as raping and slaughtering innocent civilians.
But unbeknown to them, British and U.S. intelligence were secretly eavesdropping on their private chats.
Transcripts made from the astonishingly candid recordings sat gathering dust on the shelves of the National Archives in Kew, all but forgotten until they were picked up by historian Sönke Neitzel in 2001.
His subsequent book 'Soldiers; diaries of fighting, killing and dying', caused a sensation when it was published in Germany last year. And next week it will be published in English for the first time.
It reads as a chilling examination of how war changes man, in this case the deep metamorphosis it wreaked on 40 per cent of German men between the years of 1939 and 1945 - the nearly 20 million who donned a uniform for their Fuehrer.
Both the ordinary German soldier, and the self-regarding officer corps, are condemned in their own words in the secret recordings, shatrtering the myth that excesses in wartime were the responsibility of a few fanatical party members.
The overheard conversations not only provided high-grade military intelligence - they also aided their British captors in trying to fathom what made 'honourable' warriors into killers no better than the S.S. or Gestapo.
What the captured men boasted of was not the betterment of professional soldiers, the thrill of a victory over fellow men-at-arms in a fair fight.
Their conversations betray how deep the Nazi state corrupted the military code, and in doing so, the men who considered themselves honourable - men like Oberleutnant Hans Hartigs from fighter squadron 16 which won 26 Knights Crosses in combat on all fronts during the war.
Hartigs was speaking of the targets he liked to go for - unarmed civilians - when the microphones were switched on one day in January 1945.
'I used to shoot at everything,' he said laconically, 'certainly not just military targets. We liked to go for women pushing prams, often with children at their sides. It was a kind of sport really.....'
Or this from another unnamed Oberleutnant of the Luftwaffe, captured on July 17 1940 after baling out from his aircraft over Kent; 'It became a need in me to drop bombs. It tingles me, gives me a fine feeling. Just as beautiful, in fact, as shooting at someone.'
This banishment of morality, of ethical behaviour, is apparent in transcript after transcript. Hitler had boasted in the early days of the regime of turning the youth of Nazi Germany into 'magnificent beasts of prey.' But even wild beasts never killed for sport, like radio operator Eberhard Kehrle and infantryman Franz Kneipp.
Kehrle; 'In the Caucasus, when one us went down, we didn't need a lieutenant giving the orders, telling us what to do. Pistols out, women and children, everything you saw...cleansed.'
Kneipp; 'With us, one time, a partisan band had overrun a convoy of our wounded. They offed everyone. Half an hour later they were caught near Novgorod. They were brought into a sandpit and then, from all sides, we let rip with the machine guns and the pistols....'
Kehrle; 'That was too good for them. They deserved to die slowly, not to be killed by shooting!'
In WW2, in a pre-Internet age, pre mobile-phone age - a time when a German soldier could be executed for taking a camera into combat - they were, by and large, confident that their excesses would never be detected.....rape being one of them.
Germany has long castigated the leadership of the Red Army and Stalin himself for turning a blind eye to the mass rapes carried out by the conquering armies of Zhukov and Rossokovsky when they hit German territory in 1945. But, in reality, it was payback on a massive scale for crimes carried out by men like Sgt. Mueller.
'When I was in Kharkov,' he said dreamily, clearly remembering happier times, 'everything in the old town was destroyed. It was a wonderful town with wonderful memories. All the people spoke a little German that they had learned in school.
'Also in Taganrog, wonderful cinemas and beautiful beach cafes. I went everywhere in the car. You saw nothing but women.'
His friend Fausst says; 'Oh, you bastard!'
Mueller went on; 'They were working to repair things, these deadly beautiful girls. We simply drove by them, tore them into the car, lay them down, and then chucked them out when we had finished. Man, did they fly!'
Indoctrinated since their childhood by Nazi propaganda into believing they were supermen who could take what they wanted, defeat and capture had clearly not tilted their world view one bit.
One junior officer boasted of what he and his men did to a woman they thought was a Russian spy: 'We beat her on the tits with a stick, clobbered her on the arse with a pistol, then all eight of us had her, then we threw her out and as she lay there, we threw grenades at her.
'She didn't half scream when they went off!' Even one fellow German officer, Reimbold, was sickened by the telling of the tale and said; 'Gentlemen, this is too much to bear.'
Aside from the depravity of individuals, the transcripts reveal that which the war generation, and in many ways the one that followed it, tried to deny: direct knowledge of the extermination programme of the Jews.
A travelling exhibition in Germany that started in 1995 which explored the relationship between Wehrmacht - army - units and the S.S. killing squads in places like Russia, the Baltics and Poland, has already made the nefarious link between the two. But in their own words, the soldiers imprisoned at the Trent Park detention centre north of London told the British in real time, as the killing was taking place, what they had seen and what they had done.
Major General Walter Bruns was one of them. He recalled a 'typical Jewish action' that he witnessed one day in Russia.
'The trenches were 24 metres long and roughly three metres wide. They had to lie like sardines in a tin, heads towards the middle. Above, six machine gunners delivered the neck-shots. When I arrived, the trenches were pretty full already and the living had to lie on top before they got the neck-shot. They were all arranged beautifully so not too much space was wasted.
'They had already been robbed before they got here. On this Sunday I saw a half-kilometre long queue shuffling forward step by step, the line up for death. As they got nearer, they saw what awaited them.
Around about here they had to give up their suitcases and their sacks of valuables. A little further on, they had to strip, and they could only keep on a shirt or a slip. They were mostly women and children, not much older than two.'
Of remorse, regret or sorrow about what he had seen, there was not an inkling.
The authors record how the transcribers of these conversations were told to brace themselves for 'terrible things.' They said; 'The extermination of the Jews was known in the world of the soldier far more than recent investigations of the topic have suggested.'
Because of access to these recordings, no-one can now claim their's was false testimony given under duress; these are the words of soldiers at ease, unaware of the silent recording gizmos capturing their every damning word.
Some tapes picked up the same theme time and time again; for example, that it was a recurring problem for the S.S. killing squads in Russia to shoot children. The listeners wondered if this was a moral dilemma - if, in fact, long subsumed humanity was breaking through.
Then one day they listened into a conversation that revealed why killing children was such a problem; it was because they wouldn't keep still.
The recordings also picked up on another theme - 'execution tourism.'
It turned out that many German soldiers serving in Russia or Poland sought out either friends or contacts in the S.S. murder squads and made appointments to go along to witness what was done.
The splendidly named General Edwin Graf von Rothkirch und Trach explained to a fellow inmate; 'I knew an S.S. leader in Kutno, Poland, and we chatted about this and that and he said; 'God, when you want to film something, why didn't you say so?
'I mean, timewise, it doesn't matter. We shoot them in the mornings, but if that is inconvenient, we have others that we can always shoot in the afternoon.'
'Murder by appointment, as if it were a Thomas Cook tour,' said one German critic.
Lieutenant Mueller-Riezenburg, in a transcript made on Christmas Day 1943, said; 'The S.S. invited us over for a Jew-shoot. The whole troop went off with their weapons and joined in. Everyone was allowed to pick which one they wanted to shoot.'
It is clear that the vortex of war, the total, unrelenting 'war without rules' which Hitler had preached would be fought on the eastern front, had become commonplace, everyday - mundane, even - for those who were there.
But it was not only on the killing fields of the Steppe that the accepted and time-honoured rules of war were abandoned.
Corporal Dieckmann told his pal in captivity of action in France in 1940; 'In the streets, the doorways, the alleyways and sidestreets I shot everything that showed itself. My dear, if a few innocent ones fell, well, I don't give a s**t.'
Another report picked up on a soldier boasting of his actions in Salonika when civilians had barricaded themselves inside a church. 'So we had no choice but to burn them out, did we? I mean, it was their decision to do that, wasn't it?'
The men who marched off to gain the 'Living space' for Hitler's Reich in 1939 were part of that great mass of Germans who had never been beyond their own borders; at the start of the war just four percent of Reich citizens possessed a passport.
Let loose in these strange lands, told that their own conscience did not matter, they morphed from provincial burghers into willing executioners, happy in the knowledge that the man they promised to serve with an oath binding them to him until death, would take on all the humans responsibilities and concerns they suppressed.
In Italy, as in France, in Russia, in Poland, it was the same, terrible corruption that allowed men who, before the war would never have kicked a dog or struck a child, to behave with the barbarity of Mongol hordes instead of the discipline of an army reared in a country which gave the world Schiller and Schubert, Goethe and Beethoven.
Senior corporal Sommer epitomised this degradation of human decency when he was caught by the electronic devices talking about the terror he was instructed to instill in Italian villagers.
'In every place we got to the order was the same; kill a couple of locals. Or one day; 'Get rid of 20 so we will have some peace and quiet here and they won't get any stupid ideas!' Before we knew it we had offed 50.
'It was easy to round them up. We just said, come here, and got them all into the marketplace and he (unidentified) came along with his machine gun and da-da-da-da and...that's how it happened. Then he said; 'Excellent!' He called the Italians pigs. He had an incredible rage against the Italians, you wouldn't believe it.'
Many refused to believe it, long after the guns fell silent and the soldiers went home, keeping their secrets about what they truly did in the war. But, damned by the tongues of the fathers, the Germans can no longer retreat to the comfort zone of deniability about what was done in their name by so-called honourable men.
As Germany's premier news magazine Der Spiegel puts it; 'Research has often been interested in the question about how quickly ordinary men became killing machines in war. After reading these reports one must say; very quickly.'
Gah, every time I think I've become somewhat calloused to reading about the Nazis---an article/story/book proves me wrong. Along the lines of what the civilians or 'ordinary' German soldiers knew during WW2, I would suggest reading Hitler's Willing Executioners. Although it's been heavily criticized for some of the conclusions, there are some disturbing pieces in the book.
Hmm. It sounds...Too much like the very Hollywood version of history that the enemy were all total monsters and that we were the exemplars of moral virtue and that good triumphed over evil and NATO Hurr!
Not in any way defending the Nazis, but it's always seemed a little suspicious how the history of the Second World War is so...one sided.
We already have plenty of valid reasons to hate the Nazis. I wonder if now they're just making reasons up to draw attention away from our own country's crimes (bombing of dams, the firebombing of Hamburg, crimes committed during occupation of Germany etc...)
Squigsquasher wrote: Hmm. It sounds...Too much like the very Hollywood version of history that the enemy were all total monsters and that we were the exemplars of moral virtue and that good triumphed over evil and NATO Hurr!
Not in any way defending the Nazis, but it's always seemed a little suspicious how the history of the Second World War is so...one sided.
We already have plenty of valid reasons to hate the Nazis. I wonder if now they're just making reasons up to draw attention away from our own country's crimes (bombing of dams, the firebombing of Hamburg, crimes committed during occupation of Germany etc...)
Whether or not you're serious, this is a ridiculous thing to say.
That's a pretty brutal article, but anyone who really thought a significant number of members of the Wehrmacht weren't involved in war crimes really hasn't been paying attention.
There were soldiers in the Wehrmacht who weren't Nazis and didn't commit war crimes. Unfortunately, there were also a lot that were Nazis and a lot that did commit war crimes. There were even Waffen-SS members who weren't hardcore Nazis and didn't commit war crimes. The problem is, the ones that didn't usually also didn't do anything to stop the ones who were committing war crimes. I don't think anyone was completely "clean," especially on the Eastern Front, but some were definitely a lot worse than others.
It's complex. It's definitely not as simple as Waffen-SS = everyone is totally evil and Wehrmacht = most of them were okay, although I think it's reasonable to say that there tended to be a higher proportion of war criminals in the Waffen-SS. It's still hard to really understand how the evil ones could be so completely morally bankrupt though. It's some horrid stuff.
Luco wrote: No, I'm against hating people period. Oppose them, fine. Joke that they should be killed for their opinions? No, its in poor taste regardless.
I agree. Nazis and extremists of all sorts need to be vigorously challenged, but I think that actively hating them just lowers one to their level. Plus, hating pretty much anything isn't really a good use of time or energy.
Hordini wrote: It's still hard to really understand how the evil ones could be so completely morally bankrupt though. It's some horrid stuff.
The quoted article in the previous thread on Unit 731 was telling. A young scientist would get used to vivisecting people after only 2 such operation.
Morality is just a small veneer on an otherwise ugly beast.
Yeah, I think there are examples that go either way, that is some people got used to it and some people didn't. One of the reasons that gas started being looked into was because the suicide rate of soldiers involved in firing squads started going up significantly. It definitely had an effect on a lot of people. The other weird thing is that in a large number of cases, soldiers were able to opt out of being in firing squads, and there's pretty much no evidence of anyone facing repercussions or being court martialed for refusing to take part in an execution. The fact that so many didn't opt out when they were given the chance is what really gets me.
Jihadin wrote: Think everyone would have strokes if they recorded the talk amongst soldier/marines of today.
I have family in the army, and got raised right next to a base.
Honestly, my opinion of 'generic jarhead' couldn't go much lower. I can safely say that your the most sensible one I've ever met.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: Yeah, I think there are examples that go either way, that is some people got used to it and some people didn't. One of the reasons that gas started being looked into was because the suicide rate of soldiers involved in firing squads started going up significantly. It definitely had an effect on a lot of people. The other weird thing is that in a large number of cases, soldiers were able to opt out of being in firing squads, and there's pretty much no evidence of anyone facing repercussions or being court martialed for refusing to take part in an execution. The fact that so many didn't opt out when they were given the chance is what really gets me.
Another thing that got me this impression was that part in Night by Wiesel where kids would turn on their parents about as soon as they were stacked like animals in the trains.
But yes, it would be great to know on what the coin flips, what makes it that normal dude x becomes a psycho in the right circumstances while normal dude y doesn't.
I think it might be getting all your orders AND information AND moral compass from one authoritative figure or social entity, without the possiblity to re-check anything...
Does anyone remember this study where a test subject was placed in a room with a dial and a button, and an important-looking scientist told the subject that he was supposed to administer a light electric shock to another subject in another room? And there was some kind of voice-link, so that the subject pressing the button could hear the shocked subject. They started with mild shocks, then the scientist told the subject to increase voltage.
When the shocked subject started screaming, many button-subjects hesitated for a second, but as soon as the authoritative scientist told them this was all part of the experiment and was important for accurate science, the vast majority kept on shocking the other subject with even higher voltages, even when they screamed for mercy. (It was all staged, of course.)
Does anybody remember that study or have a link to it? I found it slightly...disturbing how many of the subjects simply trusted in what the figure of authority told them, even when another human being was beggin them to stop.
Witzkatz wrote: I think it might be getting all your orders AND information AND moral compass from one authoritative figure or social entity, without the possiblity to re-check anything...
Does anyone remember this study where a test subject was placed in a room with a dial and a button, and an important-looking scientist told the subject that he was supposed to administer a light electric shock to another subject in another room? And there was some kind of voice-link, so that the subject pressing the button could hear the shocked subject. They started with mild shocks, then the scientist told the subject to increase voltage.
When the shocked subject started screaming, many button-subjects hesitated for a second, but as soon as the authoritative scientist told them this was all part of the experiment and was important for accurate science, the vast majority kept on shocking the other subject with even higher voltages, even when they screamed for mercy. (It was all staged, of course.)
Does anybody remember that study or have a link to it? I found it slightly...disturbing how many of the subjects simply trusted in what the figure of authority told them, even when another human being was beggin them to stop.
I took that test. They had to stop it though, because I kept cranking the dial over to the redline and laughing like a little girl. In the post test brief they mentioned something about "the empathy of a hyena with hemmerhoids."
Witzkatz wrote: I think it might be getting all your orders AND information AND moral compass from one authoritative figure or social entity, without the possiblity to re-check anything...
Does anyone remember this study where a test subject was placed in a room with a dial and a button, and an important-looking scientist told the subject that he was supposed to administer a light electric shock to another subject in another room? And there was some kind of voice-link, so that the subject pressing the button could hear the shocked subject. They started with mild shocks, then the scientist told the subject to increase voltage.
When the shocked subject started screaming, many button-subjects hesitated for a second, but as soon as the authoritative scientist told them this was all part of the experiment and was important for accurate science, the vast majority kept on shocking the other subject with even higher voltages, even when they screamed for mercy. (It was all staged, of course.)
Does anybody remember that study or have a link to it? I found it slightly...disturbing how many of the subjects simply trusted in what the figure of authority told them, even when another human being was beggin them to stop.
Witzkatz wrote: I think it might be getting all your orders AND information AND moral compass from one authoritative figure or social entity, without the possiblity to re-check anything...
Does anyone remember this study where a test subject was placed in a room with a dial and a button, and an important-looking scientist told the subject that he was supposed to administer a light electric shock to another subject in another room? And there was some kind of voice-link, so that the subject pressing the button could hear the shocked subject. They started with mild shocks, then the scientist told the subject to increase voltage.
When the shocked subject started screaming, many button-subjects hesitated for a second, but as soon as the authoritative scientist told them this was all part of the experiment and was important for accurate science, the vast majority kept on shocking the other subject with even higher voltages, even when they screamed for mercy. (It was all staged, of course.)
Does anybody remember that study or have a link to it? I found it slightly...disturbing how many of the subjects simply trusted in what the figure of authority told them, even when another human being was beggin them to stop.
EDIT: It's kinda famous... right up there with the Zimbardo one.
Ah, thank you. Reading up on it now.
PS: Yes, as I remembered. 65% of all participants administered the full maximum 450-volt shock to the other subject. And the vast majority of psychologists, students and psychiatrists thought it would be less than 3%...here's a statement from Milgram on his results:
Milgram wrote: Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.
Not trying to shift guilt from the Nazis here, don't get me wrong. But I'd wager what Milgram found out might've been an important psychological factor.
A good read, from a very personnal point of view on this, would be Alexandre Jardin's ''Desgens très bien'' (2011), which would translate to 'Very good people'.
It's on his parents, who were the prime organisers of some of the biggest deportation of Jews in France under Vichy.
Kovnik Obama wrote: A good read, from a very personnal point of view on this, would be Alexandre Jardin's ''Desgens très bien'' (2011), which would translate to 'Very good people'.
It's on his parents, who were the prime organisers of some of the biggest deportation of Jews in France under Vichy.
Is there an English translation of that book? Another interesting (but also deeply disturbing) book on the subject is "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland" by Christopher R. Browning.
AgeOfEgos wrote: Gah, every time I think I've become somewhat calloused to reading about the Nazis---an article/story/book proves me wrong. Along the lines of what the civilians or 'ordinary' German soldiers knew during WW2, I would suggest reading Hitler's Willing Executioners. Although it's been heavily criticized for some of the conclusions, there are some disturbing pieces in the book.
I definitely feel the same way. I thought I had the rage over past 60 years since the liberation of Dachau when the History channel was showing the end of the war. I've recently read stuff that's made me think -at the moment- that maybe we should have put all the Germans who lived near the camps into the camps. I'm not going to say that would have been right, or wrong, but it's worth considering that they all had knowledge of what was going on, as they could smell the camp and bone and hair rained onto the towns.
I despise rascism but I am still mildly concerned about Muslim immigration especially from Somalia and Yemen. I also dislike the idea of reverse racism being good either.
Squigsquasher wrote: Hmm. It sounds...Too much like the very Hollywood version of history that the enemy were all total monsters and that we were the exemplars of moral virtue and that good triumphed over evil and NATO Hurr!
Not in any way defending the Nazis, but it's always seemed a little suspicious how the history of the Second World War is so...one sided.
We already have plenty of valid reasons to hate the Nazis. I wonder if now they're just making reasons up to draw attention away from our own country's crimes (bombing of dams, the firebombing of Hamburg, crimes committed during occupation of Germany etc...)
Whether or not you're serious, this is a ridiculous thing to say.
I agree. I think we should consider why the bombings happened, the fact that they were militarily necessary, and the "crimes" that happened against Germans. While some of the "crimes" that happened during the occupation were "bad," they should not be in any way dissociated from their historical context. Arthur Harris said "The Germans have entered into this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and that no one was going to bomb them. At London, Rotterdam, and half a hundred other places, they have put their naive theory into operation. They have sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." We need to consider the mindset of the British who had suffered months and years of bombings, and the Russians who suffered years of millions of murders and rapes. I think it profoundly changes when considering that large numbers of Germans who "suffered" actively wanted a much worse fate against other races of people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Think cleaning up the camps was point enough to them. Best scene for that was in Band of Brothers
I thought that scene was very well done. I've actually felt like that was a farce of justice, or at least making them see it was, when they knew it was there.
Agree 100%. A shirt saying Brown power or Black power would be allowed at school, while a white power shirt would be "horribly racist."
A. The statement you agreed with was absurd and untrue. I would be mortified if I were to have posted that, then sobered up later and realized that other people had seen it.
B. Your shirt scenario is silly. Your homework assignment is to read up on Black Power (I specifically recommend studying Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics for one illustrative and inspiring example), and the historical political uses of the terms "Black Power" and "White Power".
The slogan "white power" was coined by American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell, who used the term in a debate with Stokely Carmichael of the Black Panther Party, after Carmichael issued a call for "black power".
Testify wrote: Pretty much all nazis were scumbags, but most of the Wermacht were ordinary German people, not particularly cruel or heartless, though obviously there are always spankers
The point is not that ordinary Germans were somehow uniquely horrible people. The point is that they were ordinary people like the rest of us. And that when a society comes under the control of some particularly evil criminal, a large number of otherwise decent people will go along with the completely horrible actions of that society. And almost all of the rest will simply go along with it.
That's just kind of what people are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Squigsquasher wrote: We already have plenty of valid reasons to hate the Nazis. I wonder if now they're just making reasons up to draw attention away from our own country's crimes (bombing of dams, the firebombing of Hamburg, crimes committed during occupation of Germany etc...)
I think it's entirely possible to condemn the firebombing of Dresden and believe the Nazis were among the most evil regimes of all time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: It's complex. It's definitely not as simple as Waffen-SS = everyone is totally evil and Wehrmacht = most of them were okay, although I think it's reasonable to say that there tended to be a higher proportion of war criminals in the Waffen-SS. It's still hard to really understand how the evil ones could be so completely morally bankrupt though. It's some horrid stuff.
Thing is, though, even if you ignore the actions of the SS entirely, the actions of the regular army were terrible. Not everywhere, of course (Rommel for instance was ordered by Hitler to execute any Free French troops captured in Africa as insurgents, but he instead had them treated the same as any other soldier), but on the whole the behaviour of the regular army was particularly horrid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote: Politcal correctness. One of the world's biggest evils.
Testify wrote: Pretty much all nazis were scumbags, but most of the Wermacht were ordinary German people, not particularly cruel or heartless, though obviously there are always spankers
The point is not that ordinary Germans were somehow uniquely horrible people. The point is that they were ordinary people like the rest of us. And that when a society comes under the control of some particularly evil criminal, a large number of otherwise decent people will go along with the completely horrible actions of that society. And almost all of the rest will simply go along with it.
That's just kind of what people are.
As a lesser example, see: Americans kind of shrugging off our country having entered into a war of choice nine years ago, which led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, was based on false evidence and fraudulent arguments, and not on any real security need. Not to pull a Godwin on my own country, but people are remarkably able to accept evil when it's sold to them with conviction by authority figures.
Which also links in with the earlier discussion about Inglorious Basterds, about how we should be careful about allowing outselves freedom from moral judgement just because the guys we're fighting are terrible people. It's not somehow made okay for us to be brutal monsters, just because we're beating up on even worse monsters.
You see the same phenomenon on smaller scales too. Look at all the people at Penn State that knew, suspected, or were intentionally ignorant about what Sandusky was doing? They can't all be evil, right?
Testify wrote: Pretty much all nazis were scumbags, but most of the Wermacht were ordinary German people, not particularly cruel or heartless, though obviously there are always spankers
The point is not that ordinary Germans were somehow uniquely horrible people. The point is that they were ordinary people like the rest of us. And that when a society comes under the control of some particularly evil criminal, a large number of otherwise decent people will go along with the completely horrible actions of that society. And almost all of the rest will simply go along with it.
That's just kind of what people are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Squigsquasher wrote: We already have plenty of valid reasons to hate the Nazis. I wonder if now they're just making reasons up to draw attention away from our own country's crimes (bombing of dams, the firebombing of Hamburg, crimes committed during occupation of Germany etc...)
I think it's entirely possible to condemn the firebombing of Dresden and believe the Nazis were among the most evil regimes of all time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: It's complex. It's definitely not as simple as Waffen-SS = everyone is totally evil and Wehrmacht = most of them were okay, although I think it's reasonable to say that there tended to be a higher proportion of war criminals in the Waffen-SS. It's still hard to really understand how the evil ones could be so completely morally bankrupt though. It's some horrid stuff.
Thing is, though, even if you ignore the actions of the SS entirely, the actions of the regular army were terrible. Not everywhere, of course (Rommel for instance was ordered by Hitler to execute any Free French troops captured in Africa as insurgents, but he instead had them treated the same as any other soldier), but on the whole the behaviour of the regular army was particularly horrid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote: Politcal correctness. One of the world's biggest evils.
You remain dakka's most hilarious contributor.
No. I'm serious. Due to politcal correctness you can get sued by calling a person black instead of African American. It has gone too far. Some people even hate the term Manhole.
rockerbikie wrote: No. I'm serious. Due to politcal correctness you can get sued by calling a person black instead of African American.
Well, nothing really allows (or prevents) anybody from suing you about anything. I can sue you for kidnapping my imaginary friend. Doesn't mean I'll win.
So, yes, if you'd like, you can pretend that it's political correctness that allows people to abuse the legal system, and not, you know, cost of business in having a legal system.
Me? I like to think that the shrinking number of M&Ms in M&M cookies is to blame.
rockerbikie wrote: No. I'm serious. Due to politcal correctness you can get sued by calling a person black instead of African American.
Well, nothing really allows (or prevents) anybody from suing you about anything. I can sue you for kidnapping my imaginary friend. Doesn't mean I'll win.
Suing people has become ridiculus. It is done for stupid reasons now.
rockerbikie wrote: No. I'm serious. Due to politcal correctness you can get sued by calling a person black instead of African American.
Well, nothing really allows (or prevents) anybody from suing you about anything. I can sue you for kidnapping my imaginary friend. Doesn't mean I'll win.
Suing people has become ridiculus. It is done for stupid reasons now.
That is truly a well reasoned and nuanced opinion!
Well, usually it's about getting money, but sometimes it's about justice. Sometimes it's just to screw somebody you dislike. Those might not be noble reasons, but if you eliminated greed and vengeance as motivators for human acts you'd pretty much reduce action to chasing tail and getting messed up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Not really. Mostly it's overblown. Frivolous lawsuits usually get thrown out in court.
Usually the argument isn't "this case is a frivolous lawsuit," but rather, "that cause of action is frivolous."
Mannahnin wrote: As a lesser example, see: Americans kind of shrugging off our country having entered into a war of choice nine years ago, which led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, was based on false evidence and fraudulent arguments, and not on any real security need. Not to pull a Godwin on my own country, but people are remarkably able to accept evil when it's sold to them with conviction by authority figures.
Or gitmo. Or all those terror suspects that have been killed in CIA custody, for which there will not be a single trial.
If people are hungry, then they'll get mad and overthrow a government. Rest of the time they'll just go along with whatever. And if it's a really horrid act like the holocaust, most likely they'll just look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.
Which also links in with the earlier discussion about Inglorious Basterds, about how we should be careful about allowing outselves freedom from moral judgement just because the guys we're fighting are terrible people. It's not somehow made okay for us to be brutal monsters, just because we're beating up on even worse monsters.
Definitely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote: No. I'm serious. Due to politcal correctness you can get sued by calling a person black instead of African American. It has gone too far. Some people even hate the term Manhole.
I know you're serious. I've talked to you about political correctness before. You insist its a real thing, with a clear meaning, and that meaning happens to be whatever you're unhappy with at that moment.
Sue happy culture is not related to the vague idea of political correctness.
So what do you want to know about racists? I grew up outside of the town where the head of the KKK for Ontario keeps his abode and several of my friends have been to Klan meets, one of there fathers has a Nazi flag up in his garage, and when we were young we would run in from recess giving the salute and yelling heil hitler. Kinda just comes with the territory, a few of my friends/associates have committed what people would call hate crimes, we use racial epithets in regular conversation when amongst ourselves and no body bats an eyelid. It's been toned down a lot from what our parents did at our age though. The guy who has the Swastika flag in his garage used to play a game called clean sweep or city clean or something like that. Anyways, what they would do is all get together, drive around in the bed of their buddies truck, find a minority and smack him three times with a corn broom, and then jump back in the truck, last guy back gets left.
I admit it, I come from a racist town, but oddly enough if they see you as an equal they are some of the politest people you'll ever meet. I mean I did the last 2 years of my highschool in an inner-city school. The way people acted there, like how rude they were to teachers and eachother really, was shocking...
So no where did I make an excuse for them, (except possibly when I said, "it comes with the territory") it's not that I find that the racism is excusable because they are nice people, I find it somewhat, maybe out of character is the way to put it? The fact that these beliefs are held while at the same time maintaining a high sense of etiquette would seem to be mutually exclusive.
And yeah, where I come from is pretty much the racism capital of Ontario.
Ratbarf wrote: So no where did I make an excuse for them, (except possibly when I said, "it comes with the territory") it's not that I find that the racism is excusable because they are nice people, I find it somewhat, maybe out of character is the way to put it? The fact that these beliefs are held while at the same time maintaining a high sense of etiquette would seem to be mutually exclusive.
Not at all. You've never heard of the Southern Gentleman? A guy with a little bit of money and class in the historic American South was stereotypicially warm, chivalrous, elaborately polite and gallant toward ladies, and generally courteous. The fact that during slavery these guys might commonly behave like a perfect gentleman toward other white people, while still beating slaves to death out back in the fields during the day, was not exactly an unknown phenomena.
Many people who are full of hatred and contempt toward an external group are perfectly nice toward other members of their own group.
I have heard of Southern Gentlemen, in fact I'm related to quite a few of them.
As to the original topic if they are pathetic, I find many of the people who I grew up with/around to not be pathetic at all. Yes they hold those views but they aren't pathetic, nor are they deserving of violence visited upon them as long as they do not visit violence upon others, which, by and large, they do not. There is of course the odd exception, but the ones I know of who do visit violence upon others in general do so after having violence visited upon them. Eg, a friend of mine was jumped in a bathroom in a nightclub by a group of black guys who overheard him use the n-word. While many may think he got what he deserved, I do not, all he did was use a word, he made no motion of violence towards them. Afterwards there was something of a scuffle outside of said nightclub between my friend and co with the black fellows but it wasn't by any means of the word unprovoked or really undeserved. I mean they did hit him from behind while he was using a urinal. Knocked him unconcious and worked over his face a bit.
The broom incident described earlier hasn't been done, nor a similar act of violence occurred unprovoked, in my county for decades. In fact my county has the lowest recorded incidence of assault or murder in all of Canada.
Hordini wrote: It's complex. It's definitely not as simple as Waffen-SS = everyone is totally evil and Wehrmacht = most of them were okay, although I think it's reasonable to say that there tended to be a higher proportion of war criminals in the Waffen-SS. It's still hard to really understand how the evil ones could be so completely morally bankrupt though. It's some horrid stuff.
Thing is, though, even if you ignore the actions of the SS entirely, the actions of the regular army were terrible. Not everywhere, of course (Rommel for instance was ordered by Hitler to execute any Free French troops captured in Africa as insurgents, but he instead had them treated the same as any other soldier), but on the whole the behaviour of the regular army was particularly horrid.
Yup, this is right on. That's pretty much what I was saying when I said I don't think anyone was completely "clean," especially on the Eastern Front and anyone who didn't realize the Wehrmacht was involved in a significant number of war crimes hasn't been paying attention.
Mannahnin wrote: Not at all. You've never heard of the Southern Gentleman? A guy with a little bit of money and class in the historic American South was stereotypicially warm, chivalrous, elaborately polite and gallant toward ladies, and generally courteous. The fact that during slavery these guys might commonly behave like a perfect gentleman toward other white people, while still beating slaves to death out back in the fields during the day, was not exactly an unknown phenomena.
Many people who are full of hatred and contempt toward an external group are perfectly nice toward other members of their own group.
That's one of the most important things about racism. These aren't people who were born evil, they're people who happen to hold some beliefs which are wrong, and can lead to doing some really evil stuff.
But seriously...
