Who's your favorite movie Nazi?

Are you even reading my posts? I've already told you what I'm asking: why do you emphasize Hitler's apparently good deeds? Why do you go out of your way to mention them? This is at least the third time I've asked.

YOU don't seem to understand that I'm not asking you if it's a fact, I'm asking you why you decided to mention it. There are thousands of facts about Hitler and the Nazis any of us could mention at any time. You chose to say something positive about him. Why?

You're just not paying attention. I know you said this: and I'm telling you it's ridiculous. You can't refute criticism of Nazism by restricting it to people who actually lived through it; I don't care that you tossed the word "truly" in, because nobody was pretending to have literally known what it was like to live under the Nazis. But you don't have to literally know to understand that it was terrible. So what was the point of your contradiction, exactly? Did you think you were talking to someone who pretended they knew exactly what it was like? Do they have to have lived through it to know that Nazis were terrible? If the answer is no, then your contradiction was moot.

And I say the good he apparently did was wiped away by the bad, so it's not really much good at all, is it? Particularly if he was just building a society up to prepare it for war.

I even gave you a simple little analogy to understand this: if someone hugs you, and then stabs you in the back, was the hug really a "good" thing? And if someone brought up the stabbing, would you feel the need to interject "yeah, but he gave him that hug first!" Wouldn't it be bizarre to emphasize that, if you were discussing a murderer?

Being free to express your opinion is not the same as being free from people criticizing it. The same freedom that lets you say these things lets us say what we want in response to them.

Also, this website is private property, anyway. Nobody has a right to post whatever they want on someone else's message board.

[quote=Oberstgruppenfuhrer;728565]Look I said Hitler done a lot of good things before he went crazy FACT

I said its a matter of opinion one which can only TRULY be expressed by those that lived through the shitt. Not some one whos only seen it on tv in the safty of there front room!
GOT IT[/quote

Your facts are not facts, just opinions out of the mainstream of historical thought.

Hitler didn't go crazy. He was crazy before he came to power. Mein Kemph is a crazy book. He made Germany prosperous by arming it for war, then nedeed to invade other countries to keep them prosperous. So when he was committing good for Germany he was being bad to the rest of the world.

I posted this before I read Yoda's last response who made the same point that the the good Hitler did was all related to arming Germany.

Stalin was a mass murderer like Hitler. He didn't set out to exterminationate a nationality or race.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

>mfw Sedai brings up the Good Will Hunting reference again
>mfw this is probably the fifth time I have seen this reference being used during my brief stay here
>mfw Will Hunting had a freakin' photographic memory and also read those books BUT HE GOT IN FIGHTS SO HE WAS COOLER
>mfw everyone hates on the long-haired guy even though Will Hunting had the exact same attitude and was schooled by Robin Williams character later

imad.jpeg
watchtheentiremovie.jpeg

First of all, you can't blame the guy for getting mad. You guys are hammering on him to no end for something that is rather unreasonable.

The emphasis question is not a good one. It is a bad, weird, nonsensical question. The fact that Hitler did a lot of "good" for his country even though his "overall" influence was bad is extremely interesting and should be emphasized. It would be much less interesting if he was just a horrible leader "overall" and committed genocide while driving his country into a ditch.

That's why people talk much less about Mao/Stalin when committing Godwin's Law. "Those guys were just commies". No, for most people -- especially in America -- Hitler demonstrates the feasible reaches of a republic in crises. Indeed, we are all sitting much closer to the cusp of fascism than communism. Let's just be honest about that.

Now, I hope everyone knows that it is considered extremely improper today in China to even mention a statesman greater than Mao. Even today. Mao and Stalin both killed degrees of magnitude more than Hitler. This is, of course, well known.

But the reason why Hitler is commonly seen as all that much worse. It is not because his country became worse because of him; no: because of him, it only became better. Rather, it's because he killed Jews in the most horrific, degrading, inhuman, focused way possible. This is important to realize. The horror of Hitler is not in his failures but rather in his successes: the precise, calculating way he mustered support for his empire, the precise, calculating way he scapegoated a country's collective self-doubts into an entire people and saw no recourse be to literally exterminate them.

A similar ideology could be said of Mao/Stalin. There was not only the constant search for the mythic Jew-like figure of the Bourgeoisie, there was also the mass extermination of the intelligentsia/dissent, the Gulag (concentration camp), a whole slew of seemingly random political purges, and any other extreme realpolitik thing you can imagine.

But the fact that China grew slowly into a -- while still totalitarian -- more reasonable, global, capitalist state, and the fact that the U.S.S.R. fell into decay and ruin pretty much all on its own -- not to mention the fact that neither country had very consistent "boom times" anyways -- allows people to aggregate these entire 20th century histories into the pile of crap now known as: sh*tty "Communist" totalitarian states. In this way, all the irrational genocides are just lumped into the whole and fail to stand out in any major way. They are in a sense rationalized by the idea that it was Marx's fault and that Communism is just a bad system.

Sorry, but this attitude is a tragedy that the genocides are essentially reduced to the name of Communism. This does not do them justice.

I for one am glad that Hitler has not yet been reduced to these kinds of dismissals. Antisemitism is always held out as its own monster. It is never numbers. It is never economics. It is never infrastructure. It is just what it is.

The fact that someone is willing to emphasize the good that Hitler did apart from his acts of genocide only brings the genocide into clearer focus. We should understand the horror of what genocide is in itself. Not lump it into something else so that it all but disappears.

Take a look here: I say the Nazis had great design sense (and they did). Ask yourself this: does calling me out for saying this even come close to addressing the issue (genocide) you are actually calling me out for? Don't blur everything into one thing. Embrace the difference, ambiguity, and self-contradiction of reality.

Has it now become your hobby to go into threads for the sole purpose of sh*tting on them?

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I don't see how emphasizing whatever good Hitler did early on (though, again, I quibble with even calling it "good" for two different reasons) "brings [his genocide] into clearer focus" at all. I think it's myopic and narrow. I think the apparent good he did can only be seen in the context of what he did with that good will, and I don't think you can compartmentalize his life in that way.

And whether you agree or not, I think it's absurd to say that someone who chooses to emphasize all these things -- sometimes even to try to contradict someone who says something negative about Nazis -- is not doing so out of some misguided kneejerk sympathy. That's just not how people work. When people have sympathy that they recognize is socially shunned, this is how it manifests itself: in little defenses of marginal points, and in a strange emphasis on smaller things, even when the terrible larger ones are so many magnitudes of size more important that it seems strange to try to draw attention to other issues.

Maybe some of what you're saying would be applicable and true in some circumstances. But this wasn't "Hitler did good early on and this is interesting because it led him to this and mirrors this, yadda yadda yadda." It was "people are saying bad things about Nazis, so I'm gonna toss out some counterpoints." Huge difference. And that's what you need to be taking into account: it won't do to argue that it's possible to make these observations in reasonable ways. This is an actual instance of someone doing it, and they're not doing it in whatever ideal way you think might be defensible. This is not an abstraction: this is an actual conversation and these facts are being raised in a certain way, in response to certain stimuli. And they add up to a misguided sympathy, not merely a healthy inquiry into a touchy subject.

I don't think anything is served by these attempts to contradict negative systems about Nazis. Not even the high-minded analysis you're talking about (but which isn't applicable in this instance, anyway).

Look, PN, what you are saying is not unreasonable, but he never said anything like that. He didn't articulate that. He seemed to be saying Hitler went too far, after 1939. He was a menace to Jews and the rest of the world before 1939. He used the threat of war to iinvade other countries. He had already begun his war against Jews. That woman who lived in my neighbohood said they (Germans) had a good life under Hitler. So what?

oh, i'm sorry. next time, i'll just sh*t on the whole forum by creating classless threads like THIS for a change of pace.

and anyway, you don't know what yer talkin about. i just want back through my recent posts and i don't see any sh*tting i've done, apart from a couple one-liners in that parking thread, but i also contributed to those with more "thoughtful" stuff, too. same as you. are you the only one allowed to do this this anymore, PN?

just because i don't go into EVERY CONTROVERSIAL AND POLITICAL THREAD AND VOMIT A VERBOSE OPINION does not mean i don't contribute.

also, way to go. while your post wasn't really nonsensical, all it's going to do is spur on an already unstable, irrational new member.

I fully defend his first move against Lime on all grounds. This is the same reason why I called out rufnek for his cockroach stuff in the other thread. I'm not defending the subjects of his attack, I'm attacking him for becoming like them.

For example, I noticed in the Captain America trailer that Captain America has to fight some red-faced devil-like dudes instead of just, well, Nazis. The f*ck?

Sorry, but this is truly confusing the issue of Nazism. Nazis were not red-faced devil-like dudes. They were just people like you and me. That's the whole point of this kind of discourse. You don't lump Nazis into some nether-region of humanity like Communists have been lumped into. Nazis are just people.

The triumph of Schindler's List is that it shows that -- even though Nazis were just people -- people can still do good if they really want. It is not meant to show that Nazis were monsters and that Schindler was like the Shrek of monsters.

Sorry, but "sh*t" is precisely the word a Nazi would use to describe a Jew, because the Jews were literally expelled from Germany like, well, "sh*t". That's the horror of it. That people can be forced to go through that kind of utter dehumanization into "sh*t".

Why do it? Why sink to their level? There's a reason why the Emperor in Star Wars loved saying stuff like "let the hate flow through you". There's a reason why Luke didn't and Vader did. Just keeping it in baseball terms here.

Maybe you are projecting sympathy. Have you ever thought about this?

Whenever I even hear the word Nazi, I have a huge emotional reaction. We all do. And whenever anyone says something good about them I immediately jump to all kinds of conclusions.

This is known as irrationality, and it is conditioned by society; not be logic or reason. I'm not saying we should be logical about the Holocaust. There logic breaks down and human emotion holds the entire truth of the situation. No: I am merely saying that when speaking about Nazis themselves, it serves us well to not make them into monsters, because they simply weren't.

Why?

Because even if they are monsters, then this monstrosity is in us. It is in everyone. The name of this monstrosity is antisemitism, and it is both instantiated historically and structural. The structure of antisemitism is wanting to posit a group of human beings as pieces of sh*t. The structure of antisemitism is to posit a group of human beings as being indefensible and incapable of being subjects of sympathy.

lol, this thread again. I was only parodying the best.

We obviously have different ideas of the word "fun".

Captain America is a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER. He isn't any more real that the Red Skull or the Joker.

In comic books villains are colorful characters with weird faces and/or costumes. Some are Nazis or commies or other things.

Clearly, but its placement reveals contemporary ideology.

For example, there are also works of fiction that provoke public outrage/controversy/discussion. This level of dissent is a nice gauge for ideology, I feel.

But if you can't agree with that, then just take it as a metaphor.

(I also get that Captain America would decimate regular people, hoorah!)

Yes planet, I brought up that scene again, and I HAVE seen the entire film. Also, I think I have brought it up THREE times, and not FIVE. Your point about the people in the film also makes little sense. At what point was I defending Will Hunting in my posts, stating his conduct was better than the other guys? People just tend to remember that guy for the concept I am bringing up, so that's why I use him.

In case you missed it PN - this is a film forum. So, the film references are fun way of keeping film in the mix when talking about politics or other less film related subjects FOR ME. Besides, why do you even care what I think? It's clear you dislike me, so just write my posts off as more idiotic rambling from a guy that is clearly not as smart as you.

As for what you are saying - it IS unreasonable. No, I don't want to carefully and closely look at the the alleged "good" side of Adolf frippin HITLER. I am just not interested in knowing those things about an obviously psychotic monster. It just doesn't interest me. The guy was a piece of **** and he doesn't deserve any more study, attention, cheers, jeers or anything else for that matter.

__________________

People are monsters too.

But you're not defending his "first move." You're defending some hypothetical reason for it that doesn't apply. You're explaining why you think it's reasonable in some other context entirely. He didn't say that people shouldn't call Nazis "pieces of sh*t" because he objects to the idea of calling anyone such things in any context, he said it was a matter of opinion. He didn't say Hitler doing good brought his other crimes into some stark contrast, he just said Hitler did good. There was no larger point about human nature, there was just a clumsy attempt to downplay or contradict negative statements.

You answered your own question: they're people. Superheroes are more exciting when they can fight supervillains. The fact that the Nazis were interested in the occult lends itself particularly well to this sort of liberty. Nothing to see here.

There is a difference between using a word the Nazis might have used and actually engaging in their level of hate. They probably called Jews "stupid," too, but I'm not "sink[ing] to their level" when I use that word, am I? How many words do I give them control over this way?

I avoid sinking to the level of the Nazis by being mindful of the humanity of even people I dislike intensely, not by avoiding specific words. And when I use those words, it isn't necessarily indicative that I have lost my way in this regard.

Even so, it's not even necessarily irrational. There's a difference between kneejerk reactions conditioned in us from society, and thin-slicing based on patterns we ourselves have observed. The fact that it is possible to say something positive about Nazis without actually sympathizing with them on any level is not a fact that comes up very often, and it shouldn't stop any of us from noticing the pattern that most people who make these sorts of apologies for them do so for less wholesome reasons than you are suggesting.

That's all well and good, but it also serves us not to downplay the atrocities.

There is also, of course, more or less justified hatred. The Nazi hatred of Jews was not just extreme and dehumanizing, but based in ignorance as well. The modern day world's hatred of Nazis (well, most of us) is a reaction to those actions, and is not based in ignorance, but knowledge of what they did.

Look, I've said in other threads we need to be better than our enemies. But we're not in much danger of sinking to the level of Nazis, and the fact that they're in the past lessens the parallels even further. We are sufficiently detached from the situation that I find lingering anti-Semitism to be a far, far bigger problem than people hating Nazis a little too much.

Next paragraph down I say just that.

Those who don't learn their history are... you know the drill!

Fair enough, but I think it is very easy for people to truly hate and dehumanize Nazis/Klan members/Communists/Japanese people/etc. because they think that it is justifiable to hate them and think them less than human. From rufnek's language before, I think this is quite clear. Sedai's language above makes this clear as well. Examples abound in popular culture and day to day life. You have never said anything like it though. (However, I frequently feel motivated to say something like it. Osama's death would have been a good occasion, but I was careful with words.)

The reason for this confusion, as I would like to describe it, is -- as I tried to draw a distinction in the other thread -- equating the ethical necessity of someone's death with the eradication of their very value and identity as a human being, which whether we like it or not = 1: the same as everyone else. This is true even if the per cent necessity of their death = 1.

I really don't think we downplay the atrocities when we address the "good" of bad people. We only draw out those atrocities for what they are: a.k.a. atrocities. Auschwitz is not a tactical blunder or a failed economic policy. Auschwitz is an atrocity. We shouldn't blur it with other things -- the good things -- that actually happened. Again, I'm not doing this our of fear of ruining the good things, but rather our of fear of diluting or reducing the bad things. Just like I wouldn't defend the bad people, but rather try to prevent good people from acting like bad people.

BECAUSE I AM A TRULY GOOD AND UPSTANDING HUMAN CITIZEN IN EVERY WAY

I know my history, thanks. I don't think Hitler deserves any MORE attention than he has already gotten. That said, I like studying the events of the period, just not Hitler himself anymore,

I just picked this up:

The White Rose

I hear it's a fantastic and moving read.

Antisemitism, indeed...

You may have a point about their design sense, though. lol OK! I'll concede that!

I know you are being a bit sarcastic here, and I do appriciate the (much-needed) levity. However, do you truly believe you can make a claim that I have hatred in my heart without ever meeting me in person? At no point did I dehumanize Hitler - he took care of that when he engineered an attempted genocide.

I don't truly hate anyone, because I do not harbor hatred in my heart. I tend to be kind of a hard ass on the net, I tend to be cynical, and yes, I go off the deep end occasionally, but I have never struck another person out of anger and I can say I believe with the utmost confidence and certitude that I am not a hateful person. If that is how I have articulated myself on these forums, perhaps I need to reassess my approach...

I mean, I spin records in the rave scene - one of the most tolerant and open-minded subcultural movements in recent history - not the place hateful, angry people tend to hang out. I mean, I guess there isn't a way to really change your mind in this capacity, so I won't prattle on, but you hurt Mikey's feelings.

I understand that I am an opinionated, overbearing ass - I am not a hateful person , though.

dead snow

Everyone's certainly entitled to their opinion, so I'm going to express mine and take the consequences. I don't plan on going into any details because it's already been quoted here ad infinitum.

I wish I could just delete the last three pages. I'm pretty shocked how this is going down. I would have never thought I'd see this kind of thing here at MoFo. I feel bad that I even contributed to it by asking what I thought was a serious question. And no, I'm not going to explain myself, except to say that this seems like something resembling a lynch mob. Harry Lime is laughing his ass off, and ironically or not, it's not in Vienna.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Yep - some pretty passionate responses here. Lynch mob? Hardly.

Harry Lime wasn't the reason this thread took off. It was someone saying the same things on a neo Nazi Board I looked at a few hours ago, that Hitler did a lot of good for Germany. He didn't do the Jews, Gypsies, and people who were institutionalized there for physical or mental problems any good.

I don't know what's going on, but I am sure it's all R2's fault.