60,000 Nazis Marched in Poland this weekend

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Millions of people are starving because their last 10 years of savings are no longer enough to buy a piece of gum

Ignoring your snark, millions of Americans have almost zero savings. In fact, nearly 60% of households only have a few hundred dollars saved, less than $1,000. Ignoring this does a disservice to your argument.

 

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

You can portray life in America as so absolutely terrible, but there is no way even you believe they feel the same way the Germans did. 

Two points. First, I’m not saying life in the US is absolutely terrible. There’s no need to strawman me. I’m just pointing to obvious flaws in your stance. 

Second, my larger point is that people aren’t comparing themselves to folks in Germany around WWII. Their feelings of pain and struggle are authentic and real and need to be acknowledged when discussing political motivations and scapegoating of “others.” They feel the way they do even though someone somewhere in the past suffered worse. It’s about gut feelings, not Spock logic.

When I break my leg, I don’t feel better when I remember than the person who got shot probably hurt more and felt more intense pain, yet you’re suggesting exactly this happens with financial hardship. It’s absurd. 

Edited November 25, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Two points. First, I’m not saying life in the US is absolutely terrible. There’s no need to strawman me. I’m just pointing to obvious flaws in your stance. 

 

I did not strawman you, I very clearly said:

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

You can portray life in America as so absolutely terrible, but there is no way even you believe they feel the same way the Germans did. 

Allow me to remind you, you said, "We’re doing spectacularly, but that’s not how millions of people feel."

If we're talking about feelings, as you very clearly stated, then don't accuse me of strawmanning you when I did not.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In fact, nearly 60% of households only have a few hundred dollars saved, less than $1,000. Ignoring this does a disservice to your argument.

Except they can still earn money, and that money they earn doesn't immediately become so worthless they can't buy food.

You were literally just saying how our economy definitely wasn't as bad as the Germans, and now you're saying it's bad. You're contradicting yourself my friend.

There is a certain level of hopelessness that comes when the wages that you earned on that very day lose 10,000% of their value by the next morning. In America, when you earn your money, you can still spend it without worrying that by tomorrow, you won't be able to buy a bag of garbage with it.

Attempting to compare people not having savings because they spent it to people who literally could not save a dime because their money became worthless does a disservice to your argument. Be intellectually honest with yourself.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Second, my larger point is that people aren’t comparing themselves to folks in Germany around WWII. Their feelings of pain and struggle are authentic and real and need to be acknowledged when discussing political motivations and scapegoating of “others.” They feel the way they do even though someone somewhere in the past suffered worse. It’s about gut feelings, not Spock logic.

Well now you're completely shifting the discussion.

My point, very simply, is that people in America are not nearly in the same position(or mindset) that Germans were around World War 2. My point continued, pointing out that Hitler declared himself virtually supreme ruler with relativistically little pushback as compared to what you'd see in the U.S. if Trump tried to do the same thing. I'm not debating whether people are comparing themselves or not to folks in Germany. I'm saying they are not in the same mindset of desperation. 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm saying they are not in the same mindset of desperation. 

Please share the evidence which informs this unfounded conclusion. 

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Sure, however my overall point was that Hitler did not swoop into power with only little pushback because of the economic situation. What Trump tries to do, however, betrays an anti-democratic, authoritarian mindset, which is worrisome to many.

I'm sorry, I was mistaken then. I thought your overall point was that Trump is like Hitler, hence why you compared the things Hitler did to what Trump is doing. 

However, I feel you've misread my position. I did point out that there was a lot of push back. What I was saying is that you should compare the amount of pushback Hitler got when he declared himself supreme ruler to the amount of pushback Trump would get if he declared himself supreme ruler. Do you really believe they'd be equal?

My overall point is that Trump is no Hitler. We can try to paint him into a box where he is by taking only a few things he's done, however, that requires a level of mental gymnastics I'm not ready to participate in.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please share the evidence which informs this unfounded conclusion. 

You said people were in the same mindset first, I do believe the burden of evidence is on you to prove that statement rather then me trying to prove it a negative. Here's where you said that:

"I could go on, but my point remains. When people view their current situation and the economic pains they feel, they’re not comparing it to Germany decades ago.

This isn’t some rational cognition calculation. It’s about gut feelings, and people feel like they’re being punched in the gut then kicked in the nuts."

 

Also, the fact you're asking me to prove a negative gives me the idea you don't believe it. So if you believe people today feel the same way Germans did in the 1940's, it's your job to prove it, not my job to prove they don't.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

I said people’s pain is real and they aren’t comparing their pain to that felt by Germans before WWII. Why are you conflating this with me saying what they feel,is equivalent to what Germans felt?

Speaking of mental gymnastics, you appear to be engaged in some weird combination of strawman, refusal to acknowledge misunderstanding, and apparently reading comprehension challenges. 

[Raider5678]

Regardless of that, however, I've already gone into the massive difference in economic conditions.

You can say all you like that people FEEL the same way, that people FEEL like they have it just as hard, and that people FEEL that it's hopeless, but it seems like an absurd position to me that there can be no difference in the amount of desperation people feel based off of economic conditions. 

Your analogy of a broken leg versus getting shot is flawed. In terrible economic conditions, you're under pressure. 

A more accurate analogy would be someone who's about to be thrown into the water with a cement block tied to their legs, to someone who's about to be thrown into the water. Who do you think is feeling more desperate?

Feelings don't exist on a binary scale of "Feels bad" vs "Feels good." It can be "Feel's like you're absolutely about to die" or "feels terrible" or "feels bad" or "feels annoying", etc, etc, etc.

 

Just now, iNow said:

I said people’s pain is real and they aren’t comparing their pain to that felt by Germans before WWII. Why are you conflating this with me saying what they feel,is equivalent to what Germans felt?

1

Stop moving the goalposts. 

First, you said that me saying they were equivalent is an unfounded conclusion.

Now you're saying you never said that they were equivalent. 

 

Additionally, you're also still attempting to move the discussion.

My point, very simply, is that people in America are not nearly in the same position(or mindset) that Germans were around World War 2. My point continued, pointing out that Hitler declared himself virtually supreme ruler with relativistically little pushback as compared to what you'd see in the U.S. if Trump tried to do the same thing. I'm not debating whether people are comparing themselves or not to folks in Germany. I'm saying they are not in the same mindset of desperation. 

Do you disagree with this or not?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

You can say all you like that people FEEL the same way, that people FEEL like they have it just as hard, and that people FEEL that it's hopeless, but it seems like an absurd position to me that there can be no difference in the amount of desperation people feel based off of economic conditions. 

I’m not saying there can be no difference. I am asking you kindly again to please stop misrepresenting me. 

‘The central point is that people do feel these ways and those feelings are enough to convince them to vote for amd more broadly support strongmen and to exercise xenophobic and nationalistic tendencies... that those feelings are enough to scapegoat “the other,” even if these feelings are not as intense as feelings others have felt in the past. 

‘At this point, you either understand my point or you don’t. I’ve respected you enough to elaborate repeatedly and intend to stop now. Thanks for the exchange.  

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Speaking of mental gymnastics, you appear to be engaged in some weird combination of strawman, refusal to acknowledge misunderstanding, and apparently reading comprehension challenges. 

Except I'm not the one claiming things and then saying I never held that position.
I'm also not the one constantly changing what the discussion is about.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m not saying there can be no difference. I am asking you kindly again to please stop misrepresenting me. 

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

When I break my leg, I don’t feel better when I remember than the person who got shot probably hurt more and felt more intense pain, yet you’re suggesting exactly this happens with financial hardship. It’s absurd. 

But you are saying that people in different situations feel the same way and that it's absurd to point out that levels of desperation change depending on the situation.

Stop moving the goalposts, and stop changing what you're saying and denying that's what you're doing.

It's one thing to simply change what you're saying. It's a totally different thing to change what you're saying and then deny that you ever said the previous thing.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve respected you enough to elaborate repeatedly and intend to stop now.

And I've respected you enough to point out where you were saying that's that completely contradicted yourself, and I intend to stop now as you refuse to acknowledge anything.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

My point, very simply, is that people in America are not nearly in the same position(or mindset) that Germans were around World War 2.

 

 

how do you know?

It's not the same...But the parallels are clear to see.

 

If you can't afford to eat, the reason's irrelevant.

12 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Hitler declared himself virtually supreme ruler with relativistically little pushback as compared to what you'd see in the U.S. if Trump tried to do the same thing.

 

As a nation, you really need to get over yourself, lest you find out.

Edited November 26, 2018 by dimreepr

[iNow]

I'm not entirely sure where my exchange with Raider went off the rails and am sure I played some role in the miscommunication. Mea culpa.

Let's reset. My core point is this:

* Challenging economic conditions often make people turn toward despots and people promising prosperity, regardless of how empty those promises are

* The fact that conditions have been worse for many in the past (and are worse for many even today) does not change the validity or intensity of these feelings

* This is a large part of what's driving today's xenophobic and nationalistic tendencies. There are also other reasons, but it would be silly to ignore these

Hope that helps. I've seen other interesting research that economics are less of a driver than actual racism, this nations original sin.

Likewise, as noted in the ProPublica film I linked the other day, it seems these surges in white power groups surge after EVERY war or military conflict. Hadn't heard this before, but seems Kathleen Belew has been researching this for some time and the data is well referenced to support her claims. 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Likewise, as noted in the ProPublica film I linked the other day, it seems these surges in white power groups surge after EVERY war or military conflict. Hadn't heard this before, but seems Kathleen Belew has been researching this for some time and the data is well referenced to support her claims.

 

It's easier to hate soldiers than a child.

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's easier to hate soldiers than a child.

Not sure I follow. While true, unsure how it applies to the idea of rises in white power movements happening after every major military conflict (soldiers return home and join these groups, nonsoldiers join, too)...

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

However, I feel you've misread my position. I did point out that there was a lot of push back. What I was saying is that you should compare the amount of pushback Hitler got when he declared himself supreme ruler to the amount of pushback Trump would get if he declared himself supreme ruler. Do you really believe they'd be equal?

I think you ignore the whole context here. Hitler did not just come to power and  declared himself ruler. There was a path starting from an underdog situation. The rise to power was characterized by massive political but also violent struggles, including forceful intimidation tactics. Once he solidified his power way later, because everyone that could push back was either dead or isolated. So in order for Trump to get to that point he would have to achieve that and it is unlikely that he has the support to do so. However, the moves he tries, have superficial similarities. Villification of certain groups in order to rally their base, trying to diminish the influence of media (and facts), trying to increase influence over the branches of the legislature and judiciary with a focus on personal loyalty and so on. Though of course that playbook has been used by autocratic leaders, which goes to his overall mind set.

Also note that the rise of the NSDAP was not solely due to economic woes nor was there broad support from the populace. It started with targeting certain key groups (specifically male protestant rural voters) and expansion of power over other areas as it grew. While the situation may be different as whole, outright declaring that existing institutions are immune from radicalization is dangerous. And in recent years we see that in almost all established Western democracies. It is especially worrisome as much of the modern far-right movement is not so much driven by economic challenges, which would at least be somewhat understandable and something one could address. But for a significant part the be mobilization of non-traditional voters, driven by racism and sexism (as identified by many studies by now) plays an important role. Those folks feel themselves threatened to the core of the their identity and are prime target for radicalism.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Not sure I follow. While true, unsure how it applies to the idea of rises in white power movements happening after every major military conflict (soldiers return home and join these groups, nonsoldiers join, too)...

1

the enemy doesn't...

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

in recent years we see that in almost all established Western democracies

Quoted for emphasis. It'd be one thing if this were just the US and Trump, but clearly it's not. These views are gaining traction globally. Europe is especially hit due to their response with refugees. Merkel is out in Germany for treating them like humans, for example. Brazil just elected their own version of Trump. Putin is climbing across borders and seizing ships. Ergogan is shooting people addicted to drugs... All of these need to be considered. Context matters.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Quoted for emphasis. It'd be one thing if this were just the US and Trump, but clearly it's not. These views are gaining traction globally. Europe is especially hit due to their response with refugees. Merkel is out in Germany for treating them like humans, for example. Brazil just elected their own version of Trump. Putin is climbing across borders and seizing ships. Ergogan is shooting people addicted to drugs... All of these need to be considered. Context matters.

2

2

Indeed, fear is the context.

sorry, my replies are so brief, broken keyboard...

Edited November 26, 2018 by dimreepr

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

sorry, my replies are so brief, broken keyboard...

No worries. Thought perhaps you'd been possessed by a fortune cookie for a moment. Glad the explanation is more reasonable than that.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

No worries. Thought perhaps you'd been possessed by a fortune cookie for a moment. Glad the explanation is more reasonable than that.  

Lol

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I'm not entirely sure where my exchange with Raider went off the rails and am sure I played some role in the miscommunication. Mea culpa.

 

I'm sure I played a role in it as well.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

* Challenging economic conditions often make people turn toward despots and people promising prosperity, regardless of how empty those promises are

 

I agree with this.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

* The fact that conditions have been worse for many in the past (and are worse for many even today) does not change the validity or intensity of these feelings

 

This is what I disagree with. Very simply, I feel that the intensity of these feelings does change based on the situation. I'm not saying they're looking back in Germany and comparing themselves, I"m simply saying the amount of pressure they were under is drastically different and you'd see that in how they respond to situations.

 

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think you ignore the whole context here. Hitler did not just come to power and  declared himself ruler. There was a path starting from an underdog situation. The rise to power was characterized by massive political but also violent struggles, including forceful intimidation tactics. Once he solidified his power way later, because everyone that could push back was either dead or isolated. So in order for Trump to get to that point he would have to achieve that and it is unlikely that he has the support to do so. However, the moves he tries, have superficial similarities.

I wasn't ignoring context, I was simply pointing out that Trump is no Hitler. Again, look at all of the different things that Hitler did to obtain power. Then look at what Trump has/is doing. There are a couple of similarities, but then again there were similarities between Obama and Hitler as well when it came to their policy. All the similarities are, as you yourself said, superficial. When you begin to compare politicians to Hitler simply because you disagree with them, you're taking part in fear mongering. Additionally, there are things Trump is doing that Hitler did the exact opposite of. Does that make him an anti Hitler?

There is a difference between saying what he is doing is bad, wrong, ineffective, etc, and saying he's just like Hitler and taking only the things that make him similar. One is pointing out flaws and explaining them, another is simply fear mongering. Fear mongering is never good for democracy.

 

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

outright declaring that existing institutions are immune from radicalization is dangerous.

I don't believe I declared this. I simply said that they do not appear to be anywhere near the same amount of radicalization of Hitler, and that's something I still stand by.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

This is what I disagree with. Very simply, I feel that the intensity of these feelings does change based on the situation. I'm not saying they're looking back in Germany and comparing themselves, I"m simply saying the amount of pressure they were under is drastically different and you'd see that in how they respond to situations.

I think we agree more than it appears. I agree that feeling intensity changes based on situations. I even agree that the pressure then and now is different. I am mostly saying that your mention of things being worse in the past is irrelevant to the feelings. 

"I feel this way today." End program.

Not, "I feel this way today, but Leizl in Berlin in 1941 had it worse, so I'm going to temper what I feel." No, not this.

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

When you begin to compare politicians to Hitler simply because you disagree with them, you're taking part in fear mongering.

You misrepresent Charon by suggesting this comparison is merely about agreement/disagreement. It's about specific actions being taken, specific words being said, and specific themes that keep resonating.

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

There is a difference between saying what he is doing is bad, wrong, ineffective, etc, and saying he's just like Hitler

Who said he's "just like Hitler," and where did they say this?

[Ten oz]

Trump is dividing the nation. The idea that hostility and division is worse under Trump is one of the few nonpartisan ideas left in politics today. Trump attacks immigrants, the media, all politic rivals, and etc. Hate crimes are up since he has taken office and the overall approval of his office and govt in general is down. White Nationalism is also on the rise. Petty complaints about how similar on a scale between Trump is or isn't to Hilter fail to acknowledge real problems. Nazi sentiments and aggressions are bleeding their way I to conservative leaning movements thoughout the western world. No amount of excuse making or deflecting accomplishes anything. A problem denied is a problem which remains unresolved. 

[Raider5678]

31 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Petty complaints about how similar on a scale between Trump is or isn't to Hilter fail to acknowledge real problems.

No, reductio ad hitlerum is petty. 

And off topic.

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't believe I declared this. I simply said that they do not appear to be anywhere near the same amount of radicalization of Hitler, and that's something I still stand by.

Think of it as degrees in similar directions rather than a simple binary (i.e. yes/no) type of situation. It is not even about good or bad either, which would be value judgement, but rather in terms of attitude toward media and perceived enemies. The overall point is not if someone equals Hitler, as you seem to be focused on, but rather the balancing act between maintaining a free and democratic societies and autocratic desires to undermine said structure.

It is a general folly to assume that democratic systems in itself have perfect failsafes (the Weimar Republic serves as a clear example). The rise of far right groups is not the same as a coming of a second Hitler, but it is going to test the system as they clearly have anti-democratic, autocratic goals (as exemplified by the desire to undermined the independence of the judiciary, for example. Trump, as I have mentioned before, clearly shows autocratic desires and a significant proportion of the populace is cheering him on. Your argument was mainly that the only (or at least main way) that folks like Hitler could get to power was due to  economic catastrophes. And my overall point is that it is not a requirement, otherwise we would not have such a far-right swing in much of Europe.

Or perhaps to put it more succinctly, folks  do not need to be in desperate situations in order to get radicalized. Often it is sufficient to make them feel that way (say, by drawing a hellscape of carnage and violence).

[iNow]

Nice inauguration reference. 

[CharonY]

In some ways I wonder what would happen if one would transpose someone like Trump with dictators like e.g. Stalin. Would Trump be similarly cunning in establishing his power and utilizing the weaknesses of the system to get his way? Conversely, are the mechanisms in modern democracies resilient enough to withstand a ruthless dictator?