Know the difference. .. WHY ARE PEOPLE THUMBING DOWN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING NAZIS ARE BAD????? Know the difference WHY ARE PEOPLE THUMBING DOWN THE THAT SAYING NAZIS BAD?????
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (304)
[ 304 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#21 - drdrebones
Reply +63 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
WHY ARE PEOPLE THUMBING DOWN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING NAZIS ARE BAD?????
User avatar #58 to #21 - magsschroedinger
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Many think that the nazi officers if cruel people without a soul, which in fact isn't true. They were ordinary people just like us, fighting for their cause, that could have prevented the muslims and other goat ******* races to march into our countries today.. Think about it...
User avatar #64 to #58 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Whenever you promote the killing of anybody, there's a high chance they will come for you next. Think about it.
User avatar #97 to #64 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
While I do not condone genocide or racism, just because you support a cause that leads to war does not mean you are 'part of the problem' or going to be part of 1984 (book). And unless you are absolutely pacifistic to the point of strict Buddhism, you cannot berate anyone else for supporting it; why? Because if the Nazis had one, they would view it no differently than Americans viewing the victory of WW1, or Afghanistan, or any other war they were in,
User avatar #110 to #97 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
It is at least good to know you don't condone genocide and racism (to be honest, I didn't understand much of the rest of your comment).
User avatar #115 to #110 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
In your comment I replied to, you talked about that whenever you supported killing (I assume you mean war as well), there's a high chance they will come for you next. Such a belief is reminiscent of paranoia and distrust of the state, and so I was simply telling you that if you the war the Nazis waged as just 'promoting killing', then you should view EVERY war as just 'promoting killing' otherwise such a comment would be hypocritical.
User avatar #119 to #115 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Yes, I am in fact against any kind of war. Why wouldn't I be? I am against killing in general. I do not like to be killed, and I imagine any other person shares this view.
User avatar #140 to #119 - twondai
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
everyone except Vikings. those ******* are crazy.
User avatar #121 to #119 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Well good for you. I, on the other hand, support militarism and the right to fight for your country, creed, and ideals. Despite our difference of opinion I'm sure we can agree that we are both decent human beings who should respect eachother regardless of personal views, and only judge one another based upon WHY those personal views are present.

And the reason I asked was because many of those who shun any form of Nazism due to their war also support wars made by their own country, and it makes for quite a hypocritical mess.
User avatar #120 to #119 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Correction: the only type of war I am not against is one where you fight to stay alive, or to protect your home and family
User avatar #55 to #21 - qosfortyone
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Nazi had a pretty good cause
User avatar #76 to #55 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
When saying that, make sure you can't be mistaken for a member of one of the "lesser races". If you were, and that "good cause" had won, it wouldn't seem so good to you.
User avatar #100 to #76 - captainfuckitall
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Those 'lesser races' the Nazis had in mind are a myth. It's just propaganda fed to you to make them seem worse than they were. There were Hindu Nazis, African Nazis, Polish Nazis, Russian Nazis, Japanese and Korean Nazis, Muslim Nazis (a battalion of which even received medals and praise from Hitler himself), and yes, even Jewish Nazis (once of which, although I cannot remember the name, was half-jewish and actually achieved the rank of Lieutenant). There were even Homosexual Nazis.

For a person so against something, you seem to do very little research regarding it.
User avatar #103 to #100 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
1. Propaganda for ME, a non-arian? Who made such propaganda? If you're talking about Nazi propaganda, that was for the Nazis and German people themselves, and they very much liked to use it to justify the killings. They taught their soldiers that every other race was inferior, so they wouldn't feel so bad doing the things they did.
2. Little research? Are you claiming to be more knowledgeable on the subject than I am? I've yet to see a single piece of proof from you - links to historical materials, books, even internet articles. So far you've been doing as I have been, that is, voicing your opinion.
User avatar #112 to #103 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
...You do realize that "Propaganda" is just messages with intent to give you a bias, right? They could go either way. Yes, there can, in fact, be propaganda AGAINST the Nazis, and there was and still is much of that today. If you could give me proof that they thought in such a specific way, I would certainly like to see it (and yes, I could in turn give you proof of my claims, that there were many Nazi battalions made of those 'inferior' races that weren't, in fact, considered inferior. You could even look it up yourself in Google).

Well, yes, I am now. Yes I do know more about it than you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX-jLx-7Z04 If you can get past the silly music it will prove of those Nazi Battalions mentioned above.

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html Homosexual Nazis

Anti-Nazi Propaganda posters www.google.ca/search?q=anti-nazi+propaganda&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=K_RXUti8PNK4yAH15oGoDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=677&dpr=1
User avatar #118 to #116 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Well of course there was, because as I said, Propaganda is a two-sided thing.

I never claimed Germans didn't use Propaganda, but you seemed miffed at the thought that there would ever be Anti-Nazi Propaganda, and so corrected that thought.
User avatar #261 to #100 - Ruspanic
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
The Nazis' racism wasn't just propaganda, it was inherent to their nationalist ideology. Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler clearly thought black people were inferior and compared them to apes, and he viewed the Jews as a devious, evil race. That wasn't propaganda, that was basically Hitler's manifesto which he wrote before ever rose to power.
User avatar #304 to #261 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Yes I have read Mein Kampf, three different times actually, and they all said three different things because there are many different versions and translations of it out. It is one of the most popular books on the planet, yes, there CAN be more than one version of it; and many more times than not, the words were changed or things were added to make Hitler seem much worse as a person than he was (which not only goes against documents taken from those who met him, but interviews from his close friends as well).

The reason I say that is because while in one book he talked about how black people were apes and every other race is evil to the core, in another he talked about how Asians were brothers to him, and in another he talked about everything BUT the race of the individual (the only thing remaining constant was his dislike of jews).
User avatar #305 to #304 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
"make Hitler seem like a much worse person than he was?"
This guy ordered the deaths of 11 million people, attempted to annihilate an entire ethnic group, invaded multiple countries without provocation, and brainwashed the German people into believing an absurd totalitarian ideology. You can hardly make him seem like a worse person than he was. Acting like a nice guy in person doesn't begin to redeem him.

Just because he didn't think as poorly of Asians (he did ally with the Japanese) as he did of Jews and blacks doesn't mean he wasn't obscenely racist. And you can't pull that Bible **** about "different versions and translations", either, because there's no way you can get this from a mistranslation:
"it is an act of criminal insanity to train a being [black person] who is only an anthropoid [some translations say half-ape] by birth until the pretence can be made that he has been turned into a lawyer; while, on the other hand, millions who belong to the most civilized races have to remain in positions which are unworthy of their cultural level."
User avatar #307 to #305 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
*6 Million.
11 Million people died in total from all sides.
His first intention was to actually ship them off to Africa, but the limitations placed upon him by the Treaty of Versailles gave him too many limitations
Actually, in many countries across Europe after WW1, Germans were persecuted, assaulted, and some even murdered for their ethnic background. There was even an entire small town of them that was massacred out of racial discrimination (Citation given: uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110623095532AAdbG7T ), and when Hitler requested the authorities to put an end to it, they ignored him, prompting him to invade the country and save the people himself (And before you say anything about "He was evil", despite how evil people see him as, it's under no dispute that he was also very patriotic, genuinely loved his country, and his people as well and wanted the best for them).

No, you don't seem to understand what I was getting at. I was saying that there were different versions of Mein Kampf, most of which say completely different things (after-all, given Hitlers popularity, trying to translate the reasons WHY he did what he did to justify it don't exactly seem like a very smart thing. So people added things to his books, things they 'think he meant', in order to make him seem like a genuinely evil person and not a guy who thought he was doing what was best). That's the thing though, the Nazis weren't racist (at least not in a literal sense, whatever documents might say) as there were Black Nazis, Hindu Nazis, Polish Nazis, Russian Nazis, Turkish Nazis, Muslim Nazis (a battalion of which even received medals and praise from Hitler himself), and yes, even some Jewish Nazis and Homosexual Nazis.

I'm not "pulling anything", you can literally find different versions of Mein Kampf just by looking. Hell, there are three completely different audiobooks of it up on Youtube.
User avatar #308 to #307 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
6 Million is the figure commonly given for just Jews. 11 million is the people who died in the Holocaust in total, not including casualties of WWII.

I don't deny that Germany was in deep **** after WWI, and I've even heard a bit about the postwar discrimination against Germans. And obviously, Hitler didn't think he was evil. He thought he was doing the best he could for his country. That didn't make him evil. What made him evil was his blatant disregard for the rights and lives of non-Germans and for the sovereignty of non-German states. Nothing can excuse genocide.

The invasion of Poland may or may not have been justified by the massacre of Germans there, but the primary reason for Hitler's eastward expansion was the ideology of Lebensraum and the ultimate goal of conquering Russia.

Can you give an example of things that were added (not mistranslated) to Mein Kampf ex post facto?

The existence of non-white or non-German Nazis doesn't make the Nazis not racist. The anti-Semitism goes without saying, of course, but the Nazis also sterilized Afro-Germans and had propaganda against Africans in Europe as well.

Also, were these other Nazis based in Germany, or in their own respective countries?
User avatar #310 to #308 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
It does prove they have a tolerance. There was also an issue of an Olympic Sportsman visiting Germany during Hitlers reign, who was African American. "But Jesse Owens' reception by the German public and the spectators in the Olympic stadium was warm. There were German cheers of “Yesseh Oh-vens” or just “Oh-vens” from the crowd. Owens was a true celebrity in Berlin, mobbed by autograph seekers to the point that he complained about all the attention. He later claimed that his reception in Berlin was greater than any other he had ever experienced, and he was quite popular even before the Olympics". If you don't know who Jesse Owens' is, he was an Olympic Runner during the 1925-30, and despite his success as an athlete was nearly always subject to racism in his home country of America. The Germans, even during the time of Nazi rule, were more tolerant of Mr.Owens than his own people. "Jesse Owens: “Hitler didn't snub me—it was [FDR] who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram.” - quoted in Triumph, a book about the 1936 Olympics by Jeremy Schaap"

Also, read down below the second paragraph, it also explains why people would alter Mein Kampf: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205572/Hitler-shook-hands-black-1936-Olympic-hero-Jesse-Owens.html

(Please note, good sir: I am not saying they WEREN'T intolerant, but I am saying that they had a class of their own and were fully capable of looking past race and discrimination. Again, there were even Jewish Nazis, some that even attained quite a high rank. It was also Jewish assistants who helped the legendary evil doctor Joseph Mengele in his experiments)
User avatar #314 to #310 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
The Jewish assistants weren't exactly acting out of ideological commitment. They were "higher-ranked" prisoners helping out to avoid greater suffering for themselves. Similarly, many of the people who cremated the dead Jews from the gas chambers were Jews themselves, the Sonderkommandos. I don't know anything about the Jewish Nazis, it seems unlikely but I suppose there's always unusual cases.

Black people were not targeted as much as other minority groups during the Holocaust simply because there were very few black people in Germany and Eastern Europe at that time. The Nazis definitely considered them inferior, but did not encounter them often enough to actively hate them, with the exception of the African soldiers in the Rhineland and their mixed-race children, toward whom the sterilization policies were directed.

Hitler and the Nazis wanted racial purity in Germany (and in the other lands that Germany tried to annex). As Jesse Owens didn't live in Germany, the Nazis didn't much care about him besides the obvious humiliation of losing to him. By contrast, there were many Jews in Germany and the Nazis, as well as Hitler personally, had had plenty of contact with them and regarded them as a greedy and manipulative people who profited off German misery post-WWI.
User avatar #316 to #314 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Oh? In a comic book, Maus, created by Art Speigleman, details the trials his father went through as a jew in Hitlers Germany, and even in concentration camps. It shows how, on multiple occasions actually, he had his life saved because his Cousin, also a jew, was a Nazi Official. The most apparent 'life-saving' being when he was walking around a camp and a soldier came to interrogate him, asking him where he was going and threatened to shoot him (as he was a POW at the time), but upon seeing his papers, the soldier remarked "Oh! You're part of the Speileman family. My mistake, please be on your way". And it also showed (something else I find significant) that when the father, a jew, did good work for the Nazis, such as repairing shoes, roofs, or mining, he not only got more food and luxuries, but was generally treated better as well.

Ah, but even as Jesse himself remarked, the German people and Nazis were not 'humiliated' at all, and Hitler even congratulated him personally, something no American president ever did. Indeed, the behaviour of jews after WW1 was a big reason for the rise of National Socialism and the growing hate toward them.
User avatar #309 to #308 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Then we have opposing sources. Don't fret, I don't blame you, I'll check it out in more detail later

From what I heard, Hitler wasn't interested in total conquest of Europe, he only wanted to build the Germanic Kingdoms back to their former glory before they were split apart after WW1 and other conflicts

We don't have to take a single excerpt because we have a perfect example here. Here are two translations of the book Mein Kampf by separate people: The Ford Translation and the one by Ralph Manheim. The thing is, Ford's translation is roughly 400 pages long. Mr.Manheim's is 600. Do you honestly wish to argue that 'nothing was added/taken away' when it's obviously a book that's been altered again and again?
User avatar #312 to #309 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Most of the estimated 5 million non-Jews, from what I've read, were Slavs and Romani. There were also disabled people, political leftists, and some homosexuals.

You're correct that Hitler didn't intend to conquer all of Europe, but he did intend to conquer the eastern part of the continent, primarily Russia.

Are you sure the length difference is because of significant meaningful additions to the text itself, and not merely font size, margin differences or introductions/forwards/appendices/addendums written by other people, as is sometimes done with historically significant texts? You could be right, I'm just saying, number of pages alone may not be a reliable indicator.
User avatar #313 to #312 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Perhaps you are right, the additions COULD be simply due to trivial reasons like that, but still....200 pages alone is a massive difference for a reason so small. No, it's far more likely that there were indeed additions or subtractions from subject matter.

(Also, I would just like to say I'm really happy we can have this conversation, despite my support of Nazis and your dislike of them, we can still get along and communicate in a rational and sensible manner, each seeing the merit in eachothers arguments. You're a wonderful person, truly).
User avatar #315 to #313 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I've seen versions of the Communist Manifesto, a veritable pamphlet, printed in books of 100+ pages because of all the extra material that was added in alongside it - historical/bibliographical background, commentary, and so on.

Thank you for the praise, but I hadn't realized you actually support the Nazis and are not merely a history nerd concerned with correcting inaccuracies. Why do you support them? That seems like a much more interesting discussion than our little back-and-forth about historical nuances.

I'm especially bemused by this considering your insistence that the Nazis were not despicable racists, which implies you think racial intolerance is a bad thing.
User avatar #317 to #315 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
But they were altered by other Russian Communists at the time for the point of accuracy. Hitlers autobiography had been in the hands of many translators, nearly all of them American and with a firm bias against Nazism.

I do and yet don't support them. I think the Nazis had a great thing going, and I think Hitler, with a little better guidance, could have done amazing things for the world. The contribution of medicine, Science, and engineering that the Nazis gave to the world is so vast that even given the deaths caused by the Holocaust, they saved millions of more lives by relation. I also support Nationalism and Militarism, as well as Animal Rights and other things they advocated. However, I do NOT support the genocide of the jews, intolerance toward other races/creeds, or anything like that. While I believe they have done much evil and much good, I also believe that if they only had a bit of...proper guidance, they could have been one of the most powerful and beneficial countries on Earth.

I do believe racial intolerance is a bad thing. No person should be judged over circumstances they cannot control, and while I do believe that some races are naturally inclined toward certain feats and less inclined toward others, I do not believe this, by any means, makes them 'inferior' or 'superior'.
User avatar #318 to #317 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Engineering? Sure. Medicine? You mean what Mengele did? That was completely ****** up and whatever benefit came out of it could never justify it. The same findings can be achieved without grotesque human rights violations - perhaps not with 1940s technology, but eventually, within a few decades.

Our main point of ideological disagreement is on nationalism and militarism. Could you explain why you think these things are good?

From my point of view, nationalism is a tool of the state to promote obedience. As a political ideology it inevitably promotes intolerance of different races and cultures, creates a feeling of superiority, and encourages pride in one's heritage over one's individual accomplishments and talents. The social cohesion it brings does not justify it.

The military is an essential state function that serves the purpose of national defense, and should in general be limited to that purpose. Aggressive use of the military to pursue national interest at the expense of others is wrong.
User avatar #319 to #318 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Not just Mengele. There were many different doctors and chemists employed by the Nazis; and yes, even their own human experiments assisted modern doctors. Oh? Then you and I see things differently sir; I would be more than willing to sacrifice a thousand if it could save a million, and a million if it could save a billion. To prevent the suffering of one at the cost of lives for many is simply not an even trade. Indeed the same results COULD be achieved, but not without many extra years (and many more deaths) from trial and error.

I think Nationalism is good because it's good to take pride in your country and your people, by doing so (and with proper guidance, of course), you seek to make it better. There's nothing wrong with having pride for where you come from granted you try and make it better. And I support Militarism because I believe every country has the right to defend itself or expand as it sees fit, although whether they win or lose is out of my hands. Human beings thrive through conflict (note: Not violence specifically, but conflict), and it was due to conflict that we have crawled from the muck and the dirt and built the empires we have today, things that would have taken many more centuries and millennia to do should we not have had it.

But that's just different views. It CAN be used that way, but it can also be used for one to take pride in their home and culture, and nothing is wrong with that.

Your value of life and wellness is admirable, but it is not ideal. For one to succeed, another has to fail; for one to gain victory, another has to have defeat. This is the meaning of conflict in life. If nobody COULD expand, we would never expand as a state beyond 'but what if their feelings get hurt?'
User avatar #320 to #319 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
"I would be more than willing to sacrifice a thousand if it could save a million"
Unless those thousand pose a direct threat to the million, unless they are murderers without right to life, or unless they sacrifice themselves voluntarily, you do not get to make that decision for others.

Conflict drives progress, this is true. But capitalist competition does this much more effectively, quickly, universally, and cheaply - in terms of human lives and suffering - than does violent conflict. Life and wellness and freedom for individuals are the ideals toward which all progress must move, or else it is not progress. If not for these goals, what purpose do your advances serve? The values we strive for must also be upheld to the best of our ability in the means used to pursue them, or else they are worthless.

The interests of the state as an independent unit are of little importance. The state exists as a necessary evil - the people grant a relatively autonomous entity a monopoly on violence, so that it may carry out its functions in service to the people, while remaining accountable to those people. The most essential functions of the state are national defense, protection of rights (in the form of criminal justice), and civil justice, as these are all functions that cannot be entrusted to private agents. The state has other responsibilities to general welfare, insofar as, once again, competing private actors cannot do it better. Monopolies are dangerous and should be limited whenever possible, and the state is a monopoly.

Violence is to be avoided whenever possible. Just as individuals cannot be allowed to kill each other for personal gain, neither should states acting on the behalf of their citizens enact violence on other states.
User avatar #322 to #320 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I agree that senseless violence is to be avoided, but surely you must also agree that violence CAN be used for good. People need violence when there is no other option. When two monkeys argue over a coconut, yet a half is not enough for either monkey, and they cause too many problems to just be let alone. Do you destroy the coconut to prevent violence, even if both sides lose that way?
User avatar #323 to #322 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I'll respond to this first because it's shorter.

"People need violence when there is no other option."
Exactly. Such as in defense or sometimes humanitarian intervention. Is the coconut worth more than one monkey's life? There are other coconuts and other means of sustenance, but lives are not replaceable.

Real-life military conflicts are very rarely so simple. Aggression is almost never motivated by survival needs, and even in very serious crises there are usually peaceful resolutions, especially in the modern world.
User avatar #324 to #323 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I suppose it really comes down to whichever you deem more important, happiness and freedom, or welfare. If the lives are more important, and a little suffering is better than over-all death, then a few deaths are ideal than many, this agreeing with my first statement. If the coconut is more important, than people have and should bear the right to combat eachother, should both parties agree, at least. Agreeing with my second statement.

Yes, there usually is peaceful resolutions, but at what cost do they come about? Sometimes it is literally better to simply off someone than support all their needs to make them peaceful.
User avatar #321 to #320 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
So you would let a million die just because a thousand wanted to live? Nobody wants to die, but a decision must be reached in order to lessen suffering and death for all. Even if those who die are unwilling, it doesn't make their death in vain.

Except it doesn't, because once you reach the top you bring your friends up there and keep everyone else below, leaving the few with many and the many with few and an unfair advantage. That's not how conflict should be, nobody should be put into worse circumstances because of things they cannot control, such as race or gender. My goals are to those advances, but the simple truth is that sometimes sacrifices have to be made. Believe me, I truly do wish everyone could start with a fresh plate and make a life for themselves if they worked hard enough, but this is not a perfect world, and until it is, it is up to those who can make the tough decisions to do so. But earlier you said that I could not make a decision for all, yet that goes both-ways; you cannot give someone a better life if they do not earn one, or else nothing IS advanced, it just stays the same in a different way.

But what makes the state so evil? The majority of the people, if you'll allow my saying so, are quite simple-minded. Very few people can even see past the bridge of their nose, let alone on the horizons and toward the future. If everyone WERE able to dictate themselves in a way that were best for the whole rather than themselves, we would have no need for a state, but again, we do not live in a perfect world. Until people can properly dictate themselves as adults, that is, understand that there are more important things than there needs, there needs to be that big, bad, evil state to direct things and move them along, otherwise you have a thousand tribes squabbling to get a bigger slice of the pie (Note: I'm not saying governments are perfect. Many are corrupt and out for self-serving interests, but it is not an inherent problem of politics, but people
User avatar #327 to #321 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I've got to go for now, but perhaps we'll continue this tomorrow.
User avatar #328 to #327 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
I'd like that. I'll answer your comments then, if you do not mind.
User avatar #329 to #328 - Ruspanic
0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Not at all, whenever you have time.

You should visit the FJ Politics Board, you might enjoy it.
User avatar #326 to #321 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
The state:
I don't advocate direct and absolute democracy for precisely the reasons you mentioned. However, with a bunch of mostly uninformed but free people controlling the government, you'll get a diverse market of ideas and opinions and the government will not be able to pursue unsuccessful policies for very long, because it will respond to public opinion (the public, after all, directly experiences the effects of policies much more than the politicians). But to avoid mob rule, you need constitutional limits on what the government can do, even if the people demand it. You can't have one part of the population enslaving another.

Consider the alternative: you have a single dictator or ruling party. What if the rulers have bad ideas that don't work? Or what if they're self-serving and don't care about the people's interest? Without opposition, how will they ever change their ways? Furthermore, such governments will always seek more power and control because people in charge think they're smarter than everyone and can do things better their own way. You certainly see this happening in representative democracies, but it happens much faster when the rulers are unopposed and unaccountable.

Besides that, I'm sure you've gathered by now that I have a notion of inherent rights and freedoms that I tend to value above comfort and stability. Coercing people into obedience is evil, as is forcing them to give you their money so you can spend it for them, but those things are necessary for governments to function. Bureaucrats and politicians don't know better than you do how to run your life, and even if they think they do, they have no right to take your autonomy. Generally speaking, it's none of their business if you're fat and unhealthy, or if you gamble away your money or if you spend it on expensive clothes instead of health insurance. So giving them these powers over individuals should be avoided when possible.
User avatar #325 to #321 - Ruspanic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/12/2013) [-]
Why is there a difference between committing murder and failing to save someone? Because we have an obligation to respect others' rights to life - that is, their right to not be killed by others - but we do not have an obligation to prolong others' lives. The situation you describe, as you described it, is extremely rare because there are almost always more peaceful solutions.

Yes, there's currently a lack of social mobility in many capitalist systems, but this is not caused purely by free enterprise and there are measures the state can take to ameliorate this problem, as well as measures the state should not take to avoid making things worse (a lot of well-meaning policies have adverse effects). Crony capitalism plays a large role in this as well, because rich people use their money to influence policy in their favor, which I think should not be allowed.
However, in the United States at least, the majority of people in the top income bracket did not inherit their wealth.


Many of them also attained that wealth fairly recently and will not stay in that top percentage for very long.

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_transient_income_classes.html
So there's some hope for income mobility.

The market system has produced great technological advances far more quickly than any other system or institution. The military comes second in innovation, but even military inventions like the Internet became widespread, affordable and generally better because of private competition. This has massively increased the welfare of everyone including the very poor. What the free market cannot easily provide (roads, widespread education, etc) the government should provide. And these things further benefit the market.
In short, it doesn't ensure equality, but it does make everyone richer and better off to varying degrees.

Cont'd
#54 to #21 - anon id: aca36757
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
I teach in kindergarden and sometimes my friend. I bloody wish Hitler had won
#260 to #21 - anon id: d2905534
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #45 to #21 - idunnolol
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Cruise control for cool, faggot
User avatar #30 to #21 - captainfuckitall
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Because Nazi's are obviously good.
User avatar #78 to #30 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
No
User avatar #101 to #78 - captainfuckitall
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
It was a joke, calm down. He asked "Why are comments saying they were bad getting thumbed down?" which obviously means the majority of those thumbers thought the Nazis were good.

It was a joke.
User avatar #111 to #101 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Okay then
User avatar #197 to #78 - thefogwoggler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
ok, time for a **** storm. nazis weren't bad and we weren't good we were both just fighting for survival and doing what we believed is right. it's not people were just sat at home and went "you know what i'm gonna kill some jews" no they truly honestly believed that it was the right thing to do.
User avatar #201 to #197 - lafuriaroja
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
That's just not factual. At all. And if you think that it's factual then you need get your head examined.
User avatar #219 to #201 - thefogwoggler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
so you think they were all heartless monsters who couldn't have been disillusioned by repeatedly being told "jews are scum, they are ruining this country" for their lives and then a strong leader comes to power and they confirm the anti jew statements
User avatar #223 to #219 - lafuriaroja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Getting the Jews out of the country and shipping them somewhere else is one thing. Killing millions of Jews in death-camps is something completely different. There's a reason they kept the existence of the camps a secret from the world.
User avatar #226 to #223 - thefogwoggler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
yes because they knew others wouldn't approve if they knew the truth but they still thought getting rid of the jews would be the best for everyone involved. why do you think they killed them?
User avatar #238 to #223 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Don't mind him, he's just trying to amuse himself.
User avatar #237 to #197 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Yes, I agree. They believed it was their birthright to invade and enslave another country.
User avatar #241 to #237 - thefogwoggler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
they thought it would make their country better imagine if all your life you were told blacks or gays are wrong and evil and its their fault your country is **** and then a man with an intense hatred towards that group rose up and said he can make the country great and mighty again by getting rid of the scum you hate you would agree, if you were born in that time you'd support what the nazis were doing
User avatar #33 - captainfuckitall
Reply +44 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Fun Fact: The Nazi's didn't actually kill jews as most people think. The rounding up and killing of jews, gypsies, ect. was a very specific task that was done with a very specific (and relatively small) task force. The rest of the Nazi's were just good, honest men and boys who loved their country and their leader, just like America, just like Canada, just like Britain. The only reason all of them are portrayed as monsters that raped nuns and ate baby flesh is because they lost.
#40 to #33 - doktorpaj
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
They're gonna drown you in red thumbs and mindless hate when they see that.

User avatar #149 to #33 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Don't forget that a Nazi was anybody who didn't actively resist the government in those days. The Wehrmacht was actually just conscripts and people fighting for their country, or soldiers from the nations that had been conquered by German-Austrian expansion. It was the SS that was the brainwashed and what we typically view as Nazis. Most of the military members actually hated the SS.
User avatar #152 to #149 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
While I do agree that many German soldiers were not actually Nazis or identified with their ideology, the members that made up the S.S. were supposed to be the highest caste of soldier, hand-picked for their loyalty, bravery, and strong-wills (as they were not usually combatants, but man-hunters). Even so, at least we agree upon the most important part of that statement.
User avatar #156 to #152 - commontroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Indeed, not all of the SS were awful people, but they all had to go through their whole training with a dog that they would sleep with, eat with, did everything with, then at the end of training had to kill their dog with their bare hands.

So, I'd say pretty brainwashed to be able to do that if you ask me.
User avatar #159 to #156 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
I'm not sure where you heard that sir, but I'd say it was false for two reasons: One, I've actually heard that before, but it was about the U.S. Marines. Two: Hitler actually loved animals and made animal rights a main factor in the Nazi Party (people who abused animals, even high ranking Nazis, were arrested and faced harsh penalties for it).

Haha, I'm sorry if I seem like I'm brainwashed by my own ideology, surely I do not mean to come off that way, I'm just speaking from what I know.
User avatar #221 to #159 - commontroll
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
But something too many people forget when talking about Nazis and SS, is that they were all people. We like to demonize the ones that we fight and kill so we don't feel like demons ourselves.

I remember when I watched Inglorious Basterds, I got pissed off because they're just killing all these people who honestly didn't do anything (like the one war hero who didn't want to watch the part of the movie of him killing all the people, because he wished it hadn't happened.)

But yeah, sorry, rabbit trail there. Long story short, we go too far with the whole "boo Nazis!" thing.
User avatar #216 to #159 - commontroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Oh no, not at all seeming brainwashed. I know I was confused by it too because of how much Hitler loved animals. But I do think it's possible that it happened, if it meant testing a soldier's ability to choose the Fatherland before even their loved ones.
User avatar #160 to #33 - ihaspotato
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
History is written by the victor.
#252 to #33 - cyanskater
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Most people are honest and hardworking: those are attributes for any successful society and no one is denying that. However, the overwhelming majority of Nazis did share antisemitic ideologies and felt no compassion towards the killing of Jews, which they believed to be lesser humans- but "good" is a word that's relative to he who is judging. As far as I know Hitler didn't kill any Jews during the holocaust either, does that make him good?
User avatar #303 to #252 - captainfuckitall
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
But you're forgetting that "Nazi" was just a party. There were Nazi Battalions, and then there were just German soldiers who were part of the army (and made up most of the army). Yes, the majority of Nazis did also share antisemitic views, but only due to their economical situation and the views the Jews had towards the Germans (if you ask people, many, who actually know about Orthodox Judaism, will tell you that it is a very racist, arrogant, and down-right nasty religion, with their scripture literally preaching that they are above everyone else, and that all those who weren't jews were akin to animals). You don't just BECOME a bastard because a charismatic guy gave a speech, it's learned behaviour that they picked up on their their own experiences.
User avatar #264 to #33 - lucanri
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
History is written by the Victor.
User avatar #98 to #33 - badgerbaiting
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
"Remind me, never lose a war."

Churchill at the Nuremberg trials.
#59 - nebuchadnezzaurus
Reply +36 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Well, I do know the difference between an powerful and merciless faction bent on world domination, and a group of people who wish they were one. Doesn't make the former any better.
#161 - javitbc
Reply +28 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Oh, internets
User avatar #188 to #161 - minorian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Pretty sure that left side guy is from a movie.
#213 to #188 - bambuskabeetoto
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
He is, it's Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List.
User avatar #164 to #161 - umaya
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
This is also in the news, if you see someone accused of something bad they will use the most dodgy ugly picture of them they can find to make them look worse and then they get proven innocent and the pictures change.
#3 - ranzoray
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(10/10/2013) [-]
#267 to #3 - worldinthebest
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
I'd like to thank you for my new wallpaper.
I'd like to thank you for my new wallpaper.
User avatar #251 - wiredguy
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
In truth, the Nazis were ******* sexy, and I'm ready to admit that I'm pretty historically fond of them.
They were clever, organised as hell, they had amazing supplies and tactics and were impressive builders.
I'm not saying I support their views on race, they were abhorrent, but I'm pretty sure everyone here is pretty fond of the ancient Romans, but wouldn't agree with their views on what to do with your neighbourhood Christians either.
IE: Burn them alive.

The only difference between the stories of the Roman Empire and the Third Reich are that the Nazis lost, and the Romans were pretty successful.

Plus, the holocaust was more recent than the whole feeding-Christians-to-lions thing. So people are still sore about it.
We vilify Nazis and terrorists because they're recent/current, but we love the Romans and the pirates, even though they were just as bad, if not worse.

TL;DR: The Nazis deserve our respect for their accomplishments, despite their horrible deeds. In the same way that do the Romans, pirates, crusaders and the like.
Modern white supremacists who think they're edgy for claiming kinship to Hitlerian philosophies are cunts who aren't helping people to forget.
User avatar #266 to #251 - satrenkotheone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
The allies are responsible for the mass killings of the Jews... indirectly... by isolating Germany so that none of the Jews or other Nazi targets couldn't escape.

It's true however you look at it.
#274 to #251 - EpicTie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Hitler did nothing wrong.
#294 to #251 - iseewhatididthere
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #258 to #251 - EdwardNigma
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
I like you, wiredguy.
User avatar #268 to #251 - XbloodwolfX
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
I don't think anyone could have put it into better words.
#227 - awesomechardey
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
As a german i've allowed myself to fix that.
#84 - PedoBearFTW
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Since when was the Confederacy a Nazi group?
Since when was the Confederacy a Nazi group?
User avatar #180 to #84 - afrodemon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
the face to the right is a bit disturbing
#186 to #84 - anon id: 42749bbc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
The people on the picture on the right hand side are skinheads.
Basically a bunch of rednecks who beat the crap out of people who aren't white and took on the Nazi symbols because they thought it "looked cool" and represented their view.
#1 - cptmctavish
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(10/10/2013) [-]
...
They're both right winget ******* *************.... No one of them is better than the other.
#88 to #1 - anon id: 2295faaf
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
**** new zeelanders?
#4 to #1 - flybager
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(10/10/2013) [-]
I respectfully disagree.
I respectfully disagree.
User avatar #8 to #4 - gilliam
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(10/10/2013) [-]
Agreed the original nazis had some more class and self respect, but the real nazis (not your average conscribed soldier grunt) where still horrible people, and have done more bad things than these anarchists will ever do.
User avatar #19 to #8 - BenniEGHR
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
I hope to god you meant WW2 Germans and not Nazi's.

The majority of Germans fighting in WW2 were fighting because Germany was a **** stain after WW1 and they were the some of the best soldiers this world has ever seen, they didn't fight for ideals, they fought for Germany and their country.

Nazi's however were the kind of people who took power away from the poor and weak, killed millions and never fought a single person. The SS who rounded up and killed all the jews were not soldiers, they were rich kids whose parents paid for them to boost rank and they could say they fought in the war while 500 miles away from the front line and live off the paycheck for doing jack ****.

German soldiers were great soldiers and often great humans. Nazi's were evil cowards.
User avatar #28 to #19 - flybager
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
You're talking about the Wehrmacht here, right?

I love the Wehrmacht. the National socialists were faggots compared to them.
User avatar #94 to #28 - BenniEGHR
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
yes, not the party member *****, but the actual soldiers. also the Luftwaffe were my favorite Germans... I don't agree with German hating but i agree with Nazi hating
User avatar #174 to #94 - tkfourtwoone
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
Well, Michael Wittman (famous tank tank commander) joined the SS so he could become a Tiger commander more easily.
Nazi or not, he was a tremendously capable soldier.
User avatar #7 to #4 - apylon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/10/2013) [-]
I agree with your disagreement
User avatar #42 to #4 - cptmctavish
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
well, you have my attention. Go on
User avatar #18 to #4 - hachiro
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
I knew the basterds would make their way in here.
User avatar #46 - FJSoldier
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(10/11/2013) [-]
there is no "ideal" nazi who is not a faggot, regardless of looks