|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitler in the 21st century | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
I've been wondering lately, how would Hitler have coped had he lived in the first half of the 21st century instead of the 20th.
I'm convinced that he would come to love our self-righteous, politically correct, responsibility-absolving, society. He could justify any atrocities with the standard arguments used today :1) It's for the good of the environment. 2) What about the kids? 3) If it saves one life... Let's face it, if Adolf could produce statistics signed by some scientists claiming that the murder of 6 million people lowered ozone emissions by 20% and reduced the average 'carbon footprint' then I can't see how any modern western leader (GWB excepted perhaps) could point a finger at him. It's a get-out-of-jail card (literally!). Ofcourse he could always play the if-it-saves-just-one-life card. This is succesfully used worldwide, commonly to reduce traffic speed limits to the level of strolling tortoises on a lazy Sunday afternoon. He would argue that amongst the millions of people he murdered there would statistically bound to be at least two paedophiles, one digital copyright violator and four serial parking offenders. Therefore, he would say, by taking this unpopular measure of slaughtering millions of people, a child would -probably- be saved from molestation and U2 wouldn't have to trade-in their luxury, gold-plated Mark-II yacht for a luxury, gold-plated Mark-I yacht. Should any daring soul try to poke holes in this argument, he would would play his trump card: by throwing his head back in disgust, he would howl in moral indignation: "But what about the Kids!? (echo: the Kids..the Kids..)". That surely would be sufficient to shut up any critics once and for all. But even in the unlikely event that none of the above worked and he had to stand trial surely all his lawyer would have to do is explain to the judges how young Adolf had been molested as a child by a gay gypsy of Jewish-Slavic origin and how this had led him to illusions of grandeur and street-painting and after all the bloody Poles weren't guarding their borders as well as they should, tempting him to invade, thereby constituting a neglect of duty-of-care and could he have some compensation please? What does everyone else think? How would Hitler fare in our society? P.S One for the Coffee House I think. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Are you on drugs or are you just bored?
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well, there's one obvious way to test your fantasy, oops, I mean "hypothesis". Go about advocating genocide on the grounds that it'll stem global warming, save just one life, or benefit children, and see if people agree with you or if they react as though you're evil and insane.
If you think a toothbrush moustache would help, you go for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
dear, i think you should spend a little more time reading into the continuity of genocides throughout the last and into this century before you question whether hitler would still have been successful in his campaign.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Dr A writes:
Um, no. First, you need a great war. An all out war between the US and Canada is preferred. After the US is defeated, Canada can then impose strict and unfair sanctions against the US as a punishment. In turn, this will cause the American people to become desperate for a pay back. Go about advocating genocide on the grounds that it'll stem global warming, save just one life, or benefit children, and see if people agree with you or if they react as though you're evil and insane. Then, the Republican party would stand up and tell the American people that they are actually a superior race of people. The head of this political party will no doubt be another Bush. He'll blame the US's defeat in the great war on them gheys. After much debate as to whether ship all them gheys off to Hawaii or to take more drastic actions, a decision is reached to put them in ghettos and then ultimately concentration camps. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3986 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
I don't think an American Hitler could hope for anything more than a Republican seat in Congress.
Maybe a pulpit. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course the United States has had at least one American Hitler, Andrew Jackson. He was also far more successful than Adolph Hitler, the territories he conquered have been held onto longer and he was far more successful in his genocide and ethic cleansing.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3986 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
True. Ol' Hickory was a purely mean man and probably our best historical candidate for the job.
Now it would take a Muslim killer, I suppose, rather than an Indian killer, to vie for the position. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
well, I was kind of hoping that this discussion would drift more towards our self-righteous, politically correct, responsibility-absolving, society rather than Hitler himself.
Part of my motivation was a council meeting in our local village I attended last month. They want to narrow some roads and put up speed ramps although our village is accident-free and most people here are old-age pensioners. I pointed that out and a few people backed me up. The proposing councillor countered by saying that traffic calming was 'the right thing to do'. When I suggested that it would cause more misery than it would solve he played his trump card: 'what about the local school' he yowled, 'if it saves the life of just one child crossing the street then isn't it worth the inconvenience?' The people who had backed me up hanged their heads in shame. I tried to reply but my voice was drowned out by a mantra of 'if it saves one child...'. On my way home I couldn't help thinking that any tin-pot dictator could have stood in that hall and proclaim absolutely anything he liked and noone would object. We have been conditioned to accept certain justifications uncritically and unthinking. People are told to accept the 'right thing to do' instead of what's actually good and beneficial for them. Hitler would have loved it. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
When I suggested that it would cause more misery than it would solve he played his trump card: 'what about the local school' he yowled, 'if it saves the life of just one child crossing the street then isn't it worth the inconvenience?' The people who had backed me up hanged their heads in shame. I tried to reply but my voice was drowned out by a mantra of 'if it saves one child...'. The reason people are talking about Hitler is because we don't consider the murder of 6 million people to be an 'inconvenience' worth saving the life of one child by any stretch of the imagination. While beaurocratic busy bodies attempting to justify their transport budget for the financial year is a fact of life.
On my way home I couldn't help thinking that any tin-pot dictator could have stood in that hall and proclaim absolutely anything he liked and noone would object. We have been conditioned to accept certain justifications uncritically and unthinking. People are told to accept the 'right thing to do' instead of what's actually good and beneficial for them. Hitler would have loved it. And the point is - that Hitler would not have loved it. At least - not in Europe where we celebrate multiculturalism, have a Europe wide alliance, and where a coup of Hitler's standards could not succeed. He might be able to get a seat by raving about immigration issues in a few countries hither and thither. If he stood up and said 'we need to exterminate the Muslims to save the children', he'd get the same kind of response Now - if he was in America instead, we might have a point. America would be much easier to radicalise - all he'd need is to win the election in a peaceful coup (no need to military coups for our modern tinpot dictator), have a couple of Reichstag fires and enough of the American people will agree to the killing of thousands of innocent people on the off chance that the nation those people belonged to happened to be possibly involved, or at least the nation might have secretly wished they were involved, or they are planning another Reichstag fire, and so killing thousands of people is justified then! Still, who'd believe that could happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
quote:Again, the focus here isn't specifically on Hitler nor on genocide. It' on how certain politically-correct, 'right-on' principles are accepted and defended with almost religious fervour and used to justify a great number of misery-causing measures. When talking about genocide and Hitler I was using an exaggerated example in order to make a point. Hitler groomed and relied on an audience conditioned to accept ideological causes (race purity, ethic expansion, etc.) in order to justify horrific crimes that ultimately harmed his supporters as well as his victims. Today, we have a great number of people conditioned to accept a different set of ideological causes (environment, children welfare, terrorism, etc) in order to justify measures that restrict their freedom of movement, speech and expression. quote: I'm sorry but I can't help but chuckle whenever I hear about 'celebrating multiculturalism'. It's up there with 'enabling diversity' and 'promoting equality'. As for your view that Hitler couldn't succeed here let's remind ourselves that our current government, as we speak, is using terrorist activity (real and imaginary) in order to oppress civil liberties, curtail freedoms, muffle opposition and demonize certain views and ideologies. Any parallels with 1930s Germany springing to mind ? And if you don't like it then go and protest outside Parliament. Oops, I forgot, you're not allowed to! "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: At least - not in Europe where we celebrate multiculturalism Do we? I wonder. Do we celebrate bi-culturalism in Northern Ireland and Glasgow? Or tri-culturalism in Bosnia? Do we celebrate "us and them" situations anywhere. I'd certainly be happy to celebrate melting-pot cities, as long as there's plenty of melting going on. But the expression multi-culturalism too often seems to be used by people whom I'd describe as liberal-conservatives. Those who want to justify the indoctrination of children with different beliefs ("their cultures") and who seem to visualise a future world with Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus living happily side by side. Fat chance. Sorry if I'm off topic, Legend. Buy a bicycle, it'll do you good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3986 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Maybe you were just wrong.
Perhaps your village has been accident free due to its bucolic character, but now younger folks are moving in and bustling about more aggressively, whether you see them or not. It may well be that the "proposing councillor" is responding to requests from residents who have observed changes in traffic patterns near the school. It's hard for me to see how this proposal reflects a society that is "self-righteous, politically correct, responsibility-absolving." Those proposing the changes may be wrong, of course. But I suspect that remaining accident-free in the face of demographic change (and if most residents are old-age pensioners, change is definitely on the way if not arriving) will require something more than benign neglect. If the spending is for no more than a few speed bumps and a little road work, then pointing out that saving one child's life makes that a bargain sounds quite legitimate. At any rate, it's thin gruel for talk of Hitler. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
the point isn't whether I'm wrong or right, it's about how self-righteous and politically-correct beliefs are used to justify and give legitimacy to almost anything. Instead of having a constructive dialogue with demonstrable evidence for or against any proposals, we have appeal to emotion and the 'right thing to do'.
quote:Someone is trying to to punish innocent people because a child may (or may not) jump in front of a moving car; because it makes them sleep better at night knowing that they've done 'the right thing' and screw the hundreds who suffer. That, to me, is a classic self-righteous attitude. The fact that the risk of a child doing so doesn't trigger a campaign for childrens roadside discipline and better parenting, as it ought to, but instead a campaign of punishment of drivers, is indicative of the "it's someone else's fault" attitude that sadly permeats our society. quote:Yes, it seems a bit far-fetched to extraopolate genocide and torture as a result of the current climate of self-righteousness. Having said that, if you told someone thirty yrs ago that soon they could end up losing their livelihood for driving at 40 mph on an empty dual carriageway, with no houses within a 30 yrd range either side, they would laugh at you. They're not laughing now. Today's fiction is tomorrow's reality. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3986 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Legend writes: the point isn't whether I'm wrong or right, it's about how self-righteous and politically-correct beliefs are used to justify and give legitimacy to almost anything. Instead of having a constructive dialogue with demonstrable evidence for or against any proposals, we have appeal to emotion and the 'right thing to do'. The problem is that you have used an anecdote of local democracy to critique something you feel has global reach. If you are wrong about the local incident, then your global critique fails. That self-righteous, politically correct beliefs were and are used to justfity "almost anything" is merely your assertion: the merit of your case, so far, rests entirely on a local anecdote. How are hundreds suffering? Because they have to slow down? Is this "a campaign of punishment for drivers"--or a reasonable public policy designed to prevent needless fatalities? How are drivers going to "end up losing their livelihood" in this case? Speed limits in a local jurisdiction vary according to the local statutory authority; apparently, in your locale, the changes you object to were established through a democratic process: therefore, a democratic process of repeal is available to you. In my experience, elected representatives respond to community pressures in these sorts of situations--apparently some members of your community saw a need for these changes prior to any self-righteous, politically correct arguments being made at the council meeting. You can mount all the campaigns you like, but you will not change the behavior of children, who lack the brain maturity to behave with the caution of adults. I am confident that you would not ascribe your child's grave injury or death at the hands of a speeding driver to your own failure to indoctrinate that child with perfect caution. It seems to me that you are objecting to an nonideologically derived inconvenience--an inconvenience that you feel outweighs others' concerns for child safety. Isn't it your emotive response that we see at work here? Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024