Hitler in the 21st century

quote:

---

No, it's nothing like a similar situation. Over here, "the government is always wrong", is the usual first reaction. In 1920's Germany, the idea that the government could be wrong would never have occurred to the vast majority of people.

---

Then why is the war on Iraq still going on? Why am I forced to drive at 20 mph on a wide road on a clear night with no people or cars around me? Why am I not allowed to protest outside my own country's parliament? Surely, if the people thought the government was wrong they would have voted it out by now. After all, our government is on its third term (10 years), GWB is on his second term. If the majority of people thought all these measures weren't for their own good they would have taken steps to stop them. Instead, most support them or at least are to afraid to openly argue against them.

quote:

---

Obeying orders doesn't happen just like that. It takes years of propaganda and social conditioning.

​

quote:

---

So you contradict yourself. We haven't had those years of conditioning.

---

---

How am I contradicting myself? You're not making sense. It's exactly because we had years of propaganda that we are now afraid to question any order that comes with an 'anti-terror', 'environmental', 'anti-child/kitten abuse' tag.

quote:

---

That depends on who you define as "us". "We" are not the ones incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, "they" are. Now, that's not a distinction that I approve of, but the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans have not had their rights infringed in a significant way (and I'm not an American, by the way).

---

Really?? even though the NSA / project Echelon are monitoring this forum as we speak ? Even though police can be knocking down your door at 6am tomorrow morning and locking you away indefinitely without any justification or accountability (habeas corpus)? Maybe you consider yourself lucky or have political connections, in any case I admire your indifference.

quote:

---

The erosion of rights for marginal groups is a danger signal, but there is no reason to suppose that that erosion will go in the direction of Nazi Germany.

---

Wow, that's just what the Germans were thinking in 1930's. First it started with the Jews, then with the Communists, then gypsies, Slavs and homosexuals, in the end they came for....you!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I don't see anything to add.Others in your community (or council) found an argument persuasive, you didn't, and it must mean the end of reason and the onset of fascism. Democracy didn't go out the window when an argument you find distasteful was presented and won the day--democracy means not always getting what you want.All this because the speed limit went from 40 to 30? Anyone busted for 35 in a 30 four times is too stupid to hold a license.It becomes even more apparent that the anecdotal juice behind your OP was (drum roll, maestro) an inconvenience.You're just whining because you didn't get your way. So drag democracy back in the window: start a campaign, run for office, circulate a petition, educate your neighbors.Or get over it.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

quote:

---

Others in your community (or council) found an argument persuasive, you didn't, and it must mean the end of reason and the onset of fascism. Democracy didn't go out the window when an argument you find distasteful was presented and won the day--democracy means not always getting what you want.

---

Are you still not getting it or just pretending? I would love for someone to have presented clear arguments that showed how taking days out of people's lives (actual total cost of hundreds of drivers having x more minutes added to their daily journey) was counteracted by the hypothetical cost of having someone jumping in front of a car. I would also love for someone to explain why I should be held responsible for other people's road manners or why I should be presumed guilty of something I might or might not do in the future. Unfortunately all I got was the old 'what about the kids?' argument. That's where meaningful duscussion (and democracy) ends.

quote:

---

All this because the speed limit went from 40 to 30? Anyone busted for 35 in a 30 four times is too stupid to hold a license.

---

Along the lines of: 'any Jew busted for being out of the ghetto after 9pm is too stupid to live'. Lovely.

quote:

---

You're just whining because you didn't get your way. So drag democracy back in the window: start a campaign, run for office, circulate a petition, educate your neighbors.

---

I'm trying but you just won't listen!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

So, if you're right, Labour will never be voted out? Don't confuse democratic/parliamentary government with majority government. But we don't have the generations (centuries) of conditioning that the German people had. You're asserting that people are slaves to propaganda, based on what? The government hasn't changed in a few years? There aren't mass protests about a speed bump?(If there's a dangerous trend here, it's the trend of people like you to disrespect their fellow voters. Why do you assume that they vote for speed bumps because of propaganda? Why not give them credit for making an intelligent decision?) Um... they can't do that. You need to get a grip on reality. No, that's really not what the Germans were thinking in the 1930's. They were thinking, "Thank God we don't have to vote any more." I am at least one thing on that list. If they come for me, you might have a case.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

sorry but no not a brilliant leader he was average at best , he was able to rule by setting one faction vs another .. not a long term plan ...he was a good speach make , be had the basic cunning of a politian , but few of the other skills ...he was just in the right place at the right time ..as a strategist he was poor , he would swing from caution to all out with no reason , he was not realistic about units capabilities , he made no logistic plans , he easily became foucsed on small details , and lost the big picture ..he was a nut , as defined as someone marching to their own tune , he had lost touch with rest of humanity .. and that is how he was able to cross so many boundaries of comman thought and behaviour ..into the war he became physiacl and mentally sick , drug dependant , paranoid ..for good reasons .. and lost touch with real events and replaced them with his desires .....

I'm not sure about the Hitler stuff, but I think I agree about the rubbishness of the "even one life" argument - because when taken to its logical conclusion there would be no road-traffic deaths at all if road traffic was banned.Whoops - got to go,

no. look. just because you have to slow down to a measly torturous 30 miles per hour does not mean you have been wronged. traffic laws change. get over it. really, i'm offended this topic even exists. and how dare you say such things to someone you know nothing about.

Lovely? It doesn't take you long to resort to genocidal accusations over a trivial local dispute, does it? My family includes Jews and was decimated by the Holocaust. So you can stuff that particular bit of nasty.Councils that don't do what you want presage Hitler; people who think 4-time-loser speeders in a quiet village are stupid are fascists.Everyone's arguments are muddled but Legend's? Your opponents are self-righteous?Priceless.Edited by Omnivorous, : road rage typos

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

quote:

---

So, if you're right, Labour will never be voted out?

---

Governments get voted in/out on a variety of issues. If Labour get voted out at the next election it will be on issues like the mounting Iraq casualties, taxes and crime, not their self-righteous justifications for infringement of civil liberties and their subtle introduction of totalitarian measures. Most people don't question this, some even think it's good for them. If, as you claim, the public today is unlike the German public circa 1930s then why don't we have massive opposition to measures that take away freedom in the name of some 'right-on' cause (road-charging petition March 2007 excepted) ?

quote:

---

Don't confuse democratic/parliamentary government with majority government.

---

I don't - it's just that when the majority of people strongly oppose something they make their voice heard and often manage to reverse government policy (see poll-tax riots in the 90s). Which is why it's in the interest of government to make the people believe that they need to tolerate a number of individually trivial -but collectively grave- 'inconveniences' in the name of a 'good' cause. People will belittle anyone objecting to the new 'traffic calming' or 'health & safety' or 'environmental' measures ( this very thread is a case in point) as something too trivial to get worried about. By chipping away constantly at these minor liberties over a period of time you end up waking up one morning to find that a major freedom (freedom of movement) has been taken away from you.

quote:

---

But we don't have the generations (centuries) of conditioning that the German people had.

---

What centuries of conditioning? The Nazis only became prominent in the 1920s. Furthermore, they didn't have access to the high-intensity, high-volume propaganda machine (tv, radio, etc) that current governments have. Our exposure to propaganda nowadays is massively greater than that of the Germans in the 20th century.

quote:

---

You're asserting that people are slaves to propaganda, based on what?

---

Based on their tendency to accept causes that are demonstrably bad for them, as long as they are presented under a 'right-on' tag.

quote:

---

The government hasn't changed in a few years? There aren't mass protests about a speed bump?

---

Nope and nope.

quote:

---

If there's a dangerous trend here, it's the trend of people like you to disrespect their fellow voters.

---

If there's a dangerous trend here, it's the trend of people like you to trivialize oppression of other people's freedoms because it hasn't happened to them (yet).

quote:

---

Even though police can be knocking down your door at 6am tomorrow morning and locking you away indefinitely without any justification or accountability (habeas corpus)?

quote:

---

Um... they can't do that. You need to get a grip on reality.

---

---

Excuse me...? Think again! In this country (UK) police can currently detain you for 28 days on suspicion of terrorism without charge and without having to provide a shred of evidence for their suspicion. Last year they tried to extend this to 90 days but -thankfully- failed . Now, senior police officers are advocating indefinite detention . Funnily enough only just now I read it was announced that they'll try again . The coffee has long been brewing. You need to wake up and start smelling it.Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

The German people didn't "lose" any freedoms - they willingly, gladly discarded them. The British people fail to massively protest every speed bump.You haven't shown how the two situations are even slightly similar. You haven't shown any constant "chipping away" - you've shown maybe two chips. And the "trend" you're worried about seems to go all the way back to the 90's? Read your history. The Nazis had nothing to do with conditioning the German people. They took advantage of a people that had never graduated from feudalism.Britain has a parliamentary system a thousand years old and a democracy developing for four hundred years. Germany had a democracy reaching back to 1919. On the contrary, Hitler had access to newspapers and radio, the only media available. Today, the Internet alone makes news sources so diffuse that no politician could have anywhere near the media stranglehold that Hitler had. You haven't demonstrated that any of those "causes" are bad for the people who accept them. You've only demonstrated that you don't like them. That may be an alarming extension of police powers, but it's still strictly limited, isn't it? And you took a long time to bring it up, didn't you?See, if you had talked about that issue initially instead of getting hysterical about a speed bump, people might take you seriously.There is no relationship between Nazi Germany and speed bumps. There is no relationship between suspension of habeas corpus and speed bumps.Don't cry "Speed bump!" when you mean "Wolf!"Edited by Ringo, : Spellwng.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

And that's different to what the British people are doing...how exactly ? In about every other post in this thread I've stated that people today are willing to accept measures of dubious, non-demonstrable benefit as long as they are justified by some 'noble' cause. Today, the causes are environmentalism, health and safety, traffic-calming, etc. In nazi Germany the causes were racial purity, living area expansion, etc. Anything that was claimed to benefit these causes was unquestionably accepted as a 'good thing', very much like today. People were/are brainwashed into unthinking obedience every time a certain term was used as justification, much like Pavlov's dogs. Just listen to any radio station today in Britan and count how many times a speed camera is referred to as a 'safety' camera and never as a 'money' camera which is exactly what it is. That's how people are conditioned to think that cameras are there for their own safety. Goebbels would have been proud. Oh, I can show you dozens of chips :
- you're not allowed to say anything that 'glorifies' terrorism. So if, heaven forbid, you say you admire the Palestinian struggle for independence you could get arrested (and possibly held for a month in a secret location without charge if the arresting officers take a dislike to you)
- you are obliged to give a DNA sample when you're arrested, even if you're not charged with anything.
- every offence is now an arrestable offence (also see how nicely it ties in with above)
- When your car is caught by a speed camera you are obliged to give the driver's name and address (no "you have the right to remain silent" here)
- When you are accused of a sex crime you have to prove your innocence (presumed guilt)
- You're not allowed to drive at a safe speed for the conditions even if there is no presence of cars/pedestrians on the road. You are obliged to drive at the speed the state has pre-determined for you.
- You are watched by hundreds of cameras every day of your life, more so than any other citizen in the world.
- Police are now given access to data from traffic cameras to use for reasons other than traffic offences.
- If you're caught exeeding the speed limit by five(5) mph you're given the option of a fine & points or a brainwashing, oops, I meant correction course where you are shown the error of your ways even though you've done absolutely no ill to anyone, nor did you put anyone in harm's way in any shape or form.that's just off the top of my head, there are many more ways the government criminalises (and thereby controls) the average person. You're basing this on the assumption that people living in feudalist/oligarchic systems are more susceptible to propaganda and social conditioning. This is a false assumption. History has shown that people living in democracies are just as susceptible, or even more so, as living in a democracy creates a false illusion of participation in government and creates a bubble of trust in the system. People find it more difficult to believe that a government that most of them voted for could be actively manipulating them or even lying to them. In oligarchic societies this level of trust is much lower.One only has to look at the McCarthy era in the States to see how many average Americans really believed that there were communists under their bed. We can now look back and laugh at their naivety but, at the time, that was the message drummed into them by their elected representatives. After all, it's hard to accept that your elected congressman is wrong as that would mean that you'd be also wrong after having voted for them. a simple example: lowering the speed limit from 30mph to 20 mph raises the time people spend in their cars and, therefore, away from their families, friends, and anything else constructive. Cumulatively, people are forced to spend thousands of man hours trapped in their cars every day. It also increases car emissions and, hence, damages the environment. There's also evidence that it increases road rage incidents, raises blood pressure and precipitates heart attacks.Now your turn: how do we (the people) benefit from lowering the speed limit from 30mph to 20 mph ? It's already the highest in the western world and isn't going to be limited for much longer, not if the government can help it. It's one of the dozens of examples of state propaganda leading to unquestioning surrender of freedoms, therefore it could have have come up anytime, or even not at all. And herein lies the rub. If you object to the government introducing oppressive measures -based on a 'noble' cause- that lead to speed bumps you're shouted down as being hysterical. If you object to the government introducing oppressive measures -based on a 'noble' cause- that lead to the extermination of six million people you're hailed as a hero. Diferrent context, different results, same methods, same attitude.If we can't defend small liberties we don't deserve big ones.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

When the Prime Minister disbands Parliament and assumes dictatorial powers, if nobody protests, ask me again. How does that relate to Nazi Germany? How is that a "loss" of civil liberties? When did the "right to remain silent" ever mean an inalienable right to withhold evidence? As far as I know, that isn't true. The only change in recent times is that in a he-said/she-said situation, she doesn't have to prove she wasn't "asking for it". A "safe speed for the condtions" means that you should drive slower than the posted limit when the conditions are bad. It has never been a carte blanche for making up your own rules. You really need to learn to stop saying "you" - meaning me - when you mean "me" - meaning you. I - meaning me - am only on camera when I go to WalMart. Now, if you're comparing WalMart to Nazi Germany.... When did police ever compartmentalize their information? Those courses are designed to show you how you are putting others in harm's way. My mother was killed by a driver who was going 30 mph when he should have been going 20 mph.Hopefully, the course he was sent on "brainwashed" him into thinking about the consequences of his actions, so he won't kill anybody else. Freedom from speedbumps is not a "small liberty".If you have a point to make about civil liberties, you need to get your act together. Drop the silly comparisons to Nazi Germany and drop the demonizing of speedbumps.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I saw on BBC a few months ago about this very issue in Britain with a strange twist to it. The cameras that were proposed to be watching every street in London also had a special lense that allowed them to see right through people's clothings. The idea was to watch for concealed weapons and bombs. I saw a same of what these lenses could do a while back. You could literally see everything from nipples to belly buttons to penises.Added by edit.And can I humbly remind people of Godwin's Law?Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

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!

quote:

---

Ringo writes:

​

The German people didn't "lose" any freedoms - they willingly, gladly discarded them.

Legend writes:

​

And that's different to what the British people are doing...how exactly ?

Ringo writes:

​

When the Prime Minister disbands Parliament and assumes dictatorial powers, if nobody protests, ask me again.

---

But Hitler didn't disband Parliament and assumed dictatorial powers! He asked the people for them in a referendum and they gave them to him with an 85% approval rate!And, anyway, doesn't your last statement contradict what you said right before, i.e. that the Germans willingly, gladly discarded
their freedom (which is what I've been saying that the British have been doing, all along) ?

quote:

---

you're not allowed to say anything that 'glorifies' terrorism. So if, heaven forbid, you say you admire the Palestinian struggle for independence you could get arrested (and possibly held for a month in a secret location without charge if the arresting officers take a dislike to you)

Ringo writes:

​

How does that relate to Nazi Germany?

---

Do I need to spell it out? in Nazi Germany you weren't allowed to say anything that 'glorified' Jews or you ended up in concentration camp. Now, like then, freedom of speech is just a theoretical principle.

quote:

---

you are obliged to give a DNA sample when you're arrested, even if you're not charged with anything.

Ringo writes:

​

How is that a "loss" of civil liberties?

---

The DNA sample is stored in a database forever. In a free country I (should) have the right not to be monitored or otherwise 'tagged' by the police unless I'm under suspicion of a crime.

quote:

---

When your car is caught by a speed camera you are obliged to give the driver's name and address (no "you have the right to remain silent" here)

Ringo writes:

​

When did the "right to remain silent" ever mean an inalienable right to withhold evidence?

---

It's not up to the accused to produce evidence that incriminates them (that used to happen in Mao's China a lot, usually after some torture). I (should) have the right to remain silent until the trial. It's up to the police/CPS to produce evidence showing my guilt. You live in a free-er country than I do then. Like I said before, it's when people belittle loss of freedoms, that you know you're heading down a one-way street. Maybe not. But freedom to travel from A to B at a reasonable speed at no risk to anyone, without being watched, impeded or punished, certainly is.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

i don't think you have any kind of right to unimpeded travel. our constitution certainly doesn't. and since when is 35 an unreasonable speed?