Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hitler in the 21st century
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 1 of 136 (411582)
07-21-2007 12:46 PM


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."

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Taz, posted 07-21-2007 1:30 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2007 1:41 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-21-2007 1:42 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 07-21-2007 9:13 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 36 by Tusko, posted 07-24-2007 7:58 AM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 9 of 136 (411731)
07-22-2007 5:45 AM


the point is..
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."

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2007 6:18 AM Legend has replied
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 07-22-2007 10:16 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 11 of 136 (411737)
07-22-2007 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
07-22-2007 6:18 AM


Re: the point is..
quote:
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
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:
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
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2007 6:18 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 10:56 AM Legend has replied
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 07-23-2007 11:23 AM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 14 of 136 (411783)
07-22-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Omnivorous
07-22-2007 10:16 AM


Re: Things change
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:
It's hard for me to see how this proposal reflects a society that is "self-righteous, politically correct, responsibility-absolving."
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:
At any rate, it's thin gruel for talk of Hitler.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 07-22-2007 10:16 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Omnivorous, posted 07-22-2007 4:44 PM Legend has replied
 Message 21 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-23-2007 2:14 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 16 of 136 (411918)
07-23-2007 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Omnivorous
07-22-2007 4:44 PM


Re: Things change
quote:
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.
How so? I'm highlighting the fact that 'right-on' justifications are used as a substitute to reason, pragmatism and hard facts. Whether, in this specific instance, it's right to impose traffic measures or not is besides the point.
quote:
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.
I just used this local anecdote as it was a recent example which partly triggered my post. However, such arguments are used almost daily on a vast scope. Off the top of my head:
- War on Iraq: when no WMDs were found, Mr Blair justified the huge of loss of life by saying that he did the 'right thing' and that Saddam was a 'bad man' and 'evil dictator' and 'he would have killed more'. The if-it-saves-one-life fallacy in all its glory.
- Road charging and motoring taxation. Under the guise of environmentalism our government taxes motorists to the hilt and justifies it with the 'reducing carbon foorprint' excuse. When it's pointed out that more effective alternatives exist that can be implemented much easier and cheaper it just refuses to listen and
justifies it by the 'environment is our top priority' smugness.
- School violence and harassment. Teachers are verbally and physically abused by pupils and there's nothing they can do about it. Justification: giving an abusive child a clip round the ear is 'not the right thing to do'.
I could go on an don but let's leave it at that for now.
quote:
How are hundreds suffering? Because they have to slow down?
Because it takes them longer to get anywhere, because going over speed ramps the size of Berlin Wall causes discomfort (particularly to elderly arthritis sufferers I'm told), because they have to re-arrange their whole lifestyle so that some self-righteous tin-pot dictator can sleep better at night knowing that he's done 'the right thing'.
quote:
Is this "a campaign of punishment for drivers"--or a reasonable public policy designed to prevent needless fatalities?
First, the moment politically correct justifications, like the ones described above, come into play reason goes out of the window.
Second, any measures that target a particular group in order to counter-act something that is beyond this group's ability to control are punitive.
quote:
How are drivers going to "end up losing their livelihood" in this case?
You get caught four times driving at 35 mph in a 30 zone you're going to lose your license. Without the use of a car most people (including me) can't get to work. They lose their livelihood.
quote:
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.
The democratic process went right out of the window the moment the "what about the kids?" card came out. Even people who initially objected were shamed into non-arguing with that one. If the meeting had been about invading Poland instead of traffic measures, the same outcome would be guaranteed.
quote:
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.
I presume that by speeding you mean 'going over the speed limit' rather than 'driving excessively fast for the conditions'. Should my daughter be knocked down by a car I would initially question my (or my wife's) level of care at the time, rather than immediately apportion blame to someone else, as is the norm nowadays.
That's why we don't let our daughter play on the street, although it costs us more to buy a house with a large back garden and suffer the inconvenience of all her friends going in and out of our house at will. It's because we are responsible for her well being, not some passing motorist.
quote:
Isn't it your emotive response that we see at work here?
If by emotive you mean passionate, then yes. That doesn't invalidate my point in any way.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Omnivorous, posted 07-22-2007 4:44 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ikabod, posted 07-23-2007 7:29 AM Legend has replied
 Message 32 by Omnivorous, posted 07-23-2007 7:06 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 23 of 136 (412067)
07-23-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
07-23-2007 10:56 AM


Re: the point is..
quote:
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:
Welcome to humanity, I'm afraid. I don't think there has been a civilization that didn't have this going on.

Well, we can definitely understand it happening in medieval England, even Nazi Germany up to a point. What's our excuse? we should know better!
quote:
Politicians being twats is not the same as Hitler being successful in a crude military coup.
Hitler didn't assume power in a coup. He had success in a democratic election and was appointed chancellor by the lawful president of the country. The Nazis had over 200 seats in the parliament. Hitler had more of a popular mandate to lead his country than Gordown Brown has to lead ours!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 10:56 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2007 5:57 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 24 of 136 (412068)
07-23-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ikabod
07-23-2007 7:29 AM


Re: Things change
quote:
Hitler was a nut , if he had not gained power he would have done little harm , but the conditions allowed his rise , and as always happens all that is need for the bad to win is the good to do nothing .
Yes and the conditions included the general unquestioning acceptance by the populace of certain moral justifications. Think about it, the majority of Germans accepted the persecution of Jews on the general principle that it was for the good of the nation, though such a correlation was never demonstrated, let alone quantified.
Similarly, people today are conditioned to accept any cause in the name of the environment / child welfare / etc. without any critical thinking. Indeed anyone who dares criticize any such justifications is marginalised and branded as selfish/child-hating/unsociable etc.
quote:
PC statements are just another set of ammo for the political animals to use , just like falling moral standards, TV shows , women at work , abortion ,foreigners , football fans , drug use , the other political party.
yes, but at least I can question TV shows or drug-use justifications without my opponent assuming the high-ground and asking condescendingly "What, you have something against children/the environment/disabled people?"
quote:
go back and look at where the speed reducing measure are put .. i'll bet they do not effecdt the "council members" to much ..
funny you should say that, one of the main advocates of these measures lives in a farmhouse outside our village. He only comes in once or twice a week. He even gets his shopping delivered by Tesco! He won't even notice.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ikabod, posted 07-23-2007 7:29 AM ikabod has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 25 of 136 (412070)
07-23-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by macaroniandcheese
07-23-2007 2:14 PM


Re: Things change
quote:
dude. it's a speed bump, not the blood of virgins.
No. It's speedbumps. And speed cameras. And traffic lights. And lane closures. And they're everywhere.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-23-2007 2:14 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-23-2007 5:47 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 27 of 136 (412079)
07-23-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
07-23-2007 11:23 AM


Re: the point is..
quote:
You should know better than that. You've started a classic don't-think-about-elephants scenario. You can't put elephants or Hitler or homosexuality in the title of the topic and then expect people to ignore them.
it's a good job I didn't use my 'Jeffrey Dahmers on safari' analogy then.
quote:
Hitler relied on an audience that was used to obeying orders without question.
Yes, just like we're used to obey orders without questions. As long as they're to -allegedly- further some politically-correct cause.
quote:
I don't think they were "conditioned to accept ideological causes" at all.
Obeying orders doesn't happen just like that. It takes years of propaganda and social conditioning.
quote:
The most obvious "non-parallel" is the fact that the German people were willing to accept the suspension of their constitution.
What, you mean like we have already accepted the suspension of our freedoms ? Have you heard of "habeas corpus", one of the most ancient and fundamental principles of our society ? Well, it's gone - wave it goodbye! Ofcourse you guys lost it a long time ago, ergo Guantanamo Bay. We (British) don't have a written constitution but, if we did, rest assured it'd be crumpled up in the rubbish bin (only to be fined by the council for putting paper in the non-recyclable bin as it's not the 'right thing to do' you selfish planet hater, but I'm digressing...)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 07-23-2007 11:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 07-23-2007 6:21 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 28 of 136 (412083)
07-23-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by macaroniandcheese
07-23-2007 5:47 PM


Re: Things change
In another life, were you one of those people who went around saying: "dude. it's just the star of David on your lapel, not genocide." ??

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-23-2007 5:47 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-24-2007 9:23 AM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 31 of 136 (412102)
07-23-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
07-23-2007 6:21 PM


Re: the point is..
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 07-23-2007 6:21 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 07-23-2007 8:11 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 33 of 136 (412105)
07-23-2007 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Omnivorous
07-23-2007 7:06 PM


Re: Things change
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Omnivorous, posted 07-23-2007 7:06 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Omnivorous, posted 07-24-2007 10:30 AM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 39 of 136 (412439)
07-24-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by ringo
07-23-2007 8:11 PM


Re: the point is..
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 07-23-2007 8:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 07-24-2007 8:53 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 41 of 136 (412584)
07-25-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ringo
07-24-2007 8:53 PM


Re: the point is..
ringo writes:
The German people didn't "lose" any freedoms - they willingly, gladly discarded them.
And that's different to what the British people are doing...how exactly ?
ringo writes:
You haven't shown how the two situations are even slightly similar.
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.
ringo writes:
You haven't shown any constant "chipping away" - you've shown maybe two chips.
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.
ringo writes:
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.
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.
ringo writes:
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.
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 ?
ringo writes:
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?.
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.
ringo writes:
If you object to self-righteous measures that lead to the introduction of speed bumps, you're jst being hysterical
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.
ringo writes:
There is no relationship between Nazi Germany and speed bumps. There is no relationship between suspension of habeas corpus and speed bumps.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ringo, posted 07-24-2007 8:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 07-25-2007 4:07 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 44 of 136 (413070)
07-27-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
07-25-2007 4:07 PM


loss of freedom
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.
Ringo writes:
I - meaning me - am only on camera when I go to WalMart.
You live in a free-er country than I do then.
Ringo writes:
Now, if you're comparing WalMart to Nazi Germany....
Like I said before, it's when people belittle loss of freedoms, that you know you're heading down a one-way street.
Ringo writes:
Freedom from speedbumps is not a "small liberty".
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 07-25-2007 4:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-27-2007 3:03 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 07-27-2007 3:39 PM Legend has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024