Liberalism is Dead and Evangelicals Don't Deserve It Anyway

[Arthur Brain]

It has been suggested that only Muslims that do the killing are extremists, and the ones that don't do the killing are not.
I compare that with the Nazis that did not do any killing.
It was suggested that even thought not all Nazis killed Jews, they were still happy other Nazis were doing the killing.
I compare that with Muslims that don't do the killing but were still happy other Muslims were doing the killing.

With Muslims it was suggested that they should be critiqued individually.
But all Nazis get grouped together as "bad" no matter what they individually did.
Seems to be a double standard as to why one entire group can be hated for what their extremists did, but not the other.

Some of your far right brethren think homosexuals and adulterers should be swiftly and painfully executed and it be broadcast on television.

Nazism is an extreme ideology in itself so there's no real 'moderation' in it. Do the math.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nazism is supremacist, a hate incepted ideology (extremist in it conception.); Islam, a religious with varying degrees of dogmatic austerity.

The difference should be obvious to all but the stubbornly dense. (Ex. Tam)

Yep...

 

[Tambora]

Some of your far right brethren think homosexuals and adulterers should be swiftly and painfully executed and it be broadcast on television.

Like Muslims do.

 

[quip]

I get your gist.
But let me ask .....
If a person in Germany at the time Hitler was at his peak was told to help gas Jews with the threat of death, would he be considered a Nazi if he chose to do it rather than be killed? (I only helped to kill them to keep myself alive.)
I ask this with the notion that there were probably several soldiers that did what they did for precisely that same reason.
And so did some Jews.
Were they considered Nazis because they carried out the orders?
Or does 'Nazi' only truly fit those that WANTED to do it?
And if so, then how do we determine if someone really did WANT to do it, because that might eliminate many of the soldiers that carried out their orders to stay alive as being a real Nazi.
There are just so many things to consider.

They served the Nazi's bidding. If you serve the devil....are you not considered evil?

 

[Tambora]

On here, there's far right, fundamentalist "Christian" cesspools who would murder people for not living a "moral" enough life. Go figure.

Like Muslims do.

 

[Tambora]

They served the Nazi's bidding. If you serve the devil....are you not considered evil?

So the Jews that served the Nazi's bidding and helped kill other Jews so they could stay alive were Nazis?

 

[quip]

So the Jews that served the Nazi's bidding and helped kill other Jews so they could stay alive were Nazis?

They worked in the service of Nazis.

Is there a practical difference?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Like Muslims do.

Only extremists. Are you going to berate the Christian extremists who advocate such putrid, vile crap?

 

[Traditio]

A few thoughts:

1. The holocaust is an historical accident. Tell me: what do you suppose the US would have done with the ethnic Japanese interns had the war turned out differently?

2. But yes, yes, the holocaust. Horrible thing. Tell me what you think about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

3. Islam absolutely is a violent ideology, as is Marxism. They are both overtly and explicitly violent ideologies. The Islamic history of military expansion and Jihad, the taking of slaves, etc. didn't occur in an ideological vacuum, and furthermore, Marx explicitly asserts that the revolution is to be a violent one.

But had I put up a hammer and sickle, or a crescent moon and star, would any of you be insisting that I take it down?

Or how about we talk about Judaism? After all, the problems with Islam are simply the problems of Judaism writ large. The Jews think that they have a divine right to Israel, a right that justifies the use of violence to maintain it; the muslims assert that they have a divine right to...everything. The entire world must be Islamic.

In comparison to these ideologies, Naziism is a relatively peaceful political ideology. The militarism and expansionism of the Nazi German state was an historical accident, due, among other things, to the fact that Hitler just so happened to be in charge of the party.

4. Spare me your moral outrage over the swastika if you have no complaints against the American flag, at least, after WWII.

 

[drbrumley]

I don't freak out at political satire, so I'm not against them at all.
So I'm not making any point to discourage such.

The point was simply why is it OK to use Nazi symbols galore to identify someone as a Nazi that doesn't even identify themself as Nazi.
It would seem that using the symbols to identify a non-Nazi as Nazi would be even worse use of the symbols than one that actually identifies himself as a Nazi.
Use the symbols all you want to with anyone not identifying as such. Good.
But use the symbols for someone that does identify as such. Not good.
Town made the argument using a very sad story of a woman and child being treated barbarically by Nazis, and expressed that by Trad using that symbol would stir up offensive emotions because of the horrors those symbols bring to mind.
But why do the same symbols used for non-identifying Nazis not stir up the same horrid emotions, if it is indeed the symbol itself that stirs such emotions?

Some people tend to let emotions rule their actions.
And no, I'm not saying that emotions are always wrong (before someone accuses me of that too).
I'm suggesting that if it is the symbols that stir those horrid emotions, then the symbols should be abhorrent anywhere used.
But as we can see, they are not.

TOL is a Christian site.
GOD is tops.
Satan is the lowest (way way below Nazis).
And yet TOL would allow a pentagram symbol as an avatar.
Just think about that comparison for a second.
We allow Satanic symbols to be used, but Nazi symbols are too horrid.
Sounds a little off kilter, don't ya think?

Who had a pentagram?

 

[kmoney]

I don't freak out at political satire, so I'm not against them at all.
So I'm not making any point to discourage such.

The point was simply why is it OK to use Nazi symbols galore to identify someone as a Nazi that doesn't even identify themself as Nazi.
It would seem that using the symbols to identify a non-Nazi as Nazi would be even worse use of the symbols than one that actually identifies himself as a Nazi.
Use the symbols all you want to with anyone not identifying as such. Good.
But use the symbols for someone that does identify as such. Not good.
Town made the argument using a very sad story of a woman and child being treated barbarically by Nazis, and expressed that by Trad using that symbol would stir up offensive emotions because of the horrors those symbols bring to mind.
But why do the same symbols used for non-identifying Nazis not stir up the same horrid emotions, if it is indeed the symbol itself that stirs such emotions?

Some people tend to let emotions rule their actions.
And no, I'm not saying that emotions are always wrong (before someone accuses me of that too).
I'm suggesting that if it is the symbols that stir those horrid emotions, then the symbols should be abhorrent anywhere used.
But as we can see, they are not.

TOL is a Christian site.
GOD is tops.
Satan is the lowest (way way below Nazis).
And yet TOL would allow a pentagram symbol as an avatar.
Just think about that comparison for a second.
We allow Satanic symbols to be used, but Nazi symbols are too horrid.
Sounds a little off kilter, don't ya think?

What I'm saying is that context of the symbol matters.

 

[drbrumley]

1. The holocaust is an historical accident.

An accident? Stupid me, here I thought all this time an accident meant there was no intent.....

Tell me: what do you suppose the US would have done with the ethnic Japanese interns had the war turned out differently?

Who knows...we never got that far.

2. But yes, yes, the holocaust. Horrible thing. Tell me what you think about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Despicable I would say...but no more despicable having Palestinians blow up innocent Israeli's...two wrongs don't make a right..

3. Islam absolutely is a violent ideology, as is Marxism. They are both overtly and explicitly violent ideologies. The Islamic history of military expansion and Jihad, the taking of slaves, etc. didn't occur in an ideological vacuum, and furthermore, Marx explicitly asserts that the revolution is to be a violent one.

As are Nazi's...

But had I put up a hammer and sickle, or a crescent moon and star, would any of you be insisting that I take it down?

No, you have the right to use such avatars...but we have the right to mock you for the dumb things you do and say.

Or how about we talk about Judaism? After all, the problems with Islam are simply the problems of Judaism writ large. The Jews think that they have a divine right to Israel, a right that justifies the use of violence to maintain it; the muslims assert that they have a divine right to...everything. The entire world must be Islamic.

Um, not so fast and loose there kid..

In comparison to these ideologies, Naziism is a relatively peaceful political ideology. The militarism and expansionism of the Nazi German state was an historical accident, due to the fact that Hitler just so happened to be in charge of the party.

Wow....if you went to college, I would want my money back...

4. Spare me your moral outrage over the swastika if you have no complaints against the American flag, at least, after WWII.

I have a lot of complaints about a flag that represents this nation.

 

[kmoney]

I get your gist.
But let me ask .....
If a person in Germany at the time Hitler was at his peak was told to help gas Jews with the threat of death, would he be considered a Nazi if he chose to do it rather than be killed? (I only helped to kill them to keep myself alive.)
I ask this with the notion that there were probably several soldiers that did what they did for precisely that same reason.
And so did some Jews.
Were they considered Nazis because they carried out the orders?
Or does 'Nazi' only truly fit those that WANTED to do it?
And if so, then how do we determine if someone really did WANT to do it, because that might eliminate many of the soldiers that carried out their orders to stay alive as being a real Nazi.
There are just so many things to consider.

I do appreciate your candor in trying to narrow this down as much as we can as to what constitutes a real Nazi when it comes to who did the killing.

If someone assisted the Nazis out of personal survival I wouldn't label them a Nazi but I'm not sure how that matters for the present discussion. We're talking about self-identifying Nazis.

 

[Rusha]

They worked in the service of Nazis.

Is there a practical difference?

To the same extent that the Manson Family's actions were different than that of *their* master.

 

[Tambora]

If someone assisted the Nazis out of personal survival I wouldn't label them a Nazi but I'm not sure how that matters for the present discussion.

Because that excuse could also fall to many of the soldiers that carried out the orders.
How many of the soldiers (even in the top ranks) just carried out the orders so they could stay alive and go home to their families at the end of the day?

We're talking about self-identifying Nazis.

So if you do not identify as a Nazi, the symbols are not offensive to use; but if you do identify as a Nazi then the same symbols become offensive to use.
I'm not so sure that standard could be considered as being fair to all.

 

[drbrumley]

Didn't Nuremberg address this already....

 

[kmoney]

We have a multiracial society in which racial identities have been and are being concretized, set in sharp relief, reinforced and politicized. We have a multiracial society in which white people, and especially CIS straight white men, are in the process of being demonized.

The demonization is a reaction. The extremes aren't justified, but still a reaction. So it seems a bit absurd that when minorities try to knock you off your pedestal that your reaction is to take ball and go home in the form of creating a white state. But then again it's not surprising since a while back you said black people should go back to Africa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...racism-is-getting-worse-against-white-people/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/blacks-white-racism-united-states-polls/index.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-people-ethnic-equality-staff-job-internship

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...wants-people-ethnic-minority-backgrounds.html

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...lent-and-oppressive-force-of-nature-on-earth/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/aeman-ansari/ethnic-safe-spaces_b_6897176.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...te-wants-to-shut-other-white-people-down.html

Overt anti-white racism is so common, and so permeates social media, that identitarian left wing journalists have had to try to define it out of existence:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...please-stop-pretending-reverse-racism-is-real

After all. Only white people can be racist. People of color, and especially black people, can't be racist. Ask any identitarian leftist. He'll tell you.

I don't think that group of links show overt anti-white racism is commonplace. Though I guess you could define 'commonplace'.

The first couple links were about how people view racism, not actual racism.
A couple links were about the same place, BBC. Affirmative Action policies are a form of racial discrimination, something I have mixed feelings about, but the purpose is not to demonize whites, it's to ameliorate some effects of discrimination against minorities.
Minorities having a group where they can discuss their experiences with only other minorities is technically excluding whites but I don't think you can call it overt racism in any meaningful way.
At first I thought you had something with the DNC chair candidate but I think that headline is misleading. The context was about getting white people to see how they have privileges that minorities don't. There was no real suppression of speech.
I guess I can give you the Trans model, and I'm sure she's not alone, but I don't see how her and those who associate with her are affecting you in any real way.

Would you say that anti-white racism is now MORE commonplace than racism against minorities?

 

[patrick jane]

Because that excuse could also fall to many of the soldiers that carried out the orders.
How many of the soldiers (even in the top ranks) just carried out the orders so they could stay alive and go home to their families at the end of the day?

So if you do not identify as a Nazi, the symbols are not offensive to use; but if you do identify as a Nazi then the same symbols become offensive to use.
I'm not so sure that standard could be considered as being fair to all.

Like the Rebel Flag being demonized and forbidden.

 

[Tambora]

Only extremists.

Like only extremists Nazis.

Are you going to berate the Christian extremists who advocate such putrid, vile crap?

Not unless I want to berate GOD for commanding the same.

 

[kmoney]

Because that excuse could also fall to many of the soldiers that carried out the orders.
How many of the soldiers (even in the top ranks) just carried out the orders so they could stay alive and go home to their families at the end of the day?

:idunno: But again, I don't see the relevance.

So if you do not identify as a Nazi, the symbols are not offensive to use; but if you do identify as a Nazi then the same symbols become offensive to use.
I'm not so sure that standard could be considered as being fair to all.

This line of conversation wasn't about the symbol, it was about you comparing Nazis to Muslims. I questioned that comparison because I questioned the category of peaceful Nazis. I'll grant you Nazi party members in pre-WWII Germany but if you're going current I'm much more skeptical.

Regarding the swastika, the offense would be the intention, not necessarily who the user is. But the user and intent would probably go together for all intents and purposes.