Don't let words change their meanings. Don't let the ends justify the means

I'm tired of this crap on DU, and despite -our- goals being noble, we shouldn't sink to it even as our enemies do. As it was put about 2300 years ago:



A lot of that rings true on DU today, but a bit about that last sentence. Recently there has been a debate on this board wherein our dangerous situation today was compared to Germany's situation in the twenties and thirties. I made the argument that the particulars were being compared in total ignorance of the vastly different socio-political contexts that -created- those particulars, and therefore the comparison was not very useful or valid. For this basic criticism I was accused of being in denial of our situation, of loving to argue, and of not caring about the very real crimes of the administration. Because I disagreed with the argument that our situation is readily comparable to proto-fascist Germany led these people to accuse myself and others that I didn't see any dangerous practices in this country at all. In other words, "dissent" became "shutting down the debate." One who is merely critical of a bad argument about a problem is painted as being in denial that a problem exists at all.

I won't support flawed historical analogies just because I despise authoritarianism and the destruction of civil liberties. Illogical, bad, or poorly-reasoned arguments can dilute and marginalize an important problem, and the problems we have are -critically- important. Too important to undermine with hasty, inattentive arguments. Therefore we should -not- excuse bad arguments just because they are in line with our thinking. We should -not- allow double standards, radical caricature and stereotyping of dissent, demonization of critical thought, or anything else just because those ugly rhetorical tactics are used for a cause we support.

When I argue that some particular -means- are bad, my support for their -ends- does not change. There have been four or five threads attacking people for disagreeing with a flawed argument, saying that therefore those people must support the horrible state this country is in. It reminds me of those 2003 days of "If you don't support the war, you support Saddam"--as if those were the only two options. We -should- support warnings and arguments against the lousy direction this country is moving, but we should -not- support those arguments that are so illogical and vapid that they undermine the cause we're fighting for.

It's sad to me that your eloquence and moderate tone, will be ignored or rejected, while muddled pretentious prognotcations of doom, will inevitably be lauded to the skies, and twinkle for 24 hours on the Greatest page.

That dissent from a minority is broadly labeled as an attempt to silence the majority, is about as Orwellian as you can get.

Wanting to redress all these crimes is a great start, but I wish people would think more about the validity, the risks, and the costs of certain methods which share that aim. I'm sure everyone would agree that would have been a good guide to follow in the runup to war with Iraq, I hope they see the value of it in discussions here as well.

what you're pointing out. And actually I find that not only discouraging, but slightly scary. When dissent by a minority gets shouted down in such an Orwellian manner by liberals/progressives, it's hardly reassuring. Don't agree with me? You're a troll. Dissent? You're trying to shut me down and stifle debate.

Poorly written and ill thought out doomsday screeds are the darling of GD, and pointing out that these scenarios are not inerrant, is considered the height of betrayal.

You have to be actively avoiding finding parallels to take your position.

You want to talk about different contexts? Here are some similar contexts:

1) displaced and desperate middle class looking for scapegoats.

2) racial hatred whipped up for political ends

3) manufactured grievances leading to aggression against countries that had no ability to attack.

4) overturning of law after law protecting civil liberties, in the name of an "emergency".

----------

Your post is as a-historical as the post you just criticized Nadine Brazinski for -

EXCEPT there are not even any historical allusions (other than Nazi Germany ist verboten).

You, sir, are a book burner who does not want anyone to use history at all.

arendt

The two are quite simply not alike, unless you generalize everything to the point your comparison is too facile to be of any serious use. Making comparisons is fine, unless you ignore the crucial, epochal differences that -made- these situations what they were. Our economy is nothing like Germany's. Our public mood is nothing like Germany's. Our political status is nothing like Germany's. Our government's forms of authoritarianism are -nothing- like Germany's. If they were, Nader and Kucinich would have been rifle-butted, shot and dumped in the river by thugs organized by the Defense Secretary. There are just too many differences.

And the idea that I am a book burner because I disagree with a revisioning of history that degrades the tragedy and seriousness of the German situation, I find that insane. Is simple disagreement so offensive to you that you have to try and paint -me- as a Nazi?

Or are you just agreeing with the flawed comparison without knowledge, simply because you support its conclusion?

You argument is deconstruction. It is the same kind of argument that Margaret Thatcher made when she said "there is no such thing as society, only individuals...".

How is our public mood not like Germany's? - as I just said, a massive downwardly-mobile ex-middleclass looking for scapegoats and wanting to beat someone's head in. A campaign to hate a minority of our own citizens created to further political ends. A massive fear campaign. A massive patriotism campaign.

How is our government's form of authoritarianism not like Germany's? We have a supreme leader who has taken emergency powers. He has suspended habeus corpus. He torturese people. He invades other countries. The only difference is that these clowns are smart enough to keep a puppet Congressional opposition in place to keep up a pretence of democracy.

If they rifle-butted Kucinich, then even you would have to admit what is going on.

-----

You don't have any logical arguments. All you got is outrage.

arendt

The assertions are backed by fact. Research Luxembourg and Leibknecht. Research Noske and the Freikorps. Research Weimar Germany's unemployment rates, and the desperation that was brought to each and every family. Research the rioting working class and the overreaction by government forces. All these played a -crucial- role in Germany's transformation into fascism. By what reasonable standard can you not know any of these facts and still argue your simple, over-generalized comparisons are valid?

You are so literal-minded you resemble a fundamentalist. You want it all down in black and white,
with legal proof.

As Tolstoy said, "You never step in the same river twice."

I know you are smart enough to recognize these famous statements. But, you are clearly "pretending
to be asleep".

----------

As for "researching XXX": you have already told me that my research is flawed and worthless. So,
why would I be stupid enough to do more of it, just to have you tell me I did it wrong?

You never refute any facts. You just sneer and say "you failed".

Why don't you sidle on over to the Frank Rich "Good German" thread and try these tactics there?
We are all missing you and wondering why you haven't shown up.

arendt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're being heretical. Do you really not understand that? And personally, I don't mind being ignored by arendt or brazinsky one bit. It says to me that they're incapable of defending their ideas from a challenge. They both want only a hallalujah chorus.

And if they see disagreement with their argument as refusing to acknowledge the problem, then I can understand why they would respond as they have. I don't agree with that either, though. :P

way to discredit yourself.

Better to ignore than to learn something, right?

Nice one :thumbsup:

Could I say all vegetarians are fascists based on Hitler being one? No! Extreme example I admit, but denying the differences between the most systemic, vitally important aspects of two societies, and then pretending a comparison of a few details is valid just seems ridiculous to me. There are times when crucial differences far outweigh the few pleasing similarities. That's what we have here.

Wow. That's an incredible thing to say to someone who simply disagrees with you.

And disgusting.

Happily, in my world I can do both. Our situation does not need to be dishonestly compared with that of Nazi or pre-fascist Germany in order for it to be considered extremely dangerous on its -own- merits.

in the fight against tyranny?

Riddle me that, Batman?

arendt

a mad dog, and you accuse jp, one of the most courteous and thoughtful posters here, of pissing on potential allies?

What a piece of work is arendt.

The ostensible goal is to convince enough people of the problem's seriousness that we can do something about it, and that means convincing people who -don't- come to the argument already convinced of its conclusion. And when people don't believe the conclusion, the argument has to be way more convincing than an oversimplified historical analogy that approaches total invalidity. Ask your favorite history professor how much like Weimar Germany in the 20's and 30's our country is today. And ask him or her how much of that context was a driving factor in creating Nazi Germany.

You don't do this issue credit with a lousy argument. Why use one?

it's well made and works. But I'm beginning to seriously think that what I wrote on another thread may have some validity:

I'm beginning to think of these threads as "apocalypse" threads; not all that different from any end time pattern of thinking where there is a belief in a sudden transformation of our world, into something wholly different. The only thing that really differentiates it from traditional apocalyptic thinking is that this transformation isn't accomplished via supernatural agents. And these folks, like their millenarian cousins, are mighty pleased with their own insider status.

It's the end of the world. Except when it isn't.

you should come sometime

he makes a mean flaming sambuca

we also chant & wear black robes... just for fellowship & to be social

:patriot:

A "book burner"? :rofl:

Does it refer to Hannah Arendt? She was smart and offered intelligent analyses, so I'm not quite understanding the disconnect.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

?

is learned concerning recognizable symptoms. I feel like I should buy you Naomi Wolf's book, "The End of America", so you would understand that we aren't saying we are Nazi Germany, but an American form of fascism or authoritarian government and all authoritarian governments have similar themes and similarities in methods. But they aren't all the exact same just as all democracies aren't all the exact same. But democracies also have similar themes and similarities in method. One thing is unquestionable, unless one is drinking the kool aid in mass quantities, and that is this country has undergone a change and that change is unprecedented in this country.

There are some people here who are saying essentially that. Furthermore, there are people claiming that those who disagree with an aspect of a given argument, are disruptors or trolls or in denial or "pissing all over", and on and on. And I find it more than odd and a little bit disturbing that those dissenting from the majority view, are those being a accused over and over again, of trying to shut down the conversation. It's way orwellian.

"A lot of that rings true on DU today, but a bit about that last sentence. Recently there has been a debate on this board wherein our dangerous situation today was compared to Germany's situation in the twenties and thirties. I made the argument that the particulars were being compared in total ignorance of the vastly different socio-political contexts that -created- those particulars, and therefore the comparison was not very useful or valid. For this basic criticism I was accused of being in denial of our situation, of loving to argue, and of not caring about the very real crimes of the administration. Because I disagreed with the argument that our situation is readily comparable to proto-fascist Germany led these people to accuse myself and others that I didn't see any dangerous practices in this country at all. In other words, "dissent" became "shutting down the debate." One who is merely critical of a bad argument about a problem is painted as being in denial that a problem exists at all.

I won't support flawed historical analogies just because I despise authoritarianism and the destruction of civil liberties. Illogical, bad, or poorly-reasoned arguments can dilute and marginalize an important problem, and the problems we have are -critically- important. Too important to undermine with hasty, inattentive arguments. Therefore we should -not- excuse bad arguments just because they are in line with our thinking. We should -not- allow double standards, radical caricature and stereotyping of dissent, demonization of critical thought, or anything else just because those ugly rhetorical tactics are used for a cause we support."


I ask who is mischaracterizing who?

How is the OP mischaracterizing? What is he mischaracterizing?

There are some comparisons with Hitler's Germany. If one does not choose to see because our democray has been more stable before this than Germany's before Hitler, fine. If people want to set aside Nazi Germany as an historical anomoly because of its brutality, fine. I'm not going to argue or warn anymore because people have such aversions.

I can only conclude from the context given here, that you are in denial!:P

I can completely understand where the people who promote those comparisons are coming from--they see it as citing a powerful historical precedent. The problem I have with it is that the comparison is made not because it fits the facts, but because it is a pleasing comparison. The dangers of -our- situation are there for anyone to see, but that doesn't mean we have to make a dishonest comparison to a period in another country's history that is contextually so far from our own that comparing the two serves no useful purpose.