|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I find it admirable that you guys keep engaging with this (baal) guy, I wouldn't have the patience to deal with this kind of ahistorical confidently incorrect stupidity.
Speaking of ahistorical, our resident "centrists" coming to this thread to explain how Robert Muller, the Purple Heart and Bronze Star Medal recipient Vietnam veteran and life long republican, who was appointed as special council by Trump appointed and lifelong republican Rosenstein as a reaction to Trump firing another life long republican Comey, reasons about Trump of course lied about, but latter bragged about in a private meeting with the Russians:
On May 19, The New York Times published excerpts of an official White House document summarizing Trump's private meeting, the day after the firing, with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, in the Oval Office. Trump told Kislyak and Lavrov that he "just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job". Trump added: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off", further adding "I'm not under investigation."
For these two "centrist" clowns to come here and talk about "witch hunt" and "tried to destroy Trump" just shows how full of shit they are, both like to pretend like they are "above Trump", they are serious people looking at policies and how they are implemented, they don't engage in the muck of MAGA and Trump worship, but they will, absolutely come here to defend their president cheering for death of someone absolutely worthy of being called an American hero just for his war service using the brain dead Trump rhetoric.
Another in a long string of mask of moments for our pseudo intellectual centrist friends here.
|
On March 22 2026 20:46 Jankisa wrote:
I find it admirable that you guys keep engaging with this (baal) guy, I wouldn't have the patience to deal with this kind of ahistorical confidently incorrect stupidity.
Yeah, the last reply got me to reevaluate that, and thus i am not that interested in that discussion anymore. I wish he would stop talking about Germany, though.
|
On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark...
You listed four countries. Out of those, only Switzerland wasn't occupied by the Nazis and didn't send the Jews to the camps. Are you really that dense?
|
On March 22 2026 20:46 Jankisa wrote:I find it admirable that you guys keep engaging with this (baal) guy, I wouldn't have the patience to deal with this kind of ahistorical confidently incorrect stupidity. Speaking of ahistorical, our resident "centrists" coming to this thread to explain how Robert Muller, the Purple Heart and Bronze Star Medal recipient Vietnam veteran and life long republican, who was appointed as special council by Trump appointed and lifelong republican Rosenstein as a reaction to Trump firing another life long republican Comey, reasons about Trump of course lied about, but latter bragged about in a private meeting with the Russians: Show nested quote +On May 19, The New York Times published excerpts of an official White House document summarizing Trump's private meeting, the day after the firing, with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, in the Oval Office. Trump told Kislyak and Lavrov that he "just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job". Trump added: "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off", further adding "I'm not under investigation."
You have acquired an astonishing new affinity for lifelong Republicans. Particularly those appointed by Trump. Will bookmark this for the next time your settings reset. I'm not sure what could be more of a bootlicking activity than going to bat for Republican FBI directors. Especially one you say DIDN'T try to destroy Trump:
On March 22 2026 20:46 Jankisa wrote:
For these two "centrist" clowns to come here and talk about "witch hunt" and "tried to destroy Trump" just shows how full of shit they are, both like to pretend like they are "above Trump", they are serious people looking at policies and how they are implemented, they don't engage in the muck of MAGA and Trump worship, but they will, absolutely come here to defend their president cheering for death of someone absolutely worthy of being called an American hero just for his war service using the brain dead Trump rhetoric.
Another in a long string of mask of moments for our pseudo intellectual centrist friends here.
Wrong phrase, you can't "cheer for" the death of someone who isn't alive.
You can also be glad if a war hero dies. Because people do other things. Getting the Bronze Star in the 1960s is not just a hall pass for your whole life.
|
If you don’t see the problem with the fucking President tweeting “good, I’m glad X is dead” talking about a public servant, you are both stupid and a terrible person. The latter, i have no doubt about, but i don’t think you are dumb enough not to see the issue there, so stop pretending and insulting everyone’s intelligence.
And I really, really didn’t like Mueller.
|
On March 22 2026 20:49 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 20:46 Jankisa wrote:
I find it admirable that you guys keep engaging with this (baal) guy, I wouldn't have the patience to deal with this kind of ahistorical confidently incorrect stupidity. Yeah, the last reply got me to reevaluate that, and thus i am not that interested in that discussion anymore. I wish he would stop talking about Germany, though.
Personally I find it deeply funny that he keeps accusing people who know more than him of being lefties. That's an advertisement if I ever saw one.
|
United States44171 Posts
On March 22 2026 19:11 baal wrote:
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history"
Getting baal to read a goddamn history book challenge, difficulty impossible.
Neither Hitler, nor the party he led, came to power through free elections. He came to power through appointment by Hindenburg. Literally anyone who has read any book about the rise to power of the Nazis knows this.
|
On March 22 2026 22:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 19:11 baal wrote:
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history" + Show Spoiler +Getting baal to read a goddamn history book challenge, difficulty impossible. Neither Hitler, nor the party he led, came to power through free elections. He came to power through appointment by Hindenburg. + Show Spoiler +Literally anyone who has read any book about the rise to power of the Nazis knows this.
Why did Hindenburg do that?
|
Northern Ireland27110 Posts
On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Show nested quote +Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Show nested quote +Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late.
Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no?
Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion?
|
On March 22 2026 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 22:57 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2026 19:11 baal wrote:
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history" + Show Spoiler +Getting baal to read a goddamn history book challenge, difficulty impossible. Neither Hitler, nor the party he led, came to power through free elections. He came to power through appointment by Hindenburg. + Show Spoiler +Literally anyone who has read any book about the rise to power of the Nazis knows this. Why did Hindenburg do that?
Complicated reasons. Weimar politics were wild.
Hindenburg was ultimately a monarchist. His ideal government would have been a return of the Kaiser. Since that was mostly impossible, he instead dreamed of some broad rightwing coalition government. Note that rightwing here didn't mean modern right, or nazi right. It meant mostly reactionist right. Industry + nobility vs workers rights, socialism and social democracy.
Another point to note here is that Hindenburg was well past 80 years of age at this point. He was probably not a completely senile fool, but he was very crystallized in his thinking, and could probably be manipulated by people who managed to get in his circle of trust.
He tried that broad rightwing government thing multiple times before. There were multiple presidential cabinets under Brüning, Brüning, von Papen, von Papen, von Papen and Schleicher. Schleicher had somewhat outplayed von Papen, who was not happy about that, and thus did the whole Hitler as a chancellor plan.
Hindenburg was not a big fan of Hitler, but apparently von Papen convinced him that he could control Hitler and make him small by surrounding him with conservative ministers, and thus produce that widely popular big rightwing front that Hindenburg dreamed of. This convincing apparently took quite some work.
Turns out von Papen was incorrect in his assessment of Hitler.
I can greatly recommend reading a book on Weimar politics, it was a very interesting time in history. I recently read "Schicksalsstunden einer Demokratie" by Volker Ullrich and was amazed about how much i didn't know about Weimar, despite Weimar being a very important topic in German school education (because it lead to Nazis)
|
On March 22 2026 16:13 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:10 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 07:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 02:30 dyhb wrote:On March 21 2026 18:49 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded? https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-publicHitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews. Deeper into the war his rhetoric shifter towards total destruction of the jewery in Europe, language vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent. I mean, It's pretty obvious, do you think german citizens would vote in a guy that from day one ran a campaing on mass murder of every single jew? That would be a big misconception of how things like the holocaust happen On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:37 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, they literally wrote a book about doing it and it's not like Kristallnacht was secret either. If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war? Most people didn't know, sure, the ones that read mein kampf, the ones that paid close attention and were smart enough knew, and many fled. The soviets did the same thing, Stalin publicly promised "the elimination of the kulak class" and everybody cheered, most didn't know they were going to get killed. You'll note how the original question, the replied and bolded "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews ... yet they did in secret" was summarily dropped. The goalposts moved to, "Was there any violence" and "Let's count emigration" and "Was there violent antisemitism." So you can tell broad agreement with the claim by how quickly it was silently accepted and changed. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum online resources are right about it, for those that clicked your link. The lies were to conceal what they were doing, and not totally ineffective because they had told everyone exactly what they planned to do from the start. You get fuzzy later, since forced transfer or children/prevention of births can be considered "genocide." It's not just about murdering an ethnic/religious minority. Are you talking about my post here? I didn't think there would be pushback saying that Nazis were intent on exterminating all the Jews. That kind of blindsided me to be honest. I was a little surprised in the opposite direction. I thought it was more widely known that the extermination part was done in secret, and with great care taken to conceal these efforts from the public. The Nazis had a public message of labor camps and actually built/rebuilt Theresienstadt to as a hoax retirement community. Maybe you forgot, but the claim was stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews , where they were busy trying to fool the world that they were engaged in separation/segregation and emigration for years. Did you read the Holocaust Museum link, and is there anything in there that you disagree with? I mean if you read "stated intent" to mean "ran on with this on an election", then no. But we were talking about why the swastikas were banned as a symbol, and what the symbol represents. Maybe I should have been clearer, but still don't understand how nitpicking a word disproves the broader point that swastikas are basically a symbol of extreme antisemitism, i.e. "gassing the Jews", and white supremacy which was the original point. This tangent on well yeah, but they did it in secret so nobody could have really known at the time, is honestly weird. What the Nazis did was so unfathomably evil that that's why everything related to Nazism is banned in Europe. It's something that makes sense if you know the context. Like, of course you should be processed for hate speech if you organise a nazi parade and start throwing Nazi salutes and chanting Heil Hitler or whatever, how is that even a question? Pick a different hill to die on for free speech. When you use words stating the opposite of what actually happened, and ask for sourcing, you have to expect the correct historical record written back to you. The words you didn't pick (white supremacy, or a broad claim rather than a specific claim) just won't enter in. You bolded a single, correct clause of one sentence of somebody's post, so it doesn't get more specific and nitpicky than that.
|
Northern Ireland27110 Posts
On March 22 2026 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 22:57 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2026 19:11 baal wrote:
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history" + Show Spoiler +Getting baal to read a goddamn history book challenge, difficulty impossible. Neither Hitler, nor the party he led, came to power through free elections. He came to power through appointment by Hindenburg. + Show Spoiler +Literally anyone who has read any book about the rise to power of the Nazis knows this. Why did Hindenburg do that?
Full of hot air IIRC
|
Northern Ireland27110 Posts
On March 22 2026 08:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 22 2026 08:20 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. I was with you on adopting an arguable position until you went here. Are you sure that you're not throwing in with the crowd that "argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs?" To quote you. I'm reading (1) both statements are bad and indefensible (2) the Rob Reiner statement was worse as a matter of degree and (3) it was somebody else on the same page that explicitly compared it to Charlie Kirk and people who won't be mad at this. So how am I supposed to read this other than you're taking for granted that the disagreements on Trump comments/Kirk comments are only undertaken by somebody that has already sold their soul, and now you're playing the part of the condescending radical just bemused at why it was done? I'm trying to find the path here that you're not just another bad faith person trying to portray nuance as Faustian. It sounded like you believed that it was negative arguing away from the point and towards the person's entire posting history, but here you are standing as its exemplar as best I can tell. Introvert literally states 'What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from.' Note 'way' worse, and 'outrage is a bit much'. I happened to agree that cheering for Kirk's murder was fucked, but the idea that 'well, some people cheered for Kirk being killed so I don't get why people are outraged that the president says 'he's happy this guy is dead'. That there's an element of 'posting history involved' - sure, I can get by that, but this is because this post is another part of that posting history - where introvert isn't able to criticize Trump without some type of addendum to lessen the criticism, in the sense that he needs to justify the continued association with a republican party which does not entirely think Trump is a dumpster fire of a human being, because 'the other side is just as bad'. Because I've come to learn that merely denouncing Trump and leaving it there is completely useless. And because most things nowadays in some apprently must involve Trump...therefore it is important to point out that when people are spinning themselves up over the last Trump thing they maybe should be reminded of how they approached a similar, though granted not identical, occasion previously. If we really are trying to hold on to some standards here then they have to be as universal as we can make them. People get mad at me for "but Democrats" when this thread is filled the brim of "but Trump." I am one person, posting a few times a month. I'll be blunt. What people want is for me to make them feel better. They want me to say "I'm a conservative but Trump is bad, therefore eveything he does or says is the worst thing ever." I am not going to do that. And yeah, maybe you wouldn't say it is what you want, but it's the only remaining explanation for your colleagues at least.
That would be rather boring no? Trump is pretty shit and that’s not a niche opinion, discussing that isn’t particularly interesting to me, and I presume others.
In a sense I think the opposite is true anyway. If one wants to feed some sense of superiority amongst non conservatives, defending Trump, or at least equivocating is absolute manna from heaven.
|
On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Show nested quote +Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Show nested quote +Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late.
Many Americans still don't know that Trump is a rapist. Does not mean that no Republicans is ignorant on Trump being a rapist. The NSDAP had prior to 1933 killed thousands of people on the streets. The people supporting the NSDAP were not supporting some secretive cabal that tricked everyone what their goal was. Despite what grandparents might say on the matter, society knew quite well that the Nazis were killing those they did not value as part of their society, they just thought the scale might be smaller und the horror of it all might affect them less.
That said, stop making points about things you don't understand. You are technically correct that the Nazis never made a Truth social post that their thing coming to power would be to murder all the Jews, however, everything you post shows you have no clue about the wider topic and so you should not use it as examples for your arguments, whatever that argument was, because it will show everyone you are talking out of your ass.
|
On March 23 2026 01:27 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 16:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 08:10 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 07:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 02:30 dyhb wrote:On March 21 2026 18:49 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded? https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-publicHitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews. Deeper into the war his rhetoric shifter towards total destruction of the jewery in Europe, language vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent. I mean, It's pretty obvious, do you think german citizens would vote in a guy that from day one ran a campaing on mass murder of every single jew? That would be a big misconception of how things like the holocaust happen On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:37 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, they literally wrote a book about doing it and it's not like Kristallnacht was secret either. If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war? Most people didn't know, sure, the ones that read mein kampf, the ones that paid close attention and were smart enough knew, and many fled. The soviets did the same thing, Stalin publicly promised "the elimination of the kulak class" and everybody cheered, most didn't know they were going to get killed. You'll note how the original question, the replied and bolded "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews ... yet they did in secret" was summarily dropped. The goalposts moved to, "Was there any violence" and "Let's count emigration" and "Was there violent antisemitism." So you can tell broad agreement with the claim by how quickly it was silently accepted and changed. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum online resources are right about it, for those that clicked your link. The lies were to conceal what they were doing, and not totally ineffective because they had told everyone exactly what they planned to do from the start. You get fuzzy later, since forced transfer or children/prevention of births can be considered "genocide." It's not just about murdering an ethnic/religious minority. Are you talking about my post here? I didn't think there would be pushback saying that Nazis were intent on exterminating all the Jews. That kind of blindsided me to be honest. I was a little surprised in the opposite direction. I thought it was more widely known that the extermination part was done in secret, and with great care taken to conceal these efforts from the public. The Nazis had a public message of labor camps and actually built/rebuilt Theresienstadt to as a hoax retirement community. Maybe you forgot, but the claim was stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews , where they were busy trying to fool the world that they were engaged in separation/segregation and emigration for years. Did you read the Holocaust Museum link, and is there anything in there that you disagree with? I mean if you read "stated intent" to mean "ran on with this on an election", then no. But we were talking about why the swastikas were banned as a symbol, and what the symbol represents. Maybe I should have been clearer, but still don't understand how nitpicking a word disproves the broader point that swastikas are basically a symbol of extreme antisemitism, i.e. "gassing the Jews", and white supremacy which was the original point. This tangent on well yeah, but they did it in secret so nobody could have really known at the time, is honestly weird. What the Nazis did was so unfathomably evil that that's why everything related to Nazism is banned in Europe. It's something that makes sense if you know the context. Like, of course you should be processed for hate speech if you organise a nazi parade and start throwing Nazi salutes and chanting Heil Hitler or whatever, how is that even a question? Pick a different hill to die on for free speech. When you use words stating the opposite of what actually happened, and ask for sourcing, you have to expect the correct historical record written back to you. The words you didn't pick (white supremacy, or a broad claim rather than a specific claim) just won't enter in. You bolded a single, correct clause of one sentence of somebody's post, so it doesn't get more specific and nitpicky than that.
Sounds like a simple case of you taking "Stated intent" to mean "included in an election manifesto" Which is not what I meant and didn't think that's what Baal meant either until he posted the source. Which was fine, I didn't reply because there was nothing to follow up on.
Nevertheless, this discussion was not about what the Nazis included in their election pledges or not. It was about what they did, and what the symbols they used came to represent today. Using Nazi symbols, today not in 1936, or chanting Heil Hitler or whatever in a non-academic or movie set in ww2 context is fairly unambiguously hate speech by any reasonable definition of hate speech.
|
On March 23 2026 03:19 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 01:27 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 16:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 08:10 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 07:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 02:30 dyhb wrote:On March 21 2026 18:49 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded? https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-publicHitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews. Deeper into the war his rhetoric shifter towards total destruction of the jewery in Europe, language vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent. I mean, It's pretty obvious, do you think german citizens would vote in a guy that from day one ran a campaing on mass murder of every single jew? That would be a big misconception of how things like the holocaust happen On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:37 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, they literally wrote a book about doing it and it's not like Kristallnacht was secret either. If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war? Most people didn't know, sure, the ones that read mein kampf, the ones that paid close attention and were smart enough knew, and many fled. The soviets did the same thing, Stalin publicly promised "the elimination of the kulak class" and everybody cheered, most didn't know they were going to get killed. You'll note how the original question, the replied and bolded "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews ... yet they did in secret" was summarily dropped. The goalposts moved to, "Was there any violence" and "Let's count emigration" and "Was there violent antisemitism." So you can tell broad agreement with the claim by how quickly it was silently accepted and changed. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum online resources are right about it, for those that clicked your link. The lies were to conceal what they were doing, and not totally ineffective because they had told everyone exactly what they planned to do from the start. You get fuzzy later, since forced transfer or children/prevention of births can be considered "genocide." It's not just about murdering an ethnic/religious minority. Are you talking about my post here? I didn't think there would be pushback saying that Nazis were intent on exterminating all the Jews. That kind of blindsided me to be honest. I was a little surprised in the opposite direction. I thought it was more widely known that the extermination part was done in secret, and with great care taken to conceal these efforts from the public. The Nazis had a public message of labor camps and actually built/rebuilt Theresienstadt to as a hoax retirement community. Maybe you forgot, but the claim was stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews , where they were busy trying to fool the world that they were engaged in separation/segregation and emigration for years. Did you read the Holocaust Museum link, and is there anything in there that you disagree with? I mean if you read "stated intent" to mean "ran on with this on an election", then no. But we were talking about why the swastikas were banned as a symbol, and what the symbol represents. Maybe I should have been clearer, but still don't understand how nitpicking a word disproves the broader point that swastikas are basically a symbol of extreme antisemitism, i.e. "gassing the Jews", and white supremacy which was the original point. This tangent on well yeah, but they did it in secret so nobody could have really known at the time, is honestly weird. What the Nazis did was so unfathomably evil that that's why everything related to Nazism is banned in Europe. It's something that makes sense if you know the context. Like, of course you should be processed for hate speech if you organise a nazi parade and start throwing Nazi salutes and chanting Heil Hitler or whatever, how is that even a question? Pick a different hill to die on for free speech. When you use words stating the opposite of what actually happened, and ask for sourcing, you have to expect the correct historical record written back to you. The words you didn't pick (white supremacy, or a broad claim rather than a specific claim) just won't enter in. You bolded a single, correct clause of one sentence of somebody's post, so it doesn't get more specific and nitpicky than that. Sounds like a simple case of you taking "Stated intent" to mean "included in an election manifesto" Which is not what I meant and didn't think that's what Baal meant either until he posted the source. Which was fine, I didn't reply because there was nothing to follow up on. Nevertheless, this discussion was not about what the Nazis included in their election pledges or not. It was about what they did, and what the symbols they used came to represent today. Using Nazi symbols, today not in 1936, or chanting Heil Hitler or whatever in a non-academic or movie set in ww2 context is fairly unambiguously hate speech by any reasonable definition of hate speech. Oh, I’m not hung up on election manifestos. I’d just ask what made you think it was their stated intent compared to secret plans and stuff hidden from public view. Where did they state it and to whom?
But it’s just fine if you thought Baal had written something else, or skimmed that statement you bolded, and you knew all along that the Nazis did not make it their stated intent, as confirmed by actual sources including the DC Holocaust Museum resources. It’s too small of a point of historical record to really spend too much time on.
|
On March 23 2026 03:54 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 03:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 23 2026 01:27 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 16:13 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 08:10 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 07:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 02:30 dyhb wrote:On March 21 2026 18:49 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:
[quote]
YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust.
[quote]
The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret.
-When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute.
-When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel.
-When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him.
That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like.
Source for the bolded? https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-publicHitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews. Deeper into the war his rhetoric shifter towards total destruction of the jewery in Europe, language vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent. I mean, It's pretty obvious, do you think german citizens would vote in a guy that from day one ran a campaing on mass murder of every single jew? That would be a big misconception of how things like the holocaust happen On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:37 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, they literally wrote a book about doing it and it's not like Kristallnacht was secret either. If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war? Most people didn't know, sure, the ones that read mein kampf, the ones that paid close attention and were smart enough knew, and many fled. The soviets did the same thing, Stalin publicly promised "the elimination of the kulak class" and everybody cheered, most didn't know they were going to get killed. You'll note how the original question, the replied and bolded "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews ... yet they did in secret" was summarily dropped. The goalposts moved to, "Was there any violence" and "Let's count emigration" and "Was there violent antisemitism." So you can tell broad agreement with the claim by how quickly it was silently accepted and changed. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum online resources are right about it, for those that clicked your link. The lies were to conceal what they were doing, and not totally ineffective because they had told everyone exactly what they planned to do from the start. You get fuzzy later, since forced transfer or children/prevention of births can be considered "genocide." It's not just about murdering an ethnic/religious minority. Are you talking about my post here? I didn't think there would be pushback saying that Nazis were intent on exterminating all the Jews. That kind of blindsided me to be honest. I was a little surprised in the opposite direction. I thought it was more widely known that the extermination part was done in secret, and with great care taken to conceal these efforts from the public. The Nazis had a public message of labor camps and actually built/rebuilt Theresienstadt to as a hoax retirement community. Maybe you forgot, but the claim was stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews , where they were busy trying to fool the world that they were engaged in separation/segregation and emigration for years. Did you read the Holocaust Museum link, and is there anything in there that you disagree with? I mean if you read "stated intent" to mean "ran on with this on an election", then no. But we were talking about why the swastikas were banned as a symbol, and what the symbol represents. Maybe I should have been clearer, but still don't understand how nitpicking a word disproves the broader point that swastikas are basically a symbol of extreme antisemitism, i.e. "gassing the Jews", and white supremacy which was the original point. This tangent on well yeah, but they did it in secret so nobody could have really known at the time, is honestly weird. What the Nazis did was so unfathomably evil that that's why everything related to Nazism is banned in Europe. It's something that makes sense if you know the context. Like, of course you should be processed for hate speech if you organise a nazi parade and start throwing Nazi salutes and chanting Heil Hitler or whatever, how is that even a question? Pick a different hill to die on for free speech. When you use words stating the opposite of what actually happened, and ask for sourcing, you have to expect the correct historical record written back to you. The words you didn't pick (white supremacy, or a broad claim rather than a specific claim) just won't enter in. You bolded a single, correct clause of one sentence of somebody's post, so it doesn't get more specific and nitpicky than that. Sounds like a simple case of you taking "Stated intent" to mean "included in an election manifesto" Which is not what I meant and didn't think that's what Baal meant either until he posted the source. Which was fine, I didn't reply because there was nothing to follow up on. Nevertheless, this discussion was not about what the Nazis included in their election pledges or not. It was about what they did, and what the symbols they used came to represent today. Using Nazi symbols, today not in 1936, or chanting Heil Hitler or whatever in a non-academic or movie set in ww2 context is fairly unambiguously hate speech by any reasonable definition of hate speech. Oh, I’m not hung up on election manifestos. I’d just ask what made you think it was their stated intent compared to secret plans and stuff hidden from public view. Where did they state it and to whom? But it’s just fine if you thought Baal had written something else, or skimmed that statement you bolded, and you knew all along that the Nazis did not make it their stated intent, as confirmed by actual sources including the DC Holocaust Museum resources. It’s too small of a point of historical record to really spend too much time on.
Is there an actual topic you want to debate?
|
It feels really strange that the same group of people who are so convinced that Trump and friends are not Fascists because they have not explicitly stated that they are, are somehow convinced that there was absolutely no way to see what was coming from the Nazi's.
You think this would concern them about the current group of far right people blaming a they for all the problems of their place. Sometimes it feels like bizarro world.
|
On March 23 2026 04:24 Billyboy wrote:
It feels really strange that the same group of people who are so convinced that Trump and friends are not Fascists because they have not explicitly stated that they are, are somehow convinced that there was absolutely no way to see what was coming from the Nazi's.
You think this would concern them about the current group of far right people blaming a they for all the problems of their place. Sometimes it feels like bizarro world.
It seems their position is "people like Trump echoing Nazi rhetoric by calling immigrants 'vermin' and 'corrupting our gene pool' isn't really that big a deal because the historical Nazis hid their intentions until it was too late".
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
|
On March 22 2026 21:36 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... You listed four countries. Out of those, only Switzerland wasn't occupied by the Nazis and didn't send the Jews to the camps. Are you really that dense?
LMAO at this point you ppl gotta be trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
