this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
634 points (95.4% liked)
Technology
60359 readers
3935 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He absolutely was, and no hate speech law would've stopped that because his speech was popular at the time. Don't forget that.
Not the same at all.
They do, under the law.
This is also true. And you have my blessing to punch the next Nazi you see.
That really depends on your definition of left vs right.
The original definition was based on the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly, with those on the left espousing liberalism (revolution, democracy, and secularisation, all liberal concepts) and those on the right preferring the monarchy.
I personally prefer the two axis "political compass" with economic policy on the left (socialism) vs right (laissez faire capitalism), and government authority on the top (authoritarian) vs bottom (libertarian). US politics is in the top right quadrant, I'd place classical liberalism in the bottom center-right, and I believe I straddle the left/right line in the bottom third.
And he wouldn't know what those are even if they hit him in the face. All he seems to care about is the same thing as Trump does: seeing his name everywhere. He sort of hitched his wagon to the left when it was convenient getting Tesla visibility, and now he's hitching to the right now that he'd like to keep out Chinese competition and get his Tesla compensation package approved.
He doesn't care about individual rights, he only cares about himself. At least that's the Musk I see.
We need to let everyone speak, but we don't need to give them a platform. I like this quote:
Let them out themselves, and move on with your day.
Exactly. Thanks for recognizing the difference.
I don't see how this can possibly follow. An anarchist wouldn't support the institution of prison, at least not one run by a central authority. Anarchists reject the idea of a monopoly on force.
I doubt it, but even if true, that's <3% of the total population. It looks like >7% of the population identify as LGBT, so why fear a group that's half the size?
Well because 10 million people is more than enough to commit crimes against humanity on a frankly ungodly scale. You can commit genocide with those numbers.
I'm an anarchist, so ideally I'd advocate no government whatsoever in which case we could... shall we say do away with the nazis the way God intended. But we don't, do we. We live in a society with prisons that currently house millions of people who shouldn't be there. Nazis should be there, or dead. Either is fine but the least we could do is lock them up and prevent them from interacting with other humans.
Barrack Obama did nothing to prevent fascism. He was an American imperialist who was directly involved in the mass murder of innocent people in the middle east. I also just honestly love that you defended my strawman version of your arguments, genuinely incredible.
Saying that you're not a progressive is as good as saying you don't really care if Nazis take over again. You're not invested in it enough to actually try and change anything.
You also ignored 90% of what I had to say about Hitler. I guess because you have no legitimate response to that? Do you believe that Hitler just came along to find a Germany that was already genocidally bigoted towards queer people and jews? If so you were given a seriously poor education. Germany was arguably the most liberal country in the world leading up to his rise to power. Your failure to understand that Trump played into the exact same political strategies that Hitler did belies your poor understanding of how Hitler came to be democratically elected. The world was not that dramatically different from today. People relied on mass media in much the same ways they do today, just at the time that was print and air waves. Radio stories and misinformation can be broadcast on the same day they happen though, much like social media stories can today. The media is and has always been inherently intertwined with fascism. It's how you can indoctrinate someone into genocidal bigotry. Tell them everyone is lying to them and secretly jews control everything, and make it so that's all they hear all the time from birth, and you have created a mass indoctrination machine and predisposed all those people towards genocidal violence.
Preach!
Not sure I agree with your next statement which smacks of genocide, but I guess I'd need to see your definition first (with specific examples). That'll likely get both of us on a list, so perhaps leave it at that.
In fact, he arguably made things worse. But the man has some good quotes, even if he didn't seem to live them.
I'll defend good arguments, regardless of the source or original intent. I'm not here to win an argument, I'm here to discuss ideas, and ideas don't take sides.
Non-sequitur much?
My post was long enough, so I cut some corners. I don't really see the point in rehashing the pre-WW2 German political and social situation.
I think he succeeded because Germany was already primed for it. The people were destitute, desperate, and felt wronged, and Hitler channeled and focused that into a single, tangible enemy.
Socialists use "capitalists," US conservatives use "woke," and progressives use "hate speech," though none seem nearly as effective as Hitler's marketing, unless conditions are right. Lenin and Stalin succeeded because everyone hated the Tsar, but Trump succeeded because Democrats completely dropped the ball despite largely missing why people were pissed (and it's not because of LGBT folk, it's because stuff is expensive). The options in 2024 were more of the same or Trump's promise to grow our way out. The former was probably the better deal, but the latter sounds better on paper.
Hitler won because he tapped into a common frustration (poverty and anger at reparations), and was able to redirect it at a latent concern that he could alleviate. People like simple solutions like "it's their fault, if we take them out, our problems will be fixed." Look at the messaging here on Lemmy, "eat the rich," "Luigi was right," etc. It's the same kind of redirection Hitler and Lenin used to get power.
Trump kind of had that in 2016 with "drain the swamp" (people hate corrupt politicians), but he failed to deliver. He didn't seem to find that same mark this time, but Harris fumbled so hard (said she wouldn't have changed anything about Biden's term) that he was able to win. People here like to blame Twitter/X, but I really don't think that was a significant contributor.