Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#81

Post by tcbawo »

BogusIKnow wrote: post #53
arethuza wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what would have happened if Hitler (who apparently didn't give the matter much thought) hadn't declared war on the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_agai...

Hitler admired the US. One of the reasons to attack Russia was to colonize Eastern Europe the way America was colonized to stand a chance in the future with more agricultural land. With the support of facist governments against communisim around the world after WWII - especially in South America - indeed one could wonder how the US would have reacted without the Pearl and the German War declaration, or a much later G…

It wasn't only Germany with plans for colonization. Take the history of Königsberg resettled into Kaliningrad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_Oblast), which remains Russia's western-most territory.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#82

Post by olavk »

danieltillett wrote: post #51
Animats wrote: post #26

It's been a while since the last big, successful, popular, dictatorial, charismatic movement like Nazism. Putin comes closest, but he came to power as an insider, with Yeltsin supporting him. ISIS is religion-based, (even though it was designed by a former Iraqi colonel who wasn't very religious [1]) and those work differently. There are warlords in sub-Saharan Africa, but they're usually not popular leaders. Remembe…

Just to nitpick John, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. The nazi party never won an election in their entire history.

The Nazi party was certainly the winner or the election in July 1932, where it became the largest party in the parliament. In March 1933 elections it became even larger, with 44% more than twice the size of the second largest party, the SPD. It just never had an absolute majority - the parliamentary act which effectively gave the party dictatorial powers was supported by the conservative and center parties.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#83

Post by matthewmacleod »

spritzifutz wrote: post #80
rdiddly wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciated the dispassionate detachment of the comment. Like others, I'm a little suspicious of your "feminism annexed academia" bit (though not in the same kneejerky way). But what I really wonder is, could you expand on "why Occupy failed?" I've never really viewed it through that lens. Here, I'll give it a go. Certainly the unifying mythos was there - the 1%/the 99% - and by the way this isn't preposterous. But…

Can you explain to me why the institute of applied physics is now looking for two research assistants in gender studies? It's 19 hours and 55 minute of work every week with a 3 year contract to do gender studies in a physics department. Do you know that the Nazis had a field for facial recognition of Jewish features on faces? https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...

My understanding is that there is a persistent gender imbalance in physics generally. Is seems obvious that the IOP would want to fund research into why this is happening and ways in which it can be solved. Is the Nazi comparison really necessary?

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#85

Post by arrrg »

wildmusings wrote: post #33
arrrg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can apply this to literally every political belief someone fights for. As such the explanatory power of your theory seems to be quite poor. If something is a political belief you do not share it is easy to call it a myth. If something is a political policy you think is wrongheaded or unfair you can always claim that someone benefits unfairly from that policy. As such your theory really doesn’t tell you anything,…

It's not my theory, but it is an interesting framework to view politics through. Myth doesn't necessarily mean false. Even though that's the way the original poster used it, I think the framework is actually stronger with the more general definition of myth. Answering whether the handing out of resources is fair or not is also not necessary for this framework to be insightful. And of course we should engage the conte…

It’s so general as to be useless … basically what you are demonstrating here is one huge exercise in moving the goalposts, turning the theory into unrecognizable mush.

So “invent a necessarily preposterous myth” is out. It’s now just about some belief, doesn’t matter how it came to be or what it is. Can be true, can be false, can be anything.

If that’s the starting point then all the rest falls apart, really. It’s senseless.

You can talk about the role of signaling or whatever, but the connective tissue is missing and the entire interesting and potentially insightful part of the theory is missing.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#86

Post by enimodas »

pinewurst wrote: post #25
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #12

I was surprised by the relatively clear description of a psychopath as being ideal Nazi material. I'm not sure if it was a widely known concept at the time or if they were just going by instinct.

Mr C? "He is the product of a democracy hypocritically preaching social equality and practicing a carelessly brutal snobbery. He is a sensitive, gifted man who has been humiliated into nihilism." I didn't read him as psychopath so much as someone nursing serious grudges about his perceived exclusion from the top rank of society. Enough that he'd delight in "setting things right" even Nazi style. That was, for me, the…

When I read about person C, I found it resembles well many people from certain 4chan boards.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#87

Post by RodericDay »

eli wrote: post #23
wildmusings wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically it's the critiques of liberalism and capitalism that treat life as zero-sum. The capitalist defense of inequality is that the world isn't zero-sum. Because people can do extraordinarily well for themselves by creating value for others, they do, and we are all better off. The 60s civil rights movement was a classically liberal movement. They were demanding equal treatment under the law. "Civil rights" moveme…

> "Civil rights" movements today are usually asking for special treatment. I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion.

The civil rights movement of the day is always compared to some idealized civil rights movement of the past to disqualify it in the eyes of the anti-progressive. They focus on the wrong issues, they lack focus, they're too loud and annoying, they're not grateful enough for advances thus far, etc.

Seeing how he's idealized into an impossible standard for activists today, it's cool looking at the correspondence MLK Jr. got back in the day (http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/theme/4809). Here are some samples:

> Mr. Young criticizes Dr. King and the black community for their support of heavyweight champion Cassius Clay's refusal to be drafted into the military. He also expresses worry about the quality of black leadership and urges a move from a selfish focus on Negroes only to concern for all people.

> Calling Dr. King "The Trouble Maker of the United States," Mrs. Shaw criticizes Dr. King's methods in the Civil Rights Movement. She argues that a "campaign of love is in order" rather than demonstrations.

> Harl Douglass writes in disgust at the position Dr. King has taken on Vietnam War. As a once full supporter of the civil rights movement, he believes that Dr. King "is somewhat unstable and he has made millions of enemies for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference....." Douglass warns Dr. King and SCLC officials that if they continue to go down the same track they will lose support of white moderates.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#88

Post by [deleted] »

arrrg wrote: post #85
wildmusings wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my theory, but it is an interesting framework to view politics through. Myth doesn't necessarily mean false. Even though that's the way the original poster used it, I think the framework is actually stronger with the more general definition of myth. Answering whether the handing out of resources is fair or not is also not necessary for this framework to be insightful. And of course we should engage the conte…

It’s so general as to be useless … basically what you are demonstrating here is one huge exercise in moving the goalposts, turning the theory into unrecognizable mush. So “invent a necessarily preposterous myth” is out. It’s now just about some belief, doesn’t matter how it came to be or what it is. Can be true, can be false, can be anything. If that’s the starting point then all the rest falls apart, really. It’s se…

[deleted]

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#89

Post by wildmusings »

arrrg wrote: post #85
wildmusings wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my theory, but it is an interesting framework to view politics through. Myth doesn't necessarily mean false. Even though that's the way the original poster used it, I think the framework is actually stronger with the more general definition of myth. Answering whether the handing out of resources is fair or not is also not necessary for this framework to be insightful. And of course we should engage the conte…

It’s so general as to be useless … basically what you are demonstrating here is one huge exercise in moving the goalposts, turning the theory into unrecognizable mush. So “invent a necessarily preposterous myth” is out. It’s now just about some belief, doesn’t matter how it came to be or what it is. Can be true, can be false, can be anything. If that’s the starting point then all the rest falls apart, really. It’s se…

You keep conflating me with this thread's OP and attributing to me quotes that are not mine.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#90

Post by tamana »

sandworm101 wrote: post #36
hodwik wrote: post #32

Written by Dorothy Thompson, first journalist kicked out of Nazi Germany. She also said: "No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will. ... When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally…

>> No people ever recognize their dictator in advance. He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. She obviously never imagined the state of American politics today. A good chunk of them now openly want a "strongman" in the high office. The degree to which they want to be bullied by those they elect boarders on socio-political masochism. So I disagree with Thompson. To say that people don't see the…

To be a little less speculatively brazen, consider Putin, who got elected (well, if he didn't totally cheat) on a campaign of resorting the Soviet dictatorship.
Post reply on HN