Who Goes Nazi? (1941) • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#31

Post by jasim » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 6:33 AM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #29

stcredzero wrote: post #2

Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind. It's not Nazism that should occupy the thoughts of intellectuals. It's the underlying psychology of the in-group/out-grouping and jingoism. There's nothing qualitatively exceptional about Nazis. They were just one point in a spectrum of behavior within the range of possible human behaviors. The challenge to society is that socie…

What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational. You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to avoid the psychology and biases of in-group/out-grouping. But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." You advocate for everyone to join your in-gr…

This kind of reasoning has a certain universal appeal at first blush. Something deep about calling out the hypocrisy of those who profess to disdain the very thing they are co-opting.

But it is a vacuous and illogical argument and subtracts meaning from the discussion at hand. The leap of assumption made here is long and unfortunately negative.

We need to make value judgements to make sense out of reality. That is an irreducible aspect of thought. But the original post was about asking people to be more aware of their own biases, and not about condemning people in the vein of in-groupers and out-groupers with fascist tendencies.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#32

Post by PhasmaFelis » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 6:40 AM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #29

stcredzero wrote: post #2

Nazism has nothing to do with race and nationality. It appeals to a certain type of mind. It's not Nazism that should occupy the thoughts of intellectuals. It's the underlying psychology of the in-group/out-grouping and jingoism. There's nothing qualitatively exceptional about Nazis. They were just one point in a spectrum of behavior within the range of possible human behaviors. The challenge to society is that socie…

What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational. You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to avoid the psychology and biases of in-group/out-grouping. But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." You advocate for everyone to join your in-gr…

What would you propose to do instead?

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#33

Post by meowface » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 6:53 AM UTC

aksquestions wrote: post #26

meowface wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not too often I see /pol/-speak (or /pol/ usernames) on HN. >German Jews during the party's rise were also an inordinately powerful group in German industry, finance, and media. The German Communist Party had a very low percentage of Jewish membership. The Weimar KPD was only 0.7% Jewish in 1927. At the end of the Weimar republic, only about 1.5% of all officers were Jewish, and only one of the leaders was Jewis…

The central role Jews played in the ideological formation and implementation of Bolshevism cannot be denied. Hand-waving about a "conspiracy theory" will not change the ethnicity of Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Sokolnikov, or Zinoviev (five of the seven members of the first Politburo) nor that of Sverdlov (first Communist party leader and progenitor of the Red Terror) nor of the many Jews who rushed to join the Cheka (th…

I actually think it is fair to portray nearly all of the Nazi and Soviet leadership as villains. Just for somewhat different reasons.

>You don't have to prove a "conspiracy" among the participants every time you apprehend a trend among a given population group for the trend to be true in a heuristic sense.

Sure you do. Listing facts like these is only done because it comes with implicit accusations about intent and/or genetic flaws. Also, ad hominem though it may be, I am 99% certain you support Hitler and sing his praises on places like /pol/.

It is true that many of the initial leaders in the Bolshevik movement were Jewish and the Cheka had heavy Jewish representation for a while (though this was greatly reduced under Stalin). However, presenting those facts alone does not convey the full picture. For example, the fact that many Jews were killed by the Bolsheviks, sometimes by ethnic Russiand and sometimes by other ethnic Jews. Or that pretty much none of the Jewish founders identified with Judaism ethnically or religiously and refused to abide by Jewish traditions, instead favoring a secular united philosophy with the rest of the country).

The only reason to present those facts as you have is to imply either some sort of conspiracy, or some sort of inherent moral failing within all Jews which the Nazis justifiably "defended themselves" from.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#34

Post by aksquestions » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 9:20 AM UTC

meowface wrote: post #33

aksquestions wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central role Jews played in the ideological formation and implementation of Bolshevism cannot be denied. Hand-waving about a "conspiracy theory" will not change the ethnicity of Lenin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Sokolnikov, or Zinoviev (five of the seven members of the first Politburo) nor that of Sverdlov (first Communist party leader and progenitor of the Red Terror) nor of the many Jews who rushed to join the Cheka (th…

I actually think it is fair to portray nearly all of the Nazi and Soviet leadership as villains. Just for somewhat different reasons. >You don't have to prove a "conspiracy" among the participants every time you apprehend a trend among a given population group for the trend to be true in a heuristic sense. Sure you do. Listing facts like these is only done because it comes with implicit accusations about intent and/o…

Self-interest again perfectly explains Jewish affinity for Marxism and support of Bolshevism. You are the one who is inserting conspiracies, schemes, and accusations of genetic inferiority into the mix. Jacob Schiff did not fund Japan in its war with Russia (and single-handedly secure that victory) for any other reason than his hatred of Tsarist Russia, which he viewed as hostile to Jews. Marxism gave an ideology to rally Jews and others of the era who considered themselves victims of traditional western civilization. Of course they would flock to it in outsized numbers and see a tremendous opportunity in the weak post-abdication provisional Russian government to establish the first Communist state, which they intended to use as a lever to upturn the entirety of Europe and have their ultimate revenge.

When the weak see an opportunity to take power, they seize upon it just as the Bolsheviks did. When the weak can't have power, they bide their time by seeking to undermine those who do and Marxist ideology is useful in that endeavor as well. But, ah, that takes us to another "conspiracy theory" of "Cultural Marxism." We live in a time when one's authenticity as a human is measured by the extent of his (pardon, "zir") grievances and the traditional leaders of American society (white males) roll off most tongues as the designated oppressor class but dare anyone identify any similarity between this state of affairs and Marx and he (whoops, I mean "zie") is immediately adjudicated a raving delusional lunatic. And when you point out Jews count for an inordinate amount of the leadership of organizations that seek to create "multicultural" societies out of white countries, that seek to destabilize the traditional European idea of the nuclear family (no-fault divorce is, by the way, an entirely Bolshevik innovation), and that agitate and stir up direct action against Gentiles and their traditions and institutions --- well, now you've just become a criminal.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#35

Post by pjlegato » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:41 PM UTC

jasim wrote: post #31

pjlegato wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational. You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to avoid the psychology and biases of in-group/out-grouping. But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." You advocate for everyone to join your in-gr…

This kind of reasoning has a certain universal appeal at first blush. Something deep about calling out the hypocrisy of those who profess to disdain the very thing they are co-opting. But it is a vacuous and illogical argument and subtracts meaning from the discussion at hand. The leap of assumption made here is long and unfortunately negative. We need to make value judgements to make sense out of reality. That is an…

It is neither vacuous nor illogical to point out the inherent internal contradiction in someone's proposal for how society ought to act. It only adds to the discussion to show that what seems on the surface like a nice idea is actually intrinsically illogical. That one dislikes the ramifications of the proposition being illogical is beside the point.

What seems appealing at first blush is the superficial "just be nice to everyone" aspect of the proposal. That sounds nice at first glance, and that's why people ignore its inherent paradox to accept and promote it.

But not only is it intrinsically illogical, it's not desirable. Should we not define and maintain social out-groups for, say, neo-Nazis or child molesters or (insert your favorite bad guy figure here)?

In-groups and out-groups are not intrinsically good or bad. How they are used can be. Encouraging people to get rid of them is not only impossible (as it embodies a paradox), but also undesirable in the soft sense that ignores rational analysis which you are calling for.

All human societies have always and always will have in-groups and out-groups, and that's not inherently a bad thing. Being aware of them (the weakest possible formulation of the OP's point) changes little except making a certain group of "21st century intellectuals" grow pompous and self-righteous, and weakening what little respect there is in society for reason and logic by advancing a paradoxical proposition as though it were a virtue.

It certainly won't do anything to prevent the emergence of a future group like the Nazi Party. If anything, it makes it more likely by allowing the elite group of self-aware intellectuals to feel certain of their own moral superiority, and thus authority, over the supposed unrefined dullards who are less aware of their biases.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#36

Post by pjlegato » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:49 PM UTC

hawkfish wrote: post #30

pjlegato wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational. You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to avoid the psychology and biases of in-group/out-grouping. But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." You advocate for everyone to join your in-gr…

But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct behavior -- exactly as all in-g…

The parent comment proposes that Nazis as such are not the actual problem, that Nazis are merely an extreme case of typical in-group/out-group behavior, and that "21st century intellectuals" need to avoid all the badness of Nazis by being more aware of their own in-group biases.

The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.

Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias." The point I made follows even more strongly from the explicit qualification of "21st century intellectuals": the original post is stating directly that 21st century intellectuals ought to act a certain desired way -- that is, forming an in-group with a certain sociall prescribed norm of belief. It indeed follows from this that not only all people who do not adhere to the "be aware of your in-group bias" proposal, but indeed all people who are not intellectuals, form an out-group.

I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#37

Post by pjlegato » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #32

pjlegato wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational. You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to avoid the psychology and biases of in-group/out-grouping. But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." You advocate for everyone to join your in-gr…

What would you propose to do instead?

What would I propose to do about what?

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#38

Post by dang » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 11:19 PM UTC

aksquestions wrote: post #34

meowface wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think it is fair to portray nearly all of the Nazi and Soviet leadership as villains. Just for somewhat different reasons. >You don't have to prove a "conspiracy" among the participants every time you apprehend a trend among a given population group for the trend to be true in a heuristic sense. Sure you do. Listing facts like these is only done because it comes with implicit accusations about intent and/o…

Self-interest again perfectly explains Jewish affinity for Marxism and support of Bolshevism. You are the one who is inserting conspiracies, schemes, and accusations of genetic inferiority into the mix. Jacob Schiff did not fund Japan in its war with Russia (and single-handedly secure that victory) for any other reason than his hatred of Tsarist Russia, which he viewed as hostile to Jews. Marxism gave an ideology to…

Please stop using HN as a dumping ground for ideological boilerplate.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#39

Post by gd1 » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 5:02 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #38

aksquestions wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-interest again perfectly explains Jewish affinity for Marxism and support of Bolshevism. You are the one who is inserting conspiracies, schemes, and accusations of genetic inferiority into the mix. Jacob Schiff did not fund Japan in its war with Russia (and single-handedly secure that victory) for any other reason than his hatred of Tsarist Russia, which he viewed as hostile to Jews. Marxism gave an ideology to…

Please stop using HN as a dumping ground for ideological boilerplate.

I've found it interesting to read and evaluate some viewpoints that I don't normally hear. Please stop demanding that HN be your own personal echo chamber.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#40

Post by hawkfish » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 5:31 AM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #36

hawkfish wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct behavior -- exactly as all in-g…

The parent comment proposes that Nazis as such are not the actual problem, that Nazis are merely an extreme case of typical in-group/out-group behavior, and that "21st century intellectuals" need to avoid all the badness of Nazis by being more aware of their own in-group biases. The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought…

'The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.'

No, it isn't a restatement. You make the (new) claim that "being more aware of one's own bias" creates another in-group, but it does not follow that this is your opponents position. You made no argument as to why this would be the case, either.

'Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias."'

This is your claim. Even if it was accepted (which I will do for the sake of argument), you did not make an argument on how this logically invalidates the original proposition, which merely calls for awareness and doesn't claim that in-grouping itself is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all. Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases would also call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical, at all.

'I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.'

It does not. In your "straw man", you misrepresent your opponents view in quite strong terms, accusing them of "condemning" those who do not belong to an in-group that you (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no ground whatsoever.