They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955) • Hacker News Board

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#131

Post by OminousWeapons » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #28

jvanderbot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessarily the actions, but the perceived intent by "the other side" that is important. Events become provocation draws provocation draws backlash, etc etc. I'm a fairly liberal person, but it doesn't take an inhuman amount of mental gymnastics to look at riots, anti-police sentiment, etc, and see a coordinated hostile agenda. I am lucky that I get to talk to both hardcore right and hardcore left people reg…

What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate? Who isn't living in reality here? This is not a far left position, and it's not the left that is driving FUD about US election integrity.

I agree they are being sore losers, but you should think that they are exercising the legal rights they are entitled to in order to challenge what they perceive to be irregularities in the process. If irregularities are found (which they probably won't be) then cases should be heard by the courts. If they are not, Trump should ultimately concede or be forced from office.

Be patient and let the process play out in a legitimate way.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#132

Post by lisper » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #120

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Florida in 2000: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jan-07-mn-9426-... Ohio in 2004: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Boxer-delays-preside... . (It should be noted for the sake of fairness that the leaders of this attempt claimed they weren't trying to overturn the election results by blocking the count.)

Florida in 2000 bears no resemblance to this situation. Trump and his supporters are alleging widespread, systemic fraud for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Florida in 2000 was a historically close election for which there should have been a recount, but the election was handed to Bush by the Supreme Court instead.

Right. And in 2004 Boxer's action was a symbolic protest designed to draw attention to voting irregularities. She never seriously sought to change the outcome.

Again: there is no moral equivalence here.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#133

Post by na85 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #112

na85 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Both the left and the right [...] call basic and decent democratic norms into question (free speech, elections). I only see Republicans doing this, but I am not American so perhaps my perspective is not as acute as someone "on the inside". Can you link to instances of Democrats calling free speech and elections into question?

Perhaps not Democrats per se, but the left (particularly the university left) has had a real problem with free speech over the last several years. Cancel culture, deplatforming, mobs trying to prevent speakers from appearing, getting people fired, and so on. The left is not friends of free speech, at least not the current US left.

But the First Amendment to your constitution is about making laws that abridge the freedom of speech. It's about protecting the freedom of speech from the government, not about protecting the freedom of speech from other people who are free to protest your speaking event at their leisure.

Getting fired because of views you espouse is not a violation of your First Amendment rights.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#134

Post by wrycoder » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #28

jvanderbot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not necessarily the actions, but the perceived intent by "the other side" that is important. Events become provocation draws provocation draws backlash, etc etc. I'm a fairly liberal person, but it doesn't take an inhuman amount of mental gymnastics to look at riots, anti-police sentiment, etc, and see a coordinated hostile agenda. I am lucky that I get to talk to both hardcore right and hardcore left people reg…

What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate? Who isn't living in reality here? This is not a far left position, and it's not the left that is driving FUD about US election integrity.

The country has voted. The election is still in progress. There are allegations of malfeasance and even fraud that need to be investigated and adjudicated. This has been true in many previous elections. The rule is to count every legal vote and only legal votes.

Once this all plays out, and it will in the near future, then we can determine the "legitimate election result", per the Electoral College.

Should Biden continue to prevail, I'm not expecting any significant unrest. Unhappiness, yes, but that is normal.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#135

Post by boieruai » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

vincentmarle wrote: post #19

bmmayer1 wrote: post #6

This is a powerful piece about a time in Germany where people couldn't, to paraphrase, see where things could go, and so couldn't really understand when things have started. I suspect that readers will see this piece as a reflection of their greatest fears about our own Republic. Unfortunately, the message will be lost by those who are most in need of hearing it. That includes many of the readers of this piece who th…

There is no “antifa”, everyone in the US should be antifascist.

...being antifascist ... by adopting brownshirt tactics.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#136

Post by anonunivgrad » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

cure wrote: post #61

mmastrac wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way you can see Tulsi as the "middle" is because the overton window has slammed so far right. In a rational society, Biden and Obama would be considered middle and AOC/Bernie left.

Yeah. Compared to the rest of the world, the entire left half of the political spectrum is more or less missing in the US. The democrats are a center right party. The republicans are at this point, a far right party. It has been a deliberate strategy of the far right to paint the center as "socialism" (which a lot of Americans seem to mistake for communism...), because it makes their ideology seem less extreme. A lot…

That’s not true. America, or at least its coastal big cities, leads the world in identity leftism. That is, the kind of leftism that finds its base in gays, transgenders, criminals, and other social “losers” (as opposed to economic losers) and their sympathizers. In fact, American leftists have contempt for the working class that used to form the base of old, economic leftism. They despise crass, vulgar, manly working men.

It’s obviously more complicated than this, but that’s the 5000 foot view.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#137

Post by jhayward » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

acqq wrote: post #114

jhayward wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which found no evidence that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the election This is a straight-up lie. Mueller said explicitly they found evidence, but left it to Congress to pursue prosecution.

> Mueller said explicitly they found evidence Instead of reading what "he said" I'd appreciate reading what the evidence is and what it shows. I'd honestly like to learn. Edit: just checked, the linked Time's "debunking" confirms that there was no evidence of collusion: the best that they can come to is to claim: "But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was accepta…

You can start with Time's debunking[1], but really should read what Mueller has written and said, both the report and following articles and interviews.

[1] https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

Edited in response to Parent's edit:

"While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”

You don't appear to be having an honest conversation, so I'll bid you good day.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#138

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

jolux wrote: post #120

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Florida in 2000: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jan-07-mn-9426-... Ohio in 2004: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Boxer-delays-preside... . (It should be noted for the sake of fairness that the leaders of this attempt claimed they weren't trying to overturn the election results by blocking the count.)

Florida in 2000 bears no resemblance to this situation. Trump and his supporters are alleging widespread, systemic fraud for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Florida in 2000 was a historically close election for which there should have been a recount, but the election was handed to Bush by the Supreme Court instead.

Do you dispute that Ohio in 2004 bears a resemblance? Every Presidential election of course has its own unique context, so if you want to discuss broader patterns you have to be willing to step back from the nitty-gritty of each individual year.

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#139

Post by jolux » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

OminousWeapons wrote: post #131

jolux wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What am I supposed to think about the intent of the other side when they're trying to get a legitimate election result overturned to support their preferred presidential candidate? Who isn't living in reality here? This is not a far left position, and it's not the left that is driving FUD about US election integrity.

I agree they are being sore losers, but you should think that they are exercising the legal rights they are entitled to in order to challenge what they perceive to be irregularities in the process. If irregularities are found (which they probably won't be) then cases should be heard by the courts. If they are not, Trump should ultimately concede or be forced from office. Be patient and let the process play out in a l…

Nobody's saying they don't have a right to challenge irregularities, but many government officials say this was the most secure election in American history and deny any evidence of systemic fraud: https://apnews.com/article/top-officials-elections-most-secu...

Re: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (1955)

#140

Post by tines » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

laszlokorte wrote: post #39

tines wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example?

I see that I am downvoted and I guess it is because my comment has been very simplistic and not explained well. I will try (in a perspective here from Germany): In general nothing here is really bad, nobody is killed or deported. So of course a comparison to the linked article is an exaggeration. But nonetheless since April the general mood in the country is be-surprised-and-accept driven: Businesses are closed on sh…

I appreciate your clarification, and for the record I am not one of the ones who downvoted you.

I agree that police being free to enter your house without probable cause of a crime is not good, and I'm not sure how many people are arguing that those who violate the quarantine should be put in psychiatric care. That just seems like nonsense, I'd have to have proof that someone is seriously advocating that before opining.

However, I think it's acknowledged that in dire times such as war and pestilence, the government can temporarily do things it couldn't do before until the crisis is over. For example, if an invading force has set up a machine gun on your property and the army attacks them, you probably shouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing. On the other hand, we have a constitutional right not to be required to give quarter to soldiers. What's the difference? It's the duration and immediacy of the danger I think. This is a judgment call.

Of course the problem lies in the government usurping power for an unlimited or ill-defined time, such as for the "war on terror" which never ends.

The pandemic, on the other hand, should have a definite and quantitative end, and I don't think stay-at-home orders or mask mandates necessarily lead to authoritarian progressions or curtailing of personal rights. Nobody is saying that the government should have a right to curtail, for example, the right to peaceably assemble forever; just until thousands of people per day stop dying.

Maybe I'm wrong though, what do you think?