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

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#21

Post by chrisco255 »

platinumrad wrote: post #12
Chyzwar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nazism is fundamentally evil. Author tries to highlight that there are certain types of people that would get attracted. You can see this first hand with softer version - Trumpism, immigrants from Latin America supporting Trump as you had Jewish supporting Hitler.

> Nazism is fundamentally evil. No disagreement there but I don't think it's good or insightful to assert that the people you find to be personally distasteful are the same people who are likely to associate themselves with evil. Quite the opposite actually!

Didn't basically the entire country of Germany fall for it with few exceptions? You think they were evil or just misguided? Maybe they thought they were doing the right thing?

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#22

Post by Planktonne »

TheManInThePub wrote: post #11
Chyzwar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nazism is fundamentally evil. Author tries to highlight that there are certain types of people that would get attracted. You can see this first hand with softer version - Trumpism, immigrants from Latin America supporting Trump as you had Jewish supporting Hitler.

> Nazism is fundamentally evil. Be careful with such statements. Describing something/someone as "fundamentally" evil obscures the fact that things (like extremist politics) happen for reasons. It is these reasons that if addressed, can put a stop to such unpleasantness occurring.

Nazism is a genocidal ideology; it's fundamentally evil.

The individual reasons for a specific person to ascribe to such an ideology are complex and worthy of study, and if the quoted statement had been 'any individual member of a fascist ideology is fundamentally evil', then sure - let's pull in the nuance.

But that's not the case here - we aren't talking about individuals, or general social movements, or something else that requires such consideration. We're talking about a very specific ideology.

Nazism - the ideology itself - is not a redeemable thing; it's an ideology inextricably tied to a laundry list of horrific acts.

It's absolutely fine to declare it evil.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#23

Post by [deleted] »

platinumrad wrote: post #4

This is a completely vacuous and honestly pretty awful piece. Wow, all of the people she deems to be fundamentally good would never ever go Nazi while all of those she deems to be fundamentally contemptible (often due to their class background, no less) would definitely jump at the chance. What a shocker.

[deleted]

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#24

Post by cafard »

Splendid parlor game, separating your acquaintances--bare acquaintances--into sheep and goats. I propose a new parlor game--which of your acquaintances is likely to come to your parties and write such a piece?

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#25

Post by aSimplePlanner »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #20
aSimplePlanner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Thompson is regarded by some as the "First Lady of American Journalism" and was recognized by Time magazine in 1939" Time Magazine made Hitler man of the year in 1938 and Stalin in 1939. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year#1930s

Time Magazine's "person of the year" was about running a feature on a figure who had a significant impact on the world recently, not necessarily about celebrating and approving of said figure.

No, it's an overtly positive promotion of the winner for the year; hence, Gandhi 1930, Churchill 1940, Eisenhower 44 , George H Bush in 04 etc..

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#26

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

aSimplePlanner wrote: post #25
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time Magazine's "person of the year" was about running a feature on a figure who had a significant impact on the world recently, not necessarily about celebrating and approving of said figure.

No, it's an overtly positive promotion of the winner for the year; hence, Gandhi 1930, Churchill 1940, Eisenhower 44 , George H Bush in 04 etc..

No, as Time magazine itself puts it: it is a person that "for better or worse [my emphasis added], has most influenced events in the preceding year."

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#27

Post by dukeyukey »

aSimplePlanner wrote: post #25
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time Magazine's "person of the year" was about running a feature on a figure who had a significant impact on the world recently, not necessarily about celebrating and approving of said figure.

No, it's an overtly positive promotion of the winner for the year; hence, Gandhi 1930, Churchill 1940, Eisenhower 44 , George H Bush in 04 etc..

In 1936 it was Wallis Simpson, who's marriage to King Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis in the British Empire and a subsequent abdication, and in 1939 it was Stalin. So unless Time Magazine is a Monarchist Nazi Communist mag, it's probably not a promotional award.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#28

Post by aSimplePlanner »

dukeyukey wrote: post #27
aSimplePlanner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an overtly positive promotion of the winner for the year; hence, Gandhi 1930, Churchill 1940, Eisenhower 44 , George H Bush in 04 etc..

In 1936 it was Wallis Simpson, who's marriage to King Edward VIII caused a constitutional crisis in the British Empire and a subsequent abdication, and in 1939 it was Stalin. So unless Time Magazine is a Monarchist Nazi Communist mag, it's probably not a promotional award.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Luce

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#29

Post by ljp_206 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #21
platinumrad wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nazism is fundamentally evil. No disagreement there but I don't think it's good or insightful to assert that the people you find to be personally distasteful are the same people who are likely to associate themselves with evil. Quite the opposite actually!

Didn't basically the entire country of Germany fall for it with few exceptions? You think they were evil or just misguided? Maybe they thought they were doing the right thing?

It's not that simple. Among many other factors, Hitler was small potatoes until it was advantageous to those in power to start givig him more power, including the capitalist classes who saw a choice between bolshevism and the NSDAP, and chose the Nazis.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#30

Post by aSimplePlanner »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #26
aSimplePlanner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an overtly positive promotion of the winner for the year; hence, Gandhi 1930, Churchill 1940, Eisenhower 44 , George H Bush in 04 etc..

No, as Time magazine itself puts it: it is a person that "for better or worse [my emphasis added], has most influenced events in the preceding year."

You're clutching at straws by denying my assertion above.

Wiki:

Controversial choices: Despite the magazine's frequent statements to the contrary, the designation is often regarded as an honor, and spoken of as an award or prize, simply based on many previous selections of admirable people.[9]

Post reply on HN