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

The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

charliechaplin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 412 posts

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#361

Post by lossolo »

the_af wrote: post #358
lossolo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be confusing propaganda with the fundamental principles of an ideology. Can you specify which aspects of the defined fundamentals of fascism lack logic?

I'm not confusing anything and much has been written about how fascism wasn't a particular coherent or logical set of principles. There's not much you can point at and say "this is the logical core of fascism", because there is almost none. It's all very ad-hoc. "Propaganda" is almost all there is to fascism, if you take it away there's almost nothing left. I hope you can understand this is a topic that exceeds the s…

It seems that you are indeed conflating the two if you're unable to provide arguments to support your thesis. What you've offered is an opinion colored by your moral judgment. I asked you to identify which of the main fundamentals of fascism lack logic. This request doesn't exceed the scope of an HN comment. The logic of fascism is grounded in the belief that authoritarian leadership, nationalism, collectivism over individualism, militarism, use of propaganda and mass mobilization are necessary for creating a strong, unified, and powerful nation. It posits that individual freedoms and democratic processes can be sacrificed for the sake of national unity, strength, and revival. So, I ask again: Where exactly do you see a lack of logic? I'm not seeking a moral judgment about the methods, but a purely logical analysis.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#362

Post by hermitcrab »

jncfhnb wrote: post #351
hermitcrab wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it gnerally wasn't considered a virtue.

That holds up pretty poorly against historical scrutiny to very obvious examples

Certainly in western/Christian culture greed was traditionally been seen as a sin, not a virtue[1]. I'm not sure how much this applies in other cultures. Perhaps you could cite some examples?

[1]Not that this stopped the clergy being greedy of course. The grossly overweight priest is very old trope.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#363

Post by rollcat »

causality0 wrote: post #312
hannofcart wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this was a pithy comment, I'd totally upvote and read an article on how someone who frequents HN found themselves in the scenario you mentioned.

HN has more variety when it comes to posters than you think. There's one guy here who spent time in prison for eco-terrorism.

I'd imagine the intersection of "intellectually curious" and "dealing with the consequences of interesting life choices" is far greater than most of us would suspect at first. I'd also imagine the variety of circumstances in the latter category easily rivals the former.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#364

Post by causality0 »

nandhinianand wrote: post #329
causality0 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has more variety when it comes to posters than you think. There's one guy here who spent time in prison for eco-terrorism.

Ughhh.. I hate that word, especially when it refers to the protest acts like spaghetti on art, or slow march on a road delaying traffic etc... I think partly because it smells like a society that has started worshipping "traffic" or "business as usual" instead of doing that by deliberate choice.

If I recall correctly he waged harassment campaigns against individual people and their families that included death threats, showing up at their house in the middle of the night, and mailing them dead animals.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#365

Post by jncfhnb »

hermitcrab wrote: post #362
jncfhnb wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That holds up pretty poorly against historical scrutiny to very obvious examples

Certainly in western/Christian culture greed was traditionally been seen as a sin, not a virtue[1]. I'm not sure how much this applies in other cultures. Perhaps you could cite some examples? [1]Not that this stopped the clergy being greedy of course. The grossly overweight priest is very old trope.

You are citing some dickheads with Ferraris as evidence that greed is a virtue now but disregarding the fact that people had similar gross displays of wealth in the past as evidence of the same.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#366

Post by the_af »

lossolo wrote: post #361
the_af wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not confusing anything and much has been written about how fascism wasn't a particular coherent or logical set of principles. There's not much you can point at and say "this is the logical core of fascism", because there is almost none. It's all very ad-hoc. "Propaganda" is almost all there is to fascism, if you take it away there's almost nothing left. I hope you can understand this is a topic that exceeds the s…

It seems that you are indeed conflating the two if you're unable to provide arguments to support your thesis. What you've offered is an opinion colored by your moral judgment. I asked you to identify which of the main fundamentals of fascism lack logic. This request doesn't exceed the scope of an HN comment. The logic of fascism is grounded in the belief that authoritarian leadership, nationalism, collectivism over i…

> It seems that you are indeed conflating the two if you're unable to provide arguments to support your thesis.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but I stand by what I said: go read about fascism, there's plenty written. There are no shortcuts and I won't provide a history lesson for you here.

> Where exactly do you see a lack of logic?

Nothing you described is "logic"; it is a set of axiomatic beliefs. "Might makes right" is not logic, it's a belief. There's very little that is logical about fascism. In fact they had to reject and persecute science because the world wasn't what fascism described.

I mean, they did have a bunch of contradictory foundational ideas, is that what you mean? But there was hardly a logical core to it.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#368

Post by sanderjd »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #360
sanderjd wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why ever gather the data? The truth table of this is: data | gut | out 0 | 0 | 0 0 | 1 | 1 1 | 0 | 0 1 | 1 | 1 The data variable is irrelevant here, so you might as well not waste all the resources it takes to collect and analyze it, right?

Gathering the data might change the gut feeling.

Yeah, interesting, good answer! I think that is the answer, and it actually does make sense to me. Often while gathering data I develop a better intuition for what I'm unable to gather data on, which definitely impacts my gut feel for things. The available data might point in one direction, intuition about the unavailable data might point the other way.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#369

Post by lossolo »

the_af wrote: post #366
lossolo wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that you are indeed conflating the two if you're unable to provide arguments to support your thesis. What you've offered is an opinion colored by your moral judgment. I asked you to identify which of the main fundamentals of fascism lack logic. This request doesn't exceed the scope of an HN comment. The logic of fascism is grounded in the belief that authoritarian leadership, nationalism, collectivism over i…

> It seems that you are indeed conflating the two if you're unable to provide arguments to support your thesis. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I stand by what I said: go read about fascism, there's plenty written. There are no shortcuts and I won't provide a history lesson for you here. > Where exactly do you see a lack of logic? Nothing you described is "logic"; it is a set of axiomatic beliefs. "Might makes right…

It's important to distinguish between the logical structure of an ideology and the moral or ethical implications of that ideology. Your argument appears to hinge on the assertion that fascism lacks a coherent logical framework, dismissing it as primarily propaganda without a logical core. However, identifying the logical structure of an ideology doesn't necessitate endorsing its moral standing.

Fascism, as historically understood centers around certain key principles such as the ones I provided above (authoritarian leadership, nationalism, and collectivism over individualism etc). These principles form a coherent, if morally contentious, framework. The logic in this context refers to the internal consistency and the cause-and-effect relationships within the ideology. For example, the fascist belief in authoritarian leadership is logically connected to its emphasis on national unity and strength, as authoritarianism is seen as a means to achieve and maintain this unity.

Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern. The ideology posits that strength (might) is necessary for national revival and dominance, and therefore, actions that lead to increased strength are justified (right). This is a form of logic, albeit one that many find ethically objectionable.

Regarding the rejection and persecution of science, this was not a reflection of the inherent logic of fascism but rather a consequence of its authoritarian nature, where any dissenting ideas, including scientific ones, were suppressed to maintain control.

Moral and ethical criticisms of fascism are valid, but they are distinct from an analysis of its logical structure. The logical coherence of an ideology is separate from its moral standing, and it's possible to examine the former without endorsing the latter.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#370

Post by the_af »

lossolo wrote: post #369
the_af wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems that you are indeed conflating the two if you're unable to provide arguments to support your thesis. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I stand by what I said: go read about fascism, there's plenty written. There are no shortcuts and I won't provide a history lesson for you here. > Where exactly do you see a lack of logic? Nothing you described is "logic"; it is a set of axiomatic beliefs. "Might makes right…

It's important to distinguish between the logical structure of an ideology and the moral or ethical implications of that ideology. Your argument appears to hinge on the assertion that fascism lacks a coherent logical framework, dismissing it as primarily propaganda without a logical core. However, identifying the logical structure of an ideology doesn't necessitate endorsing its moral standing. Fascism, as historical…

> Your argument appears to hinge on the assertion that fascism lacks a coherent logical framework, dismissing it as primarily propaganda without a logical core.

It's not my argument alone: a lot has been written about fascism and its lack of logical core! There isn't a lot of "logical structure" to it. I don't think "as historically understood" fascism forms a self-consistent logical core; I think it is well studied that is amorphous, illogical and inconsistent, and that's the historical consensus.

> However, identifying the logical structure of an ideology doesn't necessitate endorsing its moral standing.

To be clear, I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you support fascism either, and I understand what you're trying to argue. I just think the consensus of people who studied fascism is different to your opinion.

Fascism (regardless of whether it's right or wrong -- and I believe we both believe it to be wrong) is highly illogical. There's not much to it beyond its propaganda. It's riddled with inconsistencies, it's not just "wrong" but there's not much to it beyond appeals to emotion.

> Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern

We both agree it's a belief system. I disagree it's logical. Not everything with an "idea" (or a bunch of ideas) is logical. "Ideas" are not enough for something to be called logical.

Again, this is not my argument alone. A lot has been written about fascism espousing what I'm saying here.

It bears repeating again, just in case: I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you're "defending" fascism either; that's not what I'm disagreeing with. I'm rejecting your assertion that fascism is logical (if mistaken). I'm asserting it's both illogical and mistaken. I would accept something evil and logical can exist, it's just that fascism is not it!

Post reply on HN