Obligatory link to Melody Sheep's version of the speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouzKl0oD6sU Arguably the best version.
I prefer this turtabalist trip-hop version that samples it:
It's just chill and sets the mood.
The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
371–380 of 412 posts
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology. You need to dissect the nature of the argument you're presenting and the distinction between logical structure and ideological content.
To effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, provide specific examples of its internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Simply stating that experts agree with your view does not address the core question: What specific elements of fascist ideology lack logical coherence?
I am not aware of any experts who have studied this ideology and concluded that it lacks logical structure. If you maintain that such experts exist, could you please provide citations for their arguments along with the relevant sources? Assuming you reference these experts, you should be able to accurately cite their specific arguments and sources. So please provide precise citations relevant to the context of our discussion, along with the sources.
I will argue that you are still conflating between the ideological content of fascism and its logical structure. An ideology can be logically consistent in how its principles interconnect and support each other, even if those principles are based on fallacious premises or lead to unethical conclusions. The fascist emphasis on nationalism and authoritarian control logically leads to policies that suppress dissent and prioritize state power over individual rights. This is a LOGICAL progression of ideas within the framework of the ideology.
You assert that not everything with an "idea" is logical. While this is true, the logical coherence of an ideology is not just about having ideas but about how these ideas are systematically interconnected and rationalized within that ideology. Fascism has demonstrated a certain internal logic in how it articulates and rationalizes its principles, such as the belief that a strong authoritarian leader is necessary for national unity and that individual rights can be sacrificed for the greater good of the nation.
You mention that fascism is riddled with inconsistencies. If these inconsistencies disrupt the internal logic of the ideology, then please identify them.
So if you want to effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, then go beyond stating the consensus of scholars (appeal to authority) and to specifically identify where the ideology fails to maintain logical consistency. Without these specifics, your thesis relies too heavily on an appeal to authority and a general dismissal of the ideology without addressing its internal logic.
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology. You need to dissect the nature of the argument you're presenting and the distinction between logical structure and ideological content. To effectively argue that fa…
> Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic.
In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have nothing against you, I've explained my point, and I'm not going to give you a history lesson here, "explain" anything to you, or keep reading your walls of text. HN is not suitable for this.
Have a nice day!
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
My partner is very partial to this version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouzKl0oD6sU :)
No disrespect, but to me that thing just gave me the same emotion as when I saw that meme about the person who couldn't connect to the holocaust until an MLP pony was edited into it. Raw humanity just isn't enough any more? Have we become so devoid of imagination and empaty?
Godwin's law has been invoked...
I think you mean you prefer the spoken word to a song? I think they serve different purposes. You can connect to either, or both, but spoken word (or a speech) isn't always appropriate in situations where a song is. :)
> Raw humanity just isn't enough any more? Have we become so devoid of imagination and empaty?
This seems like quite a jump.
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent 3 months in prison for getting drunk, stealing a row boat, and escaping from the police on said boat. My cellmates called me a low budget pirate. That was 10 years ago now. I've met tons of people like me who are otherwise in fields you'd associate with intellect. Some of us just have a knack for testing the limits of society.
At probably a similar level of intoxication we found a boat and used it to enter a military compound in the city center of a small town called Delft. Me and my companion who were in the military at the time thought that would be a good idea. The boat however was leaking quite a bit and sunk right after we arrived. We managed to get into the building, which had a museum, and found a nice spot to sleep. It was not a di…
> a military compound in the city center of a small town called Delft
You mean like, the military museum?
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#376"Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart" - I think many have this so very wrong. Is support for fascism is a sensible, logical, well-thought-out policy? No, it's a heart-felt, emotional appeal to scared, proud, paranoid, crude, brutal people (who seem to be about half of our neighbors). surely the mindful decision is empathetic, constructive, and wise - not just base.
> surely the mindful decision is empathetic, constructive, and wise - not just base. As your heart is, if you listen to it. Listening to your heart is different to compulsive thoughts or reactions; getting swept up in a mass hysteria of the times; or a spasm that can tear through a crowd. These types of revolutions, or crowd motions, are more often based on intense intellectual ideas and expressions of subconscious m…
“They say home is where the heart is / but what a shame / that everybody’s heart / doesn’t beat the same.”
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology. You need to dissect the nature of the argument you're presenting and the distinction between logical structure and ideological content. To effectively argue that fa…
> Appeal to authority does not constitute an argument. Your response continues to emphasize the perceived lack of a logical core in fascism, while also pointing out that this perspective is supported by a consensus among those who have studied the ideology. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic. In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have n…
Throughout this conversation, I have repeatedly requested specific arguments or evidence regarding the logical structure of fascism. These requests were made in the spirit of understanding and critically examining your viewpoint. Despite these requests, you have not provided concrete arguments or examples that directly address the logical structure of fascism, which was the core issue at hand.
> Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic.
Your responses emphasize a reliance on expert consensus without offering specific examples or references to support your stance. While it's true that an appeal to authority is not fallacious when the authority is relevant and credible, the essence of the argument still requires substantiation beyond just stating that experts agree with a viewpoint. Merely stating that experts agree with a position, without providing any direct references or examples is akin to saying "Trust me, I'm right because experts say so" rather than, "Here's the evidence or arguments presented by experts that support my view."
> In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have nothing against you, I've explained my point, and I'm not going to give you a history lesson here, "explain" anything to you, or keep reading your walls of text. HN is not suitable for this.
Stating that you won't provide a "history lesson" or implying that the other person's efforts constitute mere "walls of text" came across as dismissive and disrespectful.
If the conversation isn't aligning with your expectations, it might be more productive to articulate this directly and respectfully. You could say something like, "I appreciate the depth of your inquiry, but I feel that this platform isn't the right place for such an in-depth discussion, or I don't have the resources/time/depth of knowledge to provide the detailed response this topic deserves." instead of writing that you will not teach someone history or "explain" anything to that person.
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But was it regarded as virtuous?
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point, which you seem to have missed, is that N people can claim to be great "if only X wasn't in my way". In reality, an infinitesimally small number of people will be judged as great by history, and half of those will be largely by accident, many will not realize it, and some will only achieve it post-mortem. Therefore, logically , if someone claims to be great, they are mostly likely riding high on hubris and e…
Because that wasn't your point. You claimed it's hubris and ego because greatness is in the eye of the third-party beholder. Now you argue it is necessary that greatness must be unlikely, which is of course true but changes nothing. History of science, maybe history of progress is the history of (at that moment) unlikeliness prevailing.
[deleted]
Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)
#380I always liked this version with music added: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo I remember sharing a jail cell with a 19-year-old Mexican kid once and we were talking about the guards being assholes and he said "they're like machine men"; and I said "with machine minds and machine hearts?" and he was like "YES! You know it?!" -- it was a good moment, we spent the next few days trying to remember the whole s…
Here's the one I like by The The Aquaerials, the piano packs an emotional punch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww1CqDfIGfs
And by the same artist in a similar vein: