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

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#111

Post by humanrebar »

motohagiography wrote: post #59
skrap wrote: post #22

I get what the author is getting at. Not sure I agree. Many years ago, I read "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland", which analyzes interviews with the actual men performing the slaughter of innocents at the end of the war. The conclusion that book drew was different than this article, and makes more sense to me — that it's not "mean people 'go nazi'", but ordinary people who '…

This dynamic is significant in the culture wars of today. As part of some work in architecture for some public sector projects, I read "The Nazi Census" which was a description of the technologies and techniques of the 1938 german census which was a basis for the NSDAPs brutal bureaucracy. ( https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Po... ) One of the interesting parts was adding "unused," fields to t…

> As a result, you can "steelman" the sentiments behind many conservative arguments by summarizing them...

Which conservative arguments? It seems like you're just referring to a different brand of identity politics as "conservative".

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#112

Post by humanrebar »

agumonkey wrote: post #107
skrap wrote: post #22

I get what the author is getting at. Not sure I agree. Many years ago, I read "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland", which analyzes interviews with the actual men performing the slaughter of innocents at the end of the war. The conclusion that book drew was different than this article, and makes more sense to me — that it's not "mean people 'go nazi'", but ordinary people who '…

Reminds me of culture shock between Europe and South America. When people came there, sacrifices seemed barbaric. To the aztec/inca ... these were probably a noble gesture. People's emotions toward acts is highly dependant on the reference system they live in. I'm sure it's exceptionally hard to escape this kind of nation wide social pressure. At least for a while. I've read people starting to feel sick and question…

> People's emotions toward acts is highly dependant on the reference system they live in.

Yes, but let's be careful not to conflate felt nobility with actual good. Sacrificing humans to false gods is pretty awful, no matter the sentiment behind the acts.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#113

Post by motohagiography »

humanrebar wrote: post #111
motohagiography wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dynamic is significant in the culture wars of today. As part of some work in architecture for some public sector projects, I read "The Nazi Census" which was a description of the technologies and techniques of the 1938 german census which was a basis for the NSDAPs brutal bureaucracy. ( https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Po... ) One of the interesting parts was adding "unused," fields to t…

> As a result, you can "steelman" the sentiments behind many conservative arguments by summarizing them... Which conservative arguments? It seems like you're just referring to a different brand of identity politics as "conservative".

That is a sound observation. I think what we call identity politics is a divisive style of argument across the spectrum, and not a political stripe in itself.

In the Jonathan Haidt model, conservatives tend to be rule seeking and internally group biased, where liberals prefer the opportunities created by external influences and focus on outcomes.

Regarding the original article, 20th century wars figure prominently in the minds of conservatives, and it's worth considering that many good people are indexed on factors in a narrative that includes them.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#114

Post by zeth___ »

humanrebar wrote: post #112
agumonkey wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of culture shock between Europe and South America. When people came there, sacrifices seemed barbaric. To the aztec/inca ... these were probably a noble gesture. People's emotions toward acts is highly dependant on the reference system they live in. I'm sure it's exceptionally hard to escape this kind of nation wide social pressure. At least for a while. I've read people starting to feel sick and question…

> People's emotions toward acts is highly dependant on the reference system they live in. Yes, but let's be careful not to conflate felt nobility with actual good. Sacrificing humans to false gods is pretty awful, no matter the sentiment behind the acts.

Lets also not confuse means with ends. A room full of corpses is a room full of corpses. Regardless if they were put there from human sacrifice, nazi genocide, communist collectivization, or capitalist cost cutting (the sweatshop workers that get burned to death).

That the people who filled that room wanted a wonderful society filled with everything good doesn't detract from the fact they were monsters.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#115

Post by humanrebar »

motohagiography wrote: post #113
humanrebar wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a result, you can "steelman" the sentiments behind many conservative arguments by summarizing them... Which conservative arguments? It seems like you're just referring to a different brand of identity politics as "conservative".

That is a sound observation. I think what we call identity politics is a divisive style of argument across the spectrum, and not a political stripe in itself. In the Jonathan Haidt model, conservatives tend to be rule seeking and internally group biased, where liberals prefer the opportunities created by external influences and focus on outcomes. Regarding the original article, 20th century wars figure prominently in…

I'd phrase it as conservatives find good principles are more trustworthy than good individuals, especially given that turnover guarantees more opportunities to install bad individuals in power.

There is a principle that some knowledge is crowd-sourced over time and we shouldn't ignore that. If there is a fence in a field, we should figure out why it is there before tearing it down. And we should tear it down in a gradual and reversible way in case we were wrong in our original guess.

Your comments about which groups are in charge of what could be that kind of conservatism if you squint, but it ignores the fact that individualism is one of the principles conservatives are trying to preserve.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#116

Post by e12e »

watwut wrote: post #91
motohagiography wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dynamic is significant in the culture wars of today. As part of some work in architecture for some public sector projects, I read "The Nazi Census" which was a description of the technologies and techniques of the 1938 german census which was a basis for the NSDAPs brutal bureaucracy. ( https://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Census-Identification-Control-Po... ) One of the interesting parts was adding "unused," fields to t…

What do you mean by "the ones assumed when those techs and institutions were built"? Both Nazi and Communists institutions and techs were built for that exact purpose.

If you mean designed and built, that's a rather harsh judgement of eg IBM - well beyond "war profiteer". Perhaps supplied for that purpose though.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.hig...

Somewhat chilling to contemplate what purpose the current "Watson" could be put to, though:

"When the Nazis invaded Poland (...) IBM New York established a special new subsidiary called Watson Business Machines," after its then- president, Thomas Watson."

"Hello, Watson - is our genocide still on track?"

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#117

Post by [deleted] »

humanrebar wrote: post #115
motohagiography wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a sound observation. I think what we call identity politics is a divisive style of argument across the spectrum, and not a political stripe in itself. In the Jonathan Haidt model, conservatives tend to be rule seeking and internally group biased, where liberals prefer the opportunities created by external influences and focus on outcomes. Regarding the original article, 20th century wars figure prominently in…

I'd phrase it as conservatives find good principles are more trustworthy than good individuals, especially given that turnover guarantees more opportunities to install bad individuals in power. There is a principle that some knowledge is crowd-sourced over time and we shouldn't ignore that. If there is a fence in a field, we should figure out why it is there before tearing it down. And we should tear it down in a gra…

[deleted]

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#118

Post by psyc »

fleetingmoments wrote: post #110
psyc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think this situation requires anyone else to lose. I don't know enough macroeconomics, nor enough about the veracity of macroeconomics, to determine whether this is true. I'm not calling you out, or asking you to defend your thesis to strangers. I'm just wondering whether you're able to reason end-to-end about this in your own mind, to reach this conclusion. Also, whether or not your good fortune depends on…

Whether their lives are "sucking" is a matter of perspective. There are billions of people around the world who would be only too grateful for a life that "sucks" as much as theirs do. You'll find people from all walks of life who have convinced themselves that their life sucks and that, if only they got that raise, or if the economy grew at x % or if the guy who talks like them became president, it would suck less.…

At best, I think this could only be a solution for an individual. Perhaps I'm simply lacking imagination here, but the U.S. adopting some alternative to materialism is one of the last things in the world I can picture.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#119

Post by coldtea »

It's a spot on essay on the kind of the original Nazi movement (and others since), but not applicable to the modern Trump situation.

First, because the Nazi analogy is far-fetched -- from the Wall, to the travel ban, to throwing out immigrants, and on to war, he is continuing more or less the same policies as Obama. Who didn't do that great on institutional racism either (remember "black lives matter"? The hurt that caused this and the killer cop business had continued as usual under his watch. Same for things like surveillance, hawkish attacks in foreign policy, etc. Heck, even Obamacare was "inspired" from Mitt Romney -- and nothing like e.g. British or Canadian healthcare).

But even more so, because while the Nazi party was THE establishment, Trump is a small anomaly, with most of the establishment figures (all "good society" and the prestigious press) against him. You can't build a career on being for Trump today (you'll regret very soon), whereas you could for being pro Nazi in the thirties. And many of the author's analogies are based on those aspects.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#120

Post by agumonkey »

humanrebar wrote: post #112
agumonkey wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of culture shock between Europe and South America. When people came there, sacrifices seemed barbaric. To the aztec/inca ... these were probably a noble gesture. People's emotions toward acts is highly dependant on the reference system they live in. I'm sure it's exceptionally hard to escape this kind of nation wide social pressure. At least for a while. I've read people starting to feel sick and question…

> People's emotions toward acts is highly dependant on the reference system they live in. Yes, but let's be careful not to conflate felt nobility with actual good. Sacrificing humans to false gods is pretty awful, no matter the sentiment behind the acts.

Try to put yourself in their shoes, to the victim it was probably a high desire, his family was probably proud, they may believe he went into heaven and were relieved. If the whole system is strong in its belief and consistent you cannot "understand" their acts as good or bad.
Post reply on HN