21–30 of 134 posts
Discussed in 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11053415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11155824 Dorothy Thompson was one of if not the most famous American journalist of the 1930s and 40s. She's largely forgotten now, but is sure to be rediscovered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Thompson
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 'go nazi', given a system which relieves them of responsibility for their actions. "Just following orders" was the typical & honest answer, if I recall. The men didn't feel they bore a moral duty to disobey, because these things just had to be done, or so they were told.
So, if I can riff a bit on the article's themes... maybe mean people will hand you the gun, but anyone will pull the trigger, if they're told to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It literally starts by saying it’s not a racial thing.
Fourth paragraph: "Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature." She's ascribing an inclination to Nazism to feeding and physical training. There is no charitable interpretation. Added [I'm blocked from responding]: Near the end: "L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in th…
> Fourth paragraph: "Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature."
It's obvious that she's talking about upbringing rather than genetics, despite the word choice. You're being way too literal.
The second paragraph's mention of Jewish Nazis actually is correct, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National... . Almost anyone can become a Nazi. Unfortunately, it turns out that being a Nazi, does not save you from the Nazis.
That depended on your level of devotion, I suppose. See e.g. Emil Maurice, he was a Jew and a founding member of the Schutzstaffel (SS member #2).
"Hitler compelled Himmler to make an exception for Maurice and his brothers, who were informally declared 'Honorary Aryans' and allowed to stay in the SS."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It literally starts by saying it’s not a racial thing.
First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fourth paragraph: "Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature." She's ascribing an inclination to Nazism to feeding and physical training. There is no charitable interpretation. Added [I'm blocked from responding]: Near the end: "L is the strongest natural-born Nazi in th…
> First paragraph: "I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, ..." [emphasis added] > Fourth paragraph: "Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work—a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature." It's obvious that she's talking about upbringing rather than genetics, despite the word choice. You're being way too…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't get that from the article at all. I think this sentence in the last section of the article is the central point: > Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. That Nazism is a product of cruelty, unhappiness, and insecurity. Fascism is about dominance. About being a part of the group to which the other is subordinate. Which is something that appeals to people who are deeply bitter, delight i…
Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never... become school shooters, or terrorists, etc. At some level, people want to be winning at life: if they are, they're invested in the current system. If they aren't, they may seek change (or at least immerse themselves in some subculture).
I am very glad that I was able to purchase a modest house that I can work on and modify. I'm happy with designing and implementing solutions to the technical problems my job entails. I'm happy that I have the opportunity to save so that I have a financial cushion should many unexpected events occur.
And I don't think this situation requires anyone else to lose.
Now I would admit that I might not be and likely am not representative of everyone in our society but isn't that more of an attitude towards expectations than some sort of static rule? I might have the expectation that I should have a Ferrari and an attractive and doting partner, or a happy perfect family, but there is no reason my expectations justify hurting others.
I think if we look closer at social dysfunction in general we would see that the people lashing out have either unrealistic expectations or have someone been marginalized even beyond what we all might agree about as a baseline of expectations: that we have the opportunity to take part in society without being treated shabbily for no reason, that we are appreciated at some level by someone, and that we can be vulnerable and rely on others without being neglected or ostracized.
There will always be people who are naturally dysfunctional due to mental health issues but I have to think most of the worst problems society faces could be greatly reduced if we cared about each other more.
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 '…
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 '…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never... become school shooters, or terrorists, etc. At some level, people want to be winning at life: if they are, they're invested in the current system. If they aren't, they may seek change (or at least immerse themselves in some subculture).
'winning' implies that there has to be someone 'losing' and I don't feel like that represents my view of my life though I do feel very satisfied. I am very glad that I was able to purchase a modest house that I can work on and modify. I'm happy with designing and implementing solutions to the technical problems my job entails. I'm happy that I have the opportunity to save so that I have a financial cushion should man…
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 losers, there are losers. An exchange at dinner the other night went like this: What slogan did Obama run on? Change. And what is it that people want to change? They want their lives to stop sucking so hard.