Live data from Hacker News

They Thought They Were Free (1955)

press.uchicago.edu

331–340 of 545 posts

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It requires there to be meaningful systematic differences between the people who happen to live in different countries.

so what are you suggesting causes, for example, the French to strike more often than other Western countries? or Japan to typically have particularly low inflation? or Argentina to typically have particularly high inflation?

History? Geography? Specific laws? Particular parties in power?

There are a lot of things to look at alongside mystical notions of a collective national character of a people, especially now that most of these countries have significant immigration and exposure to ideas from elsewhere.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#332

> They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, published by the University of Chicago Press. ©1955, 1966, 2017 by the University of Chicago. Such books will no longer be published if universities are not free. And if freedom begins to disappear, even those who believe themselves safely conformist are not safe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came

>Such books will no longer be published if universities are not free.

That depends on which are the ways in which they are not free.

Government influence is categorically worse because of its very nature, but I'm trying to think of a more consequential influence in the US than the leftist hegemony in universities and coming up with nothing.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an awful lot of stuff about “national character” that is… questionable. Yes! I recently read this book and was pretty shocked by how much was chalked up to the German character. I came away feeling neither comfort nor increased panic relating to the current US situation. I read the book because I was hand-wringing about how complicit I am just by getting on with my privileged and comfortable life right now. I didn’…

Anecdotally, having lived in Germany for a couple of years recently, there is a perceptible national character. The best way to understand it is to ponder the difference between a drag race and a rally race - in one, success means going as fast as possible; in the other success means getting to navigation points within a window of error. Or, with beer: in America success is discovering a new beer with a different fla…

Eh, I think that's a bit overblown. In theory, Germans are famously methodical and precise, in practice the rail network is falling apart, a major bridge in my city recently collapsed due to lack of proper maintenance, and "made in Germany" is mainly an encouragement to buy local, rather than buying for quality.

My experience of Germans, having lived among them for almost a decade, and having married one of them, is that you can usually find a counterexample to any supposed German characteristic just by looking around the room. If there is any overarching theme to the German psyche, it might be a tendency to conservatism (in the sense of preferring to do things as they've always been done), but at the same time you've also got radical groups on the left and the right that are a fundamental part of the democratic fabric of Germany.

I think there are some cultural touchstones that are very German, and those have an influence on how Germans think and act, but I think this can be very contradictory and it's difficult to draw a single picture here. For example, people are very conscious of antisemitism here because of how much it's talked about in schools and the media, and that informs national foreign policy. But at the same time, Germans, like most Western Europeans, have grown up in a time of peace and see war and aggression as a cardinal sin. Both of these inform the German response to something like the situation in Gaza, but the result averages out to a policy that's broadly in line with many other liberal European states.

All in all, I think you'll get more insight from phrenology than from trying to figure out the German character in too much depth.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an awful lot of stuff about “national character” that is… questionable. Yes! I recently read this book and was pretty shocked by how much was chalked up to the German character. I came away feeling neither comfort nor increased panic relating to the current US situation. I read the book because I was hand-wringing about how complicit I am just by getting on with my privileged and comfortable life right now. I didn’…

While reading about history can always be enlightening, I sure hope you aren't looking to a book to inform you on what is right or wrong and what your behaviour should be.

Yes, I do read books to give me different perspectives on life that help me form my beliefs about what is right, wrong and ethical. The suggestion that’s a bad idea is pretty incredible to me. Where do you think I should go for such things?

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#335

> "Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better.[...]" I read this book a few years ago and I can't stop thinking about this line of discourse (there's more of this subject in the book). I've felt this exceptional frustration and disgust t…

> I grew up with this belief that for all their loud, obnoxious quirks and faults, Americans do not fuck around when it comes to their principles of liberty and freedom. This is exactly the problem. Americans see their own country as perfect example of freedom and liberty, and the idea that they might be wrong never crosses their minds. When you try to explain to them that their culture has elements actively hostile…

> When you try to explain to them that their culture has elements actively hostile to personal freedom, you get a syntax error at best.

Alright, I'll bite. Mind elaborating more?

As a follow up question, are you talking more about positive or negative freedoms? I e. freedom-to vs freedom-from?

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excerpts from this have popped up in Reddit comments quite a bit the last few years. At first it did feel out of place, but now I'm going going back and listening to Dan Carlin talk about the headspace of society before something like Nazi Germany happens. With all the Executive Orders and lawlessness from the Executive Branch and throughout our federal government with this new regime, it's pretty clear they're attem…

> and who knows what it will look like if we have some kind of civil war out of this. I don't understand mentions of "civil war" in the public lately (there's even a Hollywood movie about it). There is only one party controlling the armed forces. I also doubt that any high-ranking officers would take the troops they command out of the command structure and then even order them to attack the government and other troop…

If the president shreds the constitution, there would likely be many in the military opposed to it.

While they are actively replacing cabinet positions with loyal outsiders that have little-to-no experience within the organizations they now run (eg Patel, Hegseth), I think it’s reasonable to assume that there remains career leaders throughout that would put country before king.

You also need to look at loyalty within the rank and file of course.

When I talk to conservative friends about this scenario they generally laugh; of course the military would choose country over king. At least for now I think there remains enough institutional integrity that this is plausible.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what made the stuff about national character questionable?

It requires there to be meaningful systematic differences between the people who happen to live in different countries.

So... Culture? Are we doubting the existence of culture now?

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#338
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your suggestions aren't really addressing the things people are actually worried about here. If leadership-aligned politicians won't dare step out of line, and those opposed are systematically marginalized by the executive, other legislators, and the courts, then what good does that do? Deliberately neutralizing the opposition's power renders the opposition's ideas, efforts, and proposals useless, and the allied poli…

> people are nervous that this is becoming true It seems abundantly clear that there will be no peaceful/rule-of-law transfer of executive power in January 2029 to anyone but a hand-picked Trump successor that wins an election. A democratic victory (or even a Republican primary winner that isn't appropriately selected) will be resisted at all levels of the executive, and... we'll just see. Whatever the result, the lo…

I'm not so quick to pull the trigger on that assessment. I think we're at point where the rubber band has ostensibly been pulled back nearly as far as it can go, and it may snap, or it might make a surprising move in the opposite direction in response to the tension. I don't think any of us peons has any meaningful control of which of those two things happens, but I think it will hinge a lot on how much big businesses are affected by the economic and political consequences of recent policy moves. No matter how much Trump might bluster about big businesses and such, he'll still fall in line if enough get pushed to the point of having to draw a line in the sand. Too bad it will probably be big business operating in pure self-interest and not some actual principled entity. Maaaaybe if there's enough economic pain among his base, that could point us towards a voter-driven repudiation to some extent. Even if they cement their power significantly, I don't think they could swing it with an outright rejection of their approach. I doubt that will happen though.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump himself said "When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech Pulling this quote out of context fits in a general pattern of demonization of Trump that goes all the way back to the "fine people" Charlottesville hoax. What Trump meant about free speech is that once 97% of a broadcast consists of partisan attacks, the broadcaster can no longer hide beyond the fig leaf of indivi…

That is not at all the right context. You have fabricated a context that suits some legitimate intent. The president wasn't talking at all about limited spectrum and I can't believe you keep going back there. > A broadcast that consists of 97% demonization of a people on one side of an issue that splits the country 50-50 isn't serving the interest of the public. It's almost as if you are calling for the return of the…

> It's not trying to demonize, it's a critique of the party in power misrepresenting the truth.

The truth, which was what in this case? (Bearing in mind what information about the shooter was available at the time of Kimmel’s statement).

And who/what arbitrates between whether it’s demonization or criticism in this matter?

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nagging the suspicion that the knowledge that a good portion of the population wants them dead is a slightly more significant factor in pushing elites to the Republican side compared to the Trump administration's threats.

My point is they're not different factors, they're the same dynamic. As for your comparison, the actual threat from more Luigis is small. There are at least thousands of CEOs at or above the level of Armstrong? And one death, over a seeming period of several years? And the motive wasn't just "elites bad", but very specific healthcare denials. Meanwhile Trump is actively attacking many companies and institutions. Part…

> As for your comparison, the actual threat from more Luigis is small. There are at least thousands of CEOs at or above the level of Armstrong? And one death, over a seeming period of several years?

It's less about the murderer himself, and more about the high level of support he has. "Many of the rank and file in the Democratic coalition want you dead, but not to worry nearly all of them are cowards who'd never do anything about it." is cold comfort.

> And the motive wasn't just "elites bad", but very specific healthcare denials.

Do I really need to go trough Reddit to find you people calling for the murder of "capitalists", right down to landlords and homeowners?

I'm sure the elites (if we could call them that) prefer to seem like they are being pressured by the Trump administration. It's better for business and it's safer that way. But their compliance comes a little too easy.

Post reply on HN