New NRO article thinks the Holocaust was sensible violence

«‹›4 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > New NRO article thinks the Holocaust was sensible violence

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

I'm really not even exagerrating that much. Here's the crap:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ohnson#comments

quote:

President Obama issued a statement yesterday to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day. He noted that survivors who bore witness to “the horrors of the cattle cars, ghettos, and concentration camps have witnessed humanity at its very worst and know too well the pain of losing loved ones to senseless violence.” (We noted below how some in Europe chose to mark the day, which takes place each year on January 27, the day Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz.)

The idea that all violence is “senseless” violence is one that has taken deep root on the left; it’s also, unfortunately, one that poses a major impediment to understanding the world.

The punchline is, as it is so often with right-wing articles these days "Benghazi".

The tortured, twisted argument of the article is that because the policies of the Nazis had broad general support, they weren't 'senseless'. Never mind that what Obama was talking about was clearly the violence of the camps, not the Nazi ideology as a whole, and never mind that just because something has broad popular support it's not necessarily sensible. The part that really made me go "What?" was this part:

quote:

its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including the “unification of all Germans,” a demand for “land and territory for the sustenance of our people,” and an assertion that “no Jew can be a member of the race.” Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded.

To me, this is the author saying that the assertion that "No Jew can be a member of the race" is 'non-senseless'. That it makes sense. It doesn't make sense, obviously, but is this just an example of absolutely terrible writing on NRO's part, taking anything Obama says to wind up at "Benghazi" at the end, or is this NRO's racism surfacing again?

So hard to tell these days the difference between malice and stupidity.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2013 06:06

Dr. Tough: Oct 21, 2007

While I don't really care too much for National Review, I'm not really sure what you're up in arms about. The author seems to be saying that violence always happens for a reason and that if we just chalk it up as "senseless" and don't bother to look deep at it we'll never understand what caused it in the first place. It's the same criticism that's leveled at people who say that 9/11 was senseless and don't bother to understand that it was connected to US Middle East policy. Understanding why something happened is not the same as condoning it.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:14

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The Screw Whisperer (TM)

Dr. Tough posted:

While I don't really care too much for National Review, I'm not really sure what you're up in arms about. The author seems to be saying that violence always happens for a reason and that if we just chalk it up as "senseless" and don't bother to look deep at it we'll never understand what caused it in the first place. It's the same criticism that's leveled at people who say that 9/11 was senseless and don't bother to understand that it was connected to US Middle East policy. Understanding why something happened is not the same as condoning it.

I think, though, that it is fair to say that the article is rushing to defend the Nazis.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:18

Omi-Polari: Oct 4, 2012

I kinda see what the author is getting at. Nazi violence wasn't wanton sadism but part of a deliberate plan they felt was going to save their civilization and build a better future. It was disastrous and evil, but made sense in its own twisted logic.

But this simple point is just written really badly, clouds up her argument, and makes her sound like she's saying something that she's not. If you're going to talk about politics, especially the Nazis and the Holocaust, for crying out loud, then you should be very specific about what you mean. Even the term "non-senseless" is an awkward double negative.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:22

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

Dr. Tough posted:

While I don't really care too much for National Review, I'm not really sure what you're up in arms about. The author seems to be saying that violence always happens for a reason and that if we just chalk it up as "senseless" and don't bother to look deep at it we'll never understand what caused it in the first place.

First of all, it's a total strawman to say that Obama was saying that we shouldn't look at the causes of the HOlocaust by calling the violence in the camps 'senseless.

Second of all, the word 'senseless' doesn't mean 'irrational'. It means foolish, stupid, meaningless, unproductive. The Holocaust was senseless; there was no reason to kill Jews and killing Jews detracted hugely from the war effort.

Omi-Polari posted:

I kinda see what the author is getting at. Nazi violence wasn't wanton sadism but part of a deliberate plan they felt was going to save their civilization and build a better future. It was disastrous and evil, but made sense in its own twisted logic.

And wanton sadism makes 'sense' to wanton sadists. There'd literally be nothing done by humans that you could call 'senseless' by this criteria, as long as there was an internal rationalization.

Senseless doesn't mean 'irrational'.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:25

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008; We are Legion, a terminal of the Geth.

Omi-Polari posted:

I kinda see what the author is getting at. Nazi violence wasn't wanton sadism but part of a deliberate plan they felt was going to save their civilization and build a better future. It was disastrous and evil, but made sense in its own twisted logic.

But this simple point is just written really badly, clouds up her argument, and makes her sound like she's saying something that she's not. If you're going to talk about politics, especially the Nazis and the Holocaust, for crying out loud, then you should be very specific about what you mean. Even the term "non-senseless" is an awkward double negative.

Real problem is that its still "senseless" even if it seemed logical to the person. There is a good point in that understanding what the motives behind senseless violence are, but its still senseless.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:26

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; MY FAVORITE GAME OF ALL TIME IS SUPERMAN 64

Omi-Polari posted:

I kinda see what the author is getting at. Nazi violence wasn't wanton sadism but part of a deliberate plan they felt was going to save their civilization and build a better future. It was disastrous and evil, but made sense in its own twisted logic.

But this simple point is just written really badly, clouds up her argument, and makes her sound like she's saying something that she's not. If you're going to talk about politics, especially the Nazis and the Holocaust, for crying out loud, then you should be very specific about what you mean. Even the term "non-senseless" is an awkward double negative.

The problem is that the Nazi's and other fascist groups had a mystical and religious belief about violence as a cleansing and purifying force. The rejection of bourgeois utilitarian rationality and its replacement with a fervent desire to have your individuality dissapear into the mass crowd/divine leader is a really important part of fascism. Also the vast majority of Germans were opposed to the war even if they didn't necessarily mind Hitler himself.

And a lot of Nazi violence absolutely was wanton sadism. It might have been deployed toward specific ends in some cases but often it was just a brute expression of violence for its own sake, something which the Nazis celebrated as a masculine and invigorating virtue.

Basically this author is full of poo poo. The Nazis weren't misunderstood patriots who went a bit too far, they were a fanatical political cult that was put in charge of the country by some very stupid old industrialists and army generals who thought they could control the forces they were unleashing.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:28

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

The part of this I most wanted to focus on was where she said that their 25 point plan was 'non-senseless' and then particularly mentioned the one that said "no Jew can be a member of the race." and said many sensible Germans were persuaded by it.

Is she just a terrible writer or is that actually an endorsement of that idea as making 'sense'?

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:39

Omi-Polari: Oct 4, 2012

Helsing posted:

The problem is that the Nazi's and other fascist groups had a mystical and religious belief about violence as a cleansing and purifying force. The rejection of bourgeois utilitarian rationality and its replacement with a fervent desire to have your individuality dissapear into the mass crowd/divine leader is a really important part of fascism. Also the vast majority of Germans were opposed to the war even if they didn't necessarily mind Hitler himself.

And a lot of Nazi violence absolutely was wanton sadism. It might have been deployed toward specific ends in some cases but often it was just a brute expression of violence for its own sake, something which the Nazis celebrated as a masculine and invigorating virtue.

Absolutely agree. I also screwed up myself: I said "Nazi violence wasn't wanton sadism." It would've been more accurate to say that it wasn't simply that, but sadism as an expression of masculine virtue and a revolutionary new era that was intended to revitalize Germany.

But see, now we're actually talking about stuff. But for the National Review writer, it makes her sound like a Nazi sympathizer, which I don't think she is, just a bad writer.

Obdicut posted:

Is she just a terrible writer or is that actually an endorsement of that idea as making 'sense'?

That's the thing. Because she's a terrible writer, it leaves her open to the charge.

Omi-Polari fucked around with this message at Feb 1, 2013 around 16:42

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:39

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004; Never stop arguing about casual racism.

I'm not sure trying to understand the motivations of the Nazis is "rushing to defend them". The holocaust wasn't just some random badness, it was the result of a set of historical circumstances that had people believing there was a threat that could only be dealt with by genocide.

I mean of course it was horrible and the jews where entirely innocent, but the Nazis did it for a reason. A loving idiotic, horrid and evil reason, but a reason none the lest.

Fascism could not have taken root if the economic position it found itself in post WW-I was not so averse toward the working class and petit bourgoise.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:43

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

duck monster posted:

it was the result of a set of historical circumstances that had people believing there was a threat that could only be dealt with by genocide.

No, it wasn't just a set of historical circumstances, it was actively used and endorsed by individuals in order to gain power. That it rested on the bedrock of antisemitism in Lutheranism and fear of communism and the rest is true, but by claiming it's just historical circumstances you're obviating the people who actively spread the propaganda and used it.

quote:

I mean of course it was horrible and the jews where entirely innocent, but the Nazis did it for a reason. A loving idiotic, horrid and evil reason, but a reason none the lest.

Again, senseless does not mean irrational. You could call Nazism as a whole senseless and you could make a very good argument for it being senseless as a whole, since a shitload of it is based on fake science.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:47

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; MY FAVORITE GAME OF ALL TIME IS SUPERMAN 64

Unless you want to redefine rational beyond its conventional usage then the Holocaust was not rational. When you're fighting a massive and desperate war for control of the planet and you consider that war to be a life-or-death struggle for survival then devoting a non-trivial amount of resources to actively exterminating racial minorities inside the territory your control is not a "rational" response, any more than wearing a tinfoil hat is a "rational" response to your schizophrenic fears of the CIA.

Irrational people still have goals and they still pursue those goals instrumentally. Just because you are capable of setting an objective for yourself and then attempting to achieve that objective doesn't make you "rational". Not all intentional or purposeful action is rational.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:48

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

Helsing posted:

Unless you want to redefine rational beyond its conventional usage then the Holocaust was not rational. When you're fighting a massive and desperate war for control of the planet and you consider that war to be a life-or-death struggle for survival then devoting a non-trivial amount of resources to actively exterminating racial minorities inside the territory your control is not a "rational" response, any more than wearing a tinfoil hat is a "rational" response to your schizophrenic fears of the CIA.

Irrational people still have goals and they still pursue those goals instrumentally. Just because you are capable of setting an objective for yourself and then attempting to achieve that objective doesn't make you "rational". Not all intentional or purposeful action is rational.

Heh. True. "Having a rationale for" doesn't equate to 'rational' either. Even if you redefined 'sensible' to mean 'rational', the Holocaust wasn't rational. Not even if you accepted the premise that Jews were evil and needed to be killed, doing it in the middle of wartime was still irrational. And the racism was irrational in the first place.

Nazism: Turns out it's not that rational.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 16:51

Dr. Tough: Oct 21, 2007

Obdicut posted:

No, it wasn't just a set of historical circumstances, it was actively used and endorsed by individuals in order to gain power. That it rested on the bedrock of antisemitism in Lutheranism and fear of communism and the rest is true, but by claiming it's just historical circumstances you're obviating the people who actively spread the propaganda and used it.

How is Lutheranism anti-semetic?

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:01

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; MY FAVORITE GAME OF ALL TIME IS SUPERMAN 64

Despite hating everything about human beings (he said babies made him think of worms) Luther reserved an especially vicious hatred for Jews.

Edit - in case it sounds like I'm being flippant, Luther literally wrote a book called: On the Jews and Their Lies

quote:

On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.
In the treatise, Luther describes Jews as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[1] Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".[3]
In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are
for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
for their religious writings to be taken away;
for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.[4]
The prevailing scholarly view[5] since the Second World War is that the treatise exercised a major and persistent influence on Germany's attitude toward its Jewish citizens in the centuries between the Reformation and the Holocaust. Four hundred years after it was written, the Nazis displayed On the Jews and Their Lies during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically antisemitic tract ever published.[6] Against this view, theologian Johannes Wallmann writes that the treatise had no continuity of influence in Germany, and was in fact largely ignored during the 18th and 19th centuries.[7] Hans Hillerbrand argues that to focus on Luther's role in the development of German antisemitism is to underestimate the "larger peculiarities of German history."[8]
Since the 1980s, some Lutheran church bodies have formally denounced and dissociated themselves from Luther's discriminatory writings on the Jews. In November 1998, on the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Lutheran Church of Bavaria issued a statement: "It is imperative for the Lutheran Church, which knows itself to be indebted to the work and tradition of Martin Luther, to take seriously also his anti-Jewish utterances, to acknowledge their theological function, and to reflect on their consequences. It has to distance itself from every [expression of] anti-Judaism in Lutheran theology."[9]

Luther was not a good man.

Helsing fucked around with this message at Feb 1, 2013 around 17:05

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:03

Dr. Tough: Oct 21, 2007

Helsing posted:

Despite hating everything about human beings (he said babies made him think of worms) Luther reserved an especially vicious hatred for Jews.

Luther might have been anti-Semitic, but what I want to know is how Lutheranism is anti-Semitic.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:05

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; MY FAVORITE GAME OF ALL TIME IS SUPERMAN 64

I just edited my post, so check it again. He actively wrote about how the Jews should be harassed and persecuted and he whipped up a level of anti-semistic frenzy that persisted after his death and which many scholars think contributed to the historical antisemitism that helped produce the Holocaust.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:06

Filboid Studge: Oct 1, 2010; And while they debated the matter among themselves, Conradin made himself another piece of toast.

It isn't now, but 19th and early-20th century German Lutheranism certainly was. Anti-semitism was a respectable, mainstream position until very recently.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:09

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

Dr. Tough posted:

How is Lutheranism anti-semetic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...nd_antisemitism

Luther was a gigantic anti-Semite who railed against Jews and wrote several tracts about how Jews are evil.

Dr. Tough posted:

Luther might have been anti-Semitic, but what I want to know is how Lutheranism is anti-Semitic.

Lutheranism post-WWII has done a pretty good job of divorcing itself from Luther the man, though among older Lutherans you still find deep wells of antisemitsm. But prior to that, Lutherans, especially in Germany, did read Luther's anti-semitic tracts or at least knew of his anti-semitic positions and those formed a very large basis of what Nazism sprang from in Germany.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:12

wikipe tama: Nov 5, 2007

Martin Luther hated Jews because he felt they were by and large unconvertable, He was like Hitler in that he didn't necessarily want them all exterminated right away but their presence was a constant affront to both of their insane grandiose ideals of respectively religious and racial purity and so there was constant friction which boiled over into raving frustration.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:24

The Duke of Ben: Jul 12, 2005; Listen, if you're not going to tell me how the entire world economic, political, and social order can be completely replaced in every detail, then I think maybe you should consider that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Check and mate.

Obdicut posted:

The part of this I most wanted to focus on was where she said that their 25 point plan was 'non-senseless' and then particularly mentioned the one that said "no Jew can be a member of the race." and said many sensible Germans were persuaded by it.

Is she just a terrible writer or is that actually an endorsement of that idea as making 'sense'?

I believe that she considered that one sensible because it was a statement of fact (to the Nazis) in that they were defining what the German Race actually was (no Jews). If the quote had been something along the lines of "All Jews are subhuman filth with no redeeming qualities," then that wouldn't be sensible even if they believed it. I think my example quote is more how you are reading the original quote.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:46

Enjoy: Apr 18, 2009

Helsing posted:

Unless you want to redefine rational beyond its conventional usage then the Holocaust was not rational. When you're fighting a massive and desperate war for control of the planet and you consider that war to be a life-or-death struggle for survival then devoting a non-trivial amount of resources to actively exterminating racial minorities inside the territory your control is not a "rational" response, any more than wearing a tinfoil hat is a "rational" response to your schizophrenic fears of the CIA.

Irrational people still have goals and they still pursue those goals instrumentally. Just because you are capable of setting an objective for yourself and then attempting to achieve that objective doesn't make you "rational". Not all intentional or purposeful action is rational.

Remember that the Dolchstoss myth was a cornerstone of the Nazi explanation of German's defeat in the Great War, so wasting (from our perspective) resources on performing the genocide during wartime wasn't in itself irrational.

e: even if only to maintain support and control of the brainwashed population!

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:47

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

I have no idea why somebody with questionable writing talent would agree or even want to take up writing up something like this at all. You're gonna get hosed over hard. Then again it's NRO, so this will be a proud reactionary moment to some.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 17:57

The Duke of Ben: Jul 12, 2005; Listen, if you're not going to tell me how the entire world economic, political, and social order can be completely replaced in every detail, then I think maybe you should consider that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Check and mate.

Nonsense posted:

I have no idea why somebody with questionable writing talent would agree or even want to take up writing up something like this at all. You're gonna get hosed over hard. Then again it's NRO, so this will be a proud reactionary moment to some.

Seriously. I got flashbacks to the hundreds of times someone in D&D has come into a sensitive topic with a well-intentioned but poorly phrased take on the subject. Someone interested in hearing that opinion would listen with an open mind and pull out that well intentioned truth. But who is this author kidding by trying that with the Holocaust? It's bad enough when it happens in a Feminism thread or a thread about student loans, let alone the single thing that garnered the most negative attention in one of the most horrific centuries in human existence.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:02

az: Dec 2, 2005; If the husband insists on sleeping with his wife by force, it would not be considered rape since this is a right granted to him

Enjoy posted:

e: even if only to maintain support and control of the brainwashed population!

Just fyi, the holocaust had no effect whatsoever on control on or support by the German population.

edit: The "article" is also complete poo poo because it's nothing but a two-bit, drive-by hitjob on Obama and "the left" in the USA. "Obama gave a statement about the holocaust, Obama bad, pee pee doo doo." The actual memory of the holocaust is being used as a shameless prop by the author.

az fucked around with this message at Feb 1, 2013 around 18:08

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:02

Omi-Polari: Oct 4, 2012

^ That too.

Enjoy posted:

Remember that the Dolchstoss myth was a cornerstone of the Nazi explanation of German's defeat in the Great War, so wasting (from our perspective) resources on performing the genocide during wartime wasn't in itself irrational.

It might also be worth noting that the Nazis didn't believe they were wasting war resources on the Holocaust, but saw the Holocaust as the natural extension of the war against a global Jewish conspiracy, as they saw it. I think a common Nazi propaganda term for the war was "The Jewish War" which is what it would have probably been referred to in German history books had the Nazis been successful.

That's a crazy thing. But is it senseless? The Nazis were capable of rationality and their ideology, warped and false as it is, possessed a kind of continuity. It's not incoherent (like Jared Loughner), even though it reflects a demonstrably false view of the world, and is evil. Am I making sense? (Probably not. But I dunno.)

Omi-Polari fucked around with this message at Feb 1, 2013 around 18:18

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:13

King Dopplepopolos: Aug 3, 2007; Give us a raise, loser!

az posted:

The "article" is also complete poo poo because it's nothing but a two-bit, drive-by hitjob on Obama and "the left" in the USA. "Obama gave a statement about the holocaust, Obama bad, pee pee doo doo." The actual memory of the holocaust is being used as a shameless prop by the author.

That's really the worst part about the article, because the author was intentionally using the Holocaust to snipe at Obama. The National Review continues to be worthless.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:18

comes along bort: Sep 12, 2012

King Dopplepopolos posted:

That's really the worst part about the article, because the author was intentionally using the Holocaust to snipe at Obama. The National Review continues to be worthless.

I dunno, as a source of comedy it's quite consistent.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:22

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Just how much of the 20th Century is B. Hussein Obama's fault?

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:25

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

The Duke of Ben posted:

I believe that she considered that one sensible because it was a statement of fact (to the Nazis) in that they were defining what the German Race actually was (no Jews).

That's not what sensible means, though. If you redefine sensible to mean 'sensible to a Nazi', then sure. But no, it's not sensible to even believe in the existence of races. People who believed in racial differences weren't being sensible about it. Yeah, most people weren't (and maybe aren't) sensible about race, but who gives a poo poo? It's still foolish to believe in race in the first place.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:42

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Obdicut posted:

That's not what sensible means, though. If you redefine sensible to mean 'sensible to a Nazi', then sure. But no, it's not sensible to even believe in the existence of races. People who believed in racial differences weren't being sensible about it. Yeah, most people weren't (and maybe aren't) sensible about race, but who gives a poo poo? It's still foolish to believe in race in the first place.

There's no absolute objective standard of what is and what isn't sensible.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:45

Mahuum Aqoha: Jan 15, 2004; SHEPARD!
Do it for the universe!

Nonsense posted:

Just how much of the 20th Century is B. Hussein Obama's fault?

There's some Glenn Beck-ish conspiracy theory out there that Woodrow Wilson was the original BHO (i.e. TOO FAR LEFT, DESTROYING AMERICA, and so on) and that the two are actually related. So at least 80 years of it.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:45

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

R. Mute posted:

There's no absolute objective standard of what is and what isn't sensible.

There's no objective standard of anything. What's your point? Races don't actually exist; they're nonsense from a scientific perspective. Believing in their existence, and especially crafting policy around that supposed difference, is not sensible.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:47

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Obdicut posted:

There's no objective standard of anything. What's your point? Races don't actually exist; they're nonsense from a scientific perspective. Believing in their existence, and especially crafting policy around that supposed difference, is not sensible.

If you say something is sensible, you mean that it's sensible to you. If you say someone is acting sensibly, their actions are sensible to them, sensible for someone in their position. Even if you don't explicitly say it, it's implied. You cannot be sensible full stop. That's how that word works.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:50

predicto: Jul 22, 2004; Errr... ummm... the future might not be looking quite so bright for you. Sorry, ok?

Nonsense posted:

I have no idea why somebody with questionable writing talent would agree or even want to take up writing up something like this at all. You're gonna get hosed over hard. Then again it's NRO, so this will be a proud reactionary moment to some.

Yeah. What's going to happen is that some people are going to complain, and she will say that wasn't what she meant, and conservatives will rally around the unfair attacks by liberals who deliberately misrepresent them as antisemites and racist like they ALWAYS do blah blah blah.

I've seen this play before.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:50

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

R. Mute posted:

If you say something is sensible, you mean that it's sensible to you. If you say someone is acting sensibly, their actions are sensible to them, sensible for someone in their position. Even if you don't explicitly say it, it's implied. You cannot be sensible full stop. That's how that word works.

So there is no such thing as not being sensible, right? Because subjectively, everyone's always acting sensible to themselves, right?

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:52

The Duke of Ben: Jul 12, 2005; Listen, if you're not going to tell me how the entire world economic, political, and social order can be completely replaced in every detail, then I think maybe you should consider that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Check and mate.

Obdicut posted:

That's not what sensible means, though. If you redefine sensible to mean 'sensible to a Nazi', then sure. But no, it's not sensible to even believe in the existence of races. People who believed in racial differences weren't being sensible about it. Yeah, most people weren't (and maybe aren't) sensible about race, but who gives a poo poo? It's still foolish to believe in race in the first place.

If you recall, most Western nations of that time were heavily invested in the idea of Eugenics, because they were just starting to really understand what genetics were. It's only recently that the final vestiges of US Eugenics programs and laws were removed. Certain concepts of "Race" were never true, and I'll grant you that. The idea of genetic traits and markers was and is still true, and the Nazis (as well as most of the Western world) believed that identifying common good traits was a positive for society.

People of that time were at a crossroads between really racist characitures of national groups, and scientific understanding of genetics. To single out the Nazis as believers in race is anarchronistic at best. I'm not sure how useful it is for us to judge them based on our current understanding of race, when the worldview of everyone they could talk to said that race was real and defined. America in the 1930s was not exactly the cornerstone of good understanding about race and genetics. By any good measure, most of the world still isn't.

To pull this back towards the initial question, identifying traits that are common to certain groups is not inherently wrong. The violence that the Nazis perpetrated based on their racial beliefs, many of which were false, was not sensible. The idea of categorizing people based on race and racial features was quite sensible at the time, simply due to how the world viewed race then.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:53

R. Mute: Jul 27, 2011

Obdicut posted:

So there is no such thing as not being sensible, right? Because subjectively, everyone's always acting sensible to themselves, right?

No, wrong. If I were to believe in eugenics and other nazi policies, but said 'naw, don't kill the Jews' - I wouldn't be acting sensibly. Or for a less controversial example: if I knew I couldn't swim, had no intent on dying and yet still went swimming, I wouldn't be acting sensibly either.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 18:56

Obdicut: May 15, 2012

R. Mute posted:

No, wrong. If I were to believe in eugenics and other nazi policies, but said 'naw, don't kill the Jews' - I wouldn't be acting sensibly. Or for a less controversial example: if I knew I couldn't swim, had no intent on dying and yet still went swimming, I wouldn't be acting sensibly either.

If you couldn't swim, you couldn't go swimming. I assume you mean that you wouldn't be acting sensibly if you got in the water, but of course there's a ton of ways you could be getting in the water and being sensible even if you couldn't swim. And can you explain why supporting other Nazi policies but disagreeing with the antisemitism would be not sensible? I can come up with a ton of ways that an individual could rationalize that.

Again, as I said, if your definition is 'sensible to a Nazi', then sure. That's the post that you responded to with their being no objective measure of sensibility. But science does actually exist, races don't, scientifically, exist, and believing they do isn't sensible. Everything may be subjective, but in so far as anything is sensible, racism isn't sensible.

# ? Feb 1, 2013 19:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2013 06:06

The Duke of Ben: Jul 12, 2005; Listen, if you're not going to tell me how the entire world economic, political, and social order can be completely replaced in every detail, then I think maybe you should consider that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Check and mate.

Obdicut posted:

But science does actually exist, races don't, scientifically, exist, and believing they do isn't sensible.

As I said before, at that time and in that part of the world, the Nazis were right in line with what scientific and sensible people were saying. Eugenics and the Nazis specifically got a whole bunch of ideological support from people all over the world. 70 years later we can comfortably say that race isn't real. It's anachronistic to say that they should have thought the same way. Otherwise we can look at literally any point in history and call them senseless, and be perfectly correct by your definition. Even if it's true, what possible benefit does it provide for us to say so?

# ? Feb 1, 2013 19:15

«‹›4 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > New NRO article thinks the Holocaust was sensible violence