I'm Now Officially a Racist Bigot! WOOT!

[Kutnupe14]

It is amazing how many times that by all rights that man should have been killed between his youth and the time he actually died. I think we are close enough together regarding our faith-based worldviews to suppose that the 'other team' gave him a whole lot of support.

Lol, for sure.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Think about it... a couple of brews and girls for Der Fuhrer, and the course of history could have been vastly different! I'm always amazed at how such little things could have changed the world, like:
-if hitler got into art school
-if the he had been shot by the British soldier
-if a suitcase bomb hadn't been moved

Read much on/about (or by) Deitrich Bonhoeffer?

 

[AtTheMurph]

Hitler won the popular vote.

ETA:
Upon reflection, purple may be necessary.

Hitler did not win the popular vote. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. After President Hindenburg's death about a year later Hitler combined both positions to become Fuhrer.

 

[T.Lex]

Hitler did not win the popular vote. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. After President Hindenburg's death about a year later Hitler combined both positions to become Fuhrer.

You missed the edit.

 

[actaeon277]

Think about it... a couple of brews and girls for Der Fuhrer, and the course of history could have been vastly different! I'm always amazed at how such little things could have changed the world, like:
-if hitler got into art school
-if the he had been shot by the British soldier
-if a suitcase bomb hadn't been moved

Maybe events would be stronger than the individual.
Hitler dies.... and fate (or history, or whatever) causes some other person to be put in his place.

 

[spencer rifle]

Stalin and Mao made Hitler look like a piker.
But they get a pass because leftism.

 

[rhino]

Stalin and Mao made Hitler look like a piker.
But they get a pass because leftism.

Understatement!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Stalin and Mao made Hitler look like a piker.
But they get a pass because leftism.

No, that's not even close to being true. Hitler's was the enemy. The other two, got a pass, because they were our allies during WW2. They were painted in a much better light than Hitler.

 

[T.Lex]

Was trying to stay out of this particular go-nowhere derail, but both Stalin (whose purges started before WWII) and Mao benefited from a war-weary world, with that weariness starting with the fight against Hitler. And, Hitler exported his evil outside his borders, which Mao didn't do, and Stalin only did a little bit (and even that depends on which historic borders you want to use).

Suffice it to say, of all those evils, if I had to pick one to fight, I'd pick Hitler every time.

 

[rhino]

Was trying to stay out of this particular go-nowhere derail, but both Stalin (whose purges started before WWII) and Mao benefited from a war-weary world, with that weariness starting with the fight against Hitler. And, Hitler exported his evil outside his borders, which Mao didn't do, and Stalin only did a little bit (and even that depends on which historic borders you want to use).

Suffice it to say, of all those evils, if I had to pick one to fight, I'd pick Hitler every time.

Unclear . . . do you suggest that you would pick Hitler because was the most evil of the three and/or more worthy of fighting, or that you would pick Hitler because it would be a fight that is more likely to have a positive outcome?

 

[printcraft]

No, that's not even close to being true. Hitler's was the enemy. The other two, got a pass, because they were our allies during WW2. They were painted in a much better light than Hitler.

Explain this?

You'll find douchebag leftists strutting around in these today.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Was trying to stay out of this particular go-nowhere derail, but both Stalin (whose purges started before WWII) and Mao benefited from a war-weary world, with that weariness starting with the fight against Hitler. And, Hitler exported his evil outside his borders, which Mao didn't do, and Stalin only did a little bit (and even that depends on which historic borders you want to use).

Suffice it to say, of all those evils, if I had to pick one to fight, I'd pick Hitler every time.

Right, it's amazing what a different it makes when you simply abuse your own citizens, vs when you start abusing citizens in other places. "Citizens," meaning people who reside in within your borders.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Explain this?

You'll find douchebag leftists strutting around in these today.

Lol

 

[jagee]

Everybody is just going to leave this slow-pitch softball for me? Ok then...

He also didn't drink alcohol

...only Zima.

 

[T.Lex]

Unclear . . . do you suggest that you would pick Hitler because was the most evil of the three and/or more worthy of fighting, or that you would pick Hitler because it would be a fight that is more likely to have a positive outcome?

Well, neither and both.

Neither: because those 2 factors don't adequately capture why I think fighting Hitler to be the best choice (if only 1 choice is allowed, which in reality, it isn't, but it does come down to priorities).

Both: because those 2 factors are good starting points. I do think Hitler was "most" evil (as I do not believe "good" or "evil" in the human condition is a strictly binary choice). His goals were more evil IMHO because Stalin and Mao had more practical goals: eliminate people who needed eliminating to control their populations. Hitler's goal was regional, if not global, and relied on eliminating people who were unrelated to his control. To me, that is more evil. (I don't think "evil" can be measured in body count alone, although that is certainly a legitimate factor.)

In terms of "positive outcome," Hitler took the fight to other countries and would not have stopped. That kind of inside-out aggression can only be stopped with external aggression in response. Hitler's aggression obligated other countries (by treaty and principle) to fight him hard enough to deny him his preferred outcome and impose a "more positive" one.

In addition, particularly because of Operation Barbarossa, the Allies had a practical opportunity to defeat him. Neither Stalin nor Mao (to my recollection) ever presented a similar opportunity.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Everybody is just going to leave this slow-pitch softball for me? Ok then...






...only Zima.

Zima is a fine 1/2% alcohol drink!

 

[Benp]

Zima is a fine 1/2% alcohol drink!

There is a place for Zima, and that is for it to stay on the shelves of a store.

 

[rhino]

So, in my opinion, being called or labeled a "racist" is heavily dependent on context. The include both the meaning of the appellation as well as whether it's an insult or not. In 2017, being labeled a racist is usually a result of the labeler having a weak position, who then throws the epithet "racist" because 1) they have no substantive recourse, and 2) in their world, being racist is the ultimate sin/taboo.

Being called a racist by a progressive/socialist-statist is, in my opinion, both funny and an inadvertent compliment. A compliment because they are admitting defeat (whether they know it or not) and funny because they think you will receive it as the insult it was intended and be hurt by it. I can't speak for others, but I am immune to being called a racist by those people. I don't care if they think I'm a racist for real, I don't care if they're just throwing something on the wall to see if it will stick, and I know that there are a huge set of character faults that are much worse than being a racist. My reaction is, "Okay. And . . .??"

There's also the fact that I have yet to meet an adult (who is capable of sensory input) who is not racist in some way and to some degree. I also don't think that does or does not make them a bad person. It's simply a manifestation of recognizing differences and an innate human tendency to order things by preference, often categorize by level of sameness or level of difference. The potential negative effects arise when someone allows those feelings to adversely affect how they behave and interact with others.

Ironically, I also note that those who are quick to hurl the term "racist" the accusation of racism at others tend to be, for lack of a better term, racists in a true sense. Often in their herculean attempts to prove how "not racist" they are, they demonstrate the contrary. It's yet another example of pointing a finger at someone means that you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.

We're not seeing the word "fascist" using in an almost identical manner. Most who use the term are ignorant of any working definition of fascism as well as the actual history of true fascism and fascists. Again, the irony hammer strikes with authority when the "antifa" people espouse opposition to fascism and fascists when their behaviors and tactics very closely resemble true fascists in history.

Meh. What do I know.

 

[rhino]

Well, neither and both.

Neither: because those 2 factors don't adequately capture why I think fighting Hitler to be the best choice (if only 1 choice is allowed, which in reality, it isn't, but it does come down to priorities).

Both: because those 2 factors are good starting points. I do think Hitler was "most" evil (as I do not believe "good" or "evil" in the human condition is a strictly binary choice). His goals were more evil IMHO because Stalin and Mao had more practical goals: eliminate people who needed eliminating to control their populations. Hitler's goal was regional, if not global, and relied on eliminating people who were unrelated to his control. To me, that is more evil. (I don't think "evil" can be measured in body count alone, although that is certainly a legitimate factor.)

In terms of "positive outcome," Hitler took the fight to other countries and would not have stopped. That kind of inside-out aggression can only be stopped with external aggression in response. Hitler's aggression obligated other countries (by treaty and principle) to fight him hard enough to deny him his preferred outcome and impose a "more positive" one.

In addition, particularly because of Operation Barbarossa, the Allies had a practical opportunity to defeat him. Neither Stalin nor Mao (to my recollection) ever presented a similar opportunity.

Your analysis is quite odd to me. Stalin and Mao killing mostly their own is far worse in my opinion. I liken it to a father killing his own children because he values some of them more than others. That's evil. To me, killing your own is worse than defining another group as your enemy and then killing them.

Hitler was also crazier than a fruit bat, whereas I believe Stalin and Mao were rational, albeit probably sociopaths. We still feel pain from all of them, but the machine that Hitler built is mostly a memory. The machines that Stalin and Mao created are still with us, although I will grant the wholesale slaughter has slowed.

Much of Hitler's evil was fueled by emotion and insanity. Stalin and Mao very calmly and systematically decided to exterminate countless numbers of humans. I find the latter worse. Your mileage clearly varies.

 

[T.Lex]

Your analysis is quite odd to me. Stalin and Mao killing mostly their own is far worse in my opinion. I liken it to a father killing his own children because he values some of them more than others. That's evil. To me, killing your own is worse than defining another group as your enemy and then killing them.

Hitler was also crazier than a fruit bat, whereas I believe Stalin and Mao were rational, albeit probably sociopaths. We still feel pain from all of them, but the machine that Hitler built is mostly a memory. The machines that Stalin and Mao created are still with us, although I will grant the wholesale slaughter has slowed.

Much of Hitler's evil was fueled by emotion and insanity. Stalin and Mao very calmly and systematically decided to exterminate countless numbers of humans. I find the latter worse. Your mileage clearly varies.

Ah, indeed, we have 2 perspectives.

For me, crazy and evil are very different. Crazy people aren't (usually) evil. Something is wrong with them that prevents them from perceiving the world in a rational way. I've known people with schizophrenia and it is really a different reality.

I don't think Hitler was crazy. That is too easy. He was simply more evil. In your construct, his actions were so evil that they must've been crazy. To me, that confuses different spectrums. (Although, the product of "crazy" can also be evil, particularly if you believe the death penalty defenders who say that all of the capital murderers are crazy, not evil.)

Hitler was absolutely rational and calculated. He cultivated entire logistics operations to achieve his evil. Now, so did Stalin and Mao, of course.

But, you did not address the other practical aspects of my post. We can certainly discuss relative evil - we are probably both right. But what would justify NOT fighting Hitler, but fighting one of the others instead? Or the Khmer Rouge?