One can generally oppose Nazism, because it isn’t the proper answer, and still acknowledge that there are aspects of what they did that anyone would acknowledge as being totally sensible, and were what got them the support of the people, both then and now - both times in error.
Burning Weimar Era sex books for children was definitely one of them. The movie “What is a Woman” refers to some of them. (Oddly, Matt Walsh didn’t touch on other authors in that movement, such as Magnus Hirschfeld. One can only wonder why, but note that other documentaries only mention Magnus Hirschfeld, when there were others as well - again, one can only wonder why!)
How do you teach people to break aspects out from the whole and look at an individual characteristic on its own merits - i.e. “critical thinking”?
We have to beat this smoothbrained logic pattern of IF [NAZI] THEN [MOST EVIL EVER, UNIVERSALLY OPPOSE OR YOU ARE NAZI], which results in this Hegelian Dialogue:
You can’t do anything the Nazis did (result: we lose this war)
You must become a Nazi (result: we lose this war)
“Pick one.”
“The Nazis ate food. Do you eat food, Nazi?”
It’s a stupid argument form and people should be slapped for it.
you are onto something fren.
We need a new way, a new approach.
Stern, discipline, unapologetic progress and respect for law and society yet
flexible and empathetic. Who is to invent this way.
Yes, and this is the true meaning of Matthew 7:1-2, not abstainence.
On Earth as it is in Heaven.
With mercy, yet not unjudged, and if possible agree with your adversary on the way, lest he deliver you up to the judge, who delivers you to the prosecutor, who delivers you to the officer, who cast you into prison.
Check my history into digging up common law usage. I am still an amateur, and not an expert, but we must learn it.
If socialists enact “true” socialism on a local level, voluntarily, it could be allowed and everyone else not care, so long as it is relatively easy to leave by divesting one’s ownership in the collective and moving some 75 acres away. They’d need to own the land and property by valid means, though.
They’d also eventually find that it has actually been tried before and genuinely doesn’t work, kek.
The far bigger problem is the imposition aspect, though. Everyone must always leave a way out other than sword or death for lawful dissent and opposition - a golden bridge, as Sun Tzu called it.
One can generally oppose Nazism, because it isn’t the proper answer, and still acknowledge that there are aspects of what they did that anyone would acknowledge as being totally sensible, and were what got them the support of the people, both then and now - both times in error.
Burning Weimar Era sex books for children was definitely one of them. The movie “What is a Woman” refers to some of them. (Oddly, Matt Walsh didn’t touch on other authors in that movement, such as Magnus Hirschfeld. One can only wonder why, but note that other documentaries only mention Magnus Hirschfeld, when there were others as well - again, one can only wonder why!)
How do you teach people to break aspects out from the whole and look at an individual characteristic on its own merits - i.e. “critical thinking”?
We have to beat this smoothbrained logic pattern of IF [NAZI] THEN [MOST EVIL EVER, UNIVERSALLY OPPOSE OR YOU ARE NAZI], which results in this Hegelian Dialogue:
“Pick one.” “The Nazis ate food. Do you eat food, Nazi?”
It’s a stupid argument form and people should be slapped for it.
you are onto something fren. We need a new way, a new approach. Stern, discipline, unapologetic progress and respect for law and society yet flexible and empathetic. Who is to invent this way.
We are.
Yes, and this is the true meaning of Matthew 7:1-2, not abstainence.
On Earth as it is in Heaven. With mercy, yet not unjudged, and if possible agree with your adversary on the way, lest he deliver you up to the judge, who delivers you to the prosecutor, who delivers you to the officer, who cast you into prison.
Check my history into digging up common law usage. I am still an amateur, and not an expert, but we must learn it.
If socialists enact “true” socialism on a local level, voluntarily, it could be allowed and everyone else not care, so long as it is relatively easy to leave by divesting one’s ownership in the collective and moving some 75 acres away. They’d need to own the land and property by valid means, though.
They’d also eventually find that it has actually been tried before and genuinely doesn’t work, kek.
The far bigger problem is the imposition aspect, though. Everyone must always leave a way out other than sword or death for lawful dissent and opposition - a golden bridge, as Sun Tzu called it.