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.
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!)
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.
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.
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!)
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.”
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.
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!)
We have to beat this smoothbrained logic pattern of IF [NAZI] THEN [MOST EVIL EVER, UNIVERSALLY OPPOSE OR YOU ARE NAZI].
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”?