Are you the same person whose dad used to say that? I remember someone commenting about it on Lemmy and it has stuck with me. If it is you, thanks, and if not thanks anyway for the reminder that there’s always someone willing to carry water and normalize monsters.
I’ve heard Norm Finkelstein say it as something his mother used to say. It’s a reference to how her Apple Strudel recipe was featured in a magazine before the war.
The difference between Bin Laden and Hitler was that Bin Laden actually had legitimate beef, based on the colonialist actions of a belligerent ethnostate (and their puppet, the USA) carrying out a nazi-esque regime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, as well as blowing up countless Muslim human beings with long-range missles in the name of economic imperialism.
So if you do asshole things in support of assholes, don’t be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
And Hitler…. Well he didn’t have the same effective PR campaign the Zionists do.
Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.
It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).
I’m sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect “aryan” ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler’s actions can go get FUCKED.
Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.
Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.
None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that saying something along the lines of “the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not” is at the very least reductive.
People don’t follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.
I don’t buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would’ve existed despite circumstances.
In contrary: It’s the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.
The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.
That’s fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Extreme problems can lead to drastic measures, which often does not work out well for humanity. People definitely look for a “hero” to save them without realizing the power collectively lies within themselves for change.
Dehumanizing divorces these evils from the human soul. It pretends that only monsters would do such evil. The ss men in the concentration camps were not monsters, they were humans who loved their wives and children, that doesn’t diminish their crimes it just clarifies that those evils lie within humans. That makes those crimes even worse in my opinion, because it proves those people are capable of love and are capable to tell right from wrong and they willingly ignored their love and humanity to do such evil.
We all carry the same potential for evil, it’s better to acknowledge that than to pretend there are monsters with human clothing among us.
because it proves those people are capable of love
The hell it does. It only shows that if some inhuman sociopathic piece of shit can convince a woman to let him blast a load inside her, that sooner or later a baby is gonna come out. Children can ne born without love, families can exist without love.
Evil might be a spectrum but it’s fairly safe to say that we can cut of anything that is on the very far evil side of it without having to lose sleep over that.
But they are human. They not something different, they are just like you and I are, they just don’t give a shit about other humans. I’m trying to say we are all the same species, they all had the potential to NOT be that monstrous and that makes what they’re doing even worse.
Would they just be ‘inhuman sociopathic piece of shit’ that would mean they couldn’t help themselves, but they could, they are human, they could be nice and loving and caring and instead choose to not be and that’s worse.
There only human by biology. You know there are debates when the first emergence of the modern human happened and what the signs were. It could be the first man made tools, the use of fire, etc. In my opinion it was the discovery of a body that had a healed broken leg. This means that some several tens of thousands of years ago, one of our ancestors broke their leg and others from their group nursed them back to health. Maybe they couldn’t hunt anymore, maybe they couldn’t carry anything heavy anymore, but the fact that there was every reason to let that human die to not make the pack weaker and they didn’t is for me a sign of pure humanity.
That CEO went every day to their job and let the people that needed help die. The worst part is, it wasn’t even for a good reason. A predator does the same thing, it waits for the weakest to be at their most vurnable to kill them safely. Except a predator does it to survive. That CEO did it for one reason and one reason only. The Number™ must go up.
Luigi shouldn’t be trialed for murder, maybe violence against animals, but calling that CEO an animal is to high praised. Animals live at least in some sort of balance with their environment, they know when to stop so there’s going to be enough left for the next time. Leave pieces of shit like that CEO to their own accords and they will take everything they can and leave nothing behind.
I understand what you’re trying to convey, but disagree with the basis. Nothing else in our known history has ever come anywhere near the level of evil of humans. To get near us we’d have to discover that eating their young isn’t something some species do out of stress, or danger, or instability, they just think it’s funny.
If I understand what you’re saying right, then that’s exactly what I was saying.
These people are not some different species, some terrifying unimaginable thing, they are humans.
You were saying that dehumanizing people who do awful things is pretending that humans can’t or wouldn’t do those things.
I’m not dehumanizing some people because I can’t understand how a human could do something awful. We do awful things all the time. As far as we know, Humans do all of the worst things ever invented.
I’m dehumanizing some people because as a sign of disrespect, and because humans have rights and protections under the law that I don’t think those people deserve. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I’m not a god or wizard or there’d be a lot more cases where people spontaneously combust or have their skin peel off while it starts raining salt. …which might be why the universe decided to not litter this planet with gods and wizards.
Ah alright, gotcha.
Personally I refrain from generalizing that line of thinking, not because I don’t wish the worst to those people (I really do - fuck 'em) but because dehumanization to me is a slippery slope, it has lead to the worst atrocities and I refuse to think the same way the ‘enemy’ does. But I really understand why you do it.
Humans have been responsible for pretty much every evil ever invented besides the god of the bible genociding virtually the entire planet. The only thing more insulting than dehumanizing someone is not doing that.
My take is I don’t want to normalize it to the point that it gives people less ethical than my perception of myself to dehumanize people for the wrong reason, therefore it’s never appropriate. It’s not accurate either. These people are human. Calling them something else trivializes them. “A person, just like me, made this decision” is more powerful than handwaving them as subhuman.
Someone else already griped this thing at me and I replied to it down there. You’re allowed to not want to normalize things. I’m happy to dehumanize people who profit off of human suffering and death.
Why do they keep trying to humanize the CEO and claiming that it had a “wife”?
Hitler had a girlfriend. Bin Laden had a wife and many children.
FAFO
Mrs Goebbels made a lovely strudel.
Are you the same person whose dad used to say that? I remember someone commenting about it on Lemmy and it has stuck with me. If it is you, thanks, and if not thanks anyway for the reminder that there’s always someone willing to carry water and normalize monsters.
I’ve heard Norm Finkelstein say it as something his mother used to say. It’s a reference to how her Apple Strudel recipe was featured in a magazine before the war.
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/how-to-make-strudel-like-magda-goebbels
Too bad she murdered all her children.
Actually Hitler and Eva Braun got married in the bunker right before they killed themselves. Why do I know this?! Fuck
Awww how sweet, they wanted to be together in heaven 💓
I have a gift for you
‽
The difference between Bin Laden and Hitler was that Bin Laden actually had legitimate beef, based on the colonialist actions of a belligerent ethnostate (and their puppet, the USA) carrying out a nazi-esque regime of apartheid and ethnic cleansing, as well as blowing up countless Muslim human beings with long-range missles in the name of economic imperialism.
So if you do asshole things in support of assholes, don’t be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
And Hitler…. Well he didn’t have the same effective PR campaign the Zionists do.
Hitler arguably had legitimate beef as well with at least France and the UK. The treaty of Versailles was very lopsided and placed both the blame and reparations for WW1 largely on Germany.
It’s not unreasonable to state that clause 231 almost directly lead to the economic situation and resentment that fueled the German people to reject their political system in favour of radical change (yes, I know Hitler never actually won a fair election, but he did enjoy growing support throughout his ascension to the Reichstag).
Sounds like he has “legitimate beef” with the governments of France and the UK, not goddamn “international Jewry”
I’m sorry but Germany may have had beef due to the lopsided terms of the treaty of Versailles but Hitler, there is no excuse for Hitler. He used and abused his own people for the sake of power and tried to enact his warped vision of a perfect “aryan” ethno state by murdering millions of people in the most brutal way possible. Anyone who tries to excuse Hitler’s actions can go get FUCKED.
Also, while Mein Kampf described many races as inferior, the actual mechanics of what would be the Holocaust and the decisions that resulted in the Final Solution were largely shaped over time through small decisions that fed on each other by multiple individuals.
Put differently, Hitler never ordered the Holocaust directly or personally. Yes, he talked a lot about the end if the Jewish race, but to pretend he was solely responsible for coming up with this policy lets the other architects of the Holocaust off the hook way too lightly.
None of that excuses him and his regime overseeing and directing these atrocities though. I think we can all agree that this was a uniquely evil policy for which there is no punishment big or fitting enough (even the Nuremberg trials struggled to (and acknowledged) mete out judgement that was in any way proportional to the suffering the defendants had caused).
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said, nor defending Nazi Germany. I’m just pointing out that saying something along the lines of “the difference between Bin Laden and Hitler is that he had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not” is at the very least reductive.
People don’t follow a reactionary populist for no reason. Without legitimate grievances in German society, Nazi Germany would not have happened. Simple as.
I don’t buy into the great man myth of some people being such legitimate influencers of history that their deeds would’ve existed despite circumstances.
In contrary: It’s the circumstances that allow certain people to influence large enough parts of society to enact their plan/will, but it never happens by happenstance nor in isolation, nor without the help of lots of other people/enabelers.
Yes. Thank you.
The treaty was certainly fucked up, and also, the Nazis used that as propaganda to enflame their base with the “stab-in-the-back” myth.
Also, we can keep playing this nationalists game. One could also argue that France had “legitimate reasons” for being so punitive in the treaty, like, for instance, how they didn’t start WWI.
That’s fair, and corroborates my initial point. Saying Bin Laden had legitimate beef whereas Hitler did not is reductionist at best. Just like the French being super punitive in the treaty of Versailles, the German people had legitimate grievances that were insufficiently addressed by their political leadership, resulting in the king of climate that enabled a despotic genocidal maniac to take power. That doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Extreme problems can lead to drastic measures, which often does not work out well for humanity. People definitely look for a “hero” to save them without realizing the power collectively lies within themselves for change.
That last bit has been ruined by awful people. Just reading it makes me picture the Secretary of Embarrassing Defeat and feel nauseous.
Because the media is owned and run by the same class of people as the allegedly murdered CEO.
…and so are the people at the top of the justice department.
Because UNLIKE the People He KILLED he had a Wife!
-The Media!
Damage control i guess 🤷
Because he’s a human.
It’s wrong to dehumanize people, except people who profit off the suffering and death of others. Fuck those people.
Dehumanizing divorces these evils from the human soul. It pretends that only monsters would do such evil. The ss men in the concentration camps were not monsters, they were humans who loved their wives and children, that doesn’t diminish their crimes it just clarifies that those evils lie within humans. That makes those crimes even worse in my opinion, because it proves those people are capable of love and are capable to tell right from wrong and they willingly ignored their love and humanity to do such evil.
We all carry the same potential for evil, it’s better to acknowledge that than to pretend there are monsters with human clothing among us.
The hell it does. It only shows that if some inhuman sociopathic piece of shit can convince a woman to let him blast a load inside her, that sooner or later a baby is gonna come out. Children can ne born without love, families can exist without love.
Evil might be a spectrum but it’s fairly safe to say that we can cut of anything that is on the very far evil side of it without having to lose sleep over that.
But they are human. They not something different, they are just like you and I are, they just don’t give a shit about other humans. I’m trying to say we are all the same species, they all had the potential to NOT be that monstrous and that makes what they’re doing even worse. Would they just be ‘inhuman sociopathic piece of shit’ that would mean they couldn’t help themselves, but they could, they are human, they could be nice and loving and caring and instead choose to not be and that’s worse.
There only human by biology. You know there are debates when the first emergence of the modern human happened and what the signs were. It could be the first man made tools, the use of fire, etc. In my opinion it was the discovery of a body that had a healed broken leg. This means that some several tens of thousands of years ago, one of our ancestors broke their leg and others from their group nursed them back to health. Maybe they couldn’t hunt anymore, maybe they couldn’t carry anything heavy anymore, but the fact that there was every reason to let that human die to not make the pack weaker and they didn’t is for me a sign of pure humanity. That CEO went every day to their job and let the people that needed help die. The worst part is, it wasn’t even for a good reason. A predator does the same thing, it waits for the weakest to be at their most vurnable to kill them safely. Except a predator does it to survive. That CEO did it for one reason and one reason only. The Number™ must go up.
Luigi shouldn’t be trialed for murder, maybe violence against animals, but calling that CEO an animal is to high praised. Animals live at least in some sort of balance with their environment, they know when to stop so there’s going to be enough left for the next time. Leave pieces of shit like that CEO to their own accords and they will take everything they can and leave nothing behind.
I understand what you’re trying to convey, but disagree with the basis. Nothing else in our known history has ever come anywhere near the level of evil of humans. To get near us we’d have to discover that eating their young isn’t something some species do out of stress, or danger, or instability, they just think it’s funny.
If I understand what you’re saying right, then that’s exactly what I was saying. These people are not some different species, some terrifying unimaginable thing, they are humans.
You were saying that dehumanizing people who do awful things is pretending that humans can’t or wouldn’t do those things.
I’m not dehumanizing some people because I can’t understand how a human could do something awful. We do awful things all the time. As far as we know, Humans do all of the worst things ever invented.
I’m dehumanizing some people because as a sign of disrespect, and because humans have rights and protections under the law that I don’t think those people deserve. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I’m not a god or wizard or there’d be a lot more cases where people spontaneously combust or have their skin peel off while it starts raining salt. …which might be why the universe decided to not litter this planet with gods and wizards.
Ah alright, gotcha. Personally I refrain from generalizing that line of thinking, not because I don’t wish the worst to those people (I really do - fuck 'em) but because dehumanization to me is a slippery slope, it has lead to the worst atrocities and I refuse to think the same way the ‘enemy’ does. But I really understand why you do it.
❤️💯
No it’s worse. Not because it’s funny, but because we’re bored.
Don’t normalize dehamnization. It’s too easy to exploit. These may be bad awful people but they’re still people.
Humans have been responsible for pretty much every evil ever invented besides the god of the bible genociding virtually the entire planet. The only thing more insulting than dehumanizing someone is not doing that.
My take is I don’t want to normalize it to the point that it gives people less ethical than my perception of myself to dehumanize people for the wrong reason, therefore it’s never appropriate. It’s not accurate either. These people are human. Calling them something else trivializes them. “A person, just like me, made this decision” is more powerful than handwaving them as subhuman.
Someone else already griped this thing at me and I replied to it down there. You’re allowed to not want to normalize things. I’m happy to dehumanize people who profit off of human suffering and death.
Not anymore lol