Very interesting...
Domesticus
Goering, Bush and the justification of a war
Very interesting...
Vicarius Provinciae
Use NeoCons always say a prayer to Goering before we open our meetings.
As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.
-Ella Hill
Et Slot i et slot
Since it works the same in every country why should we single out Bush?
I say it's coming......
He makes a good point. Blair, Saddam, Osama and most warring leaders are equally guilty of the rule.Originally Posted by Garbarsardar
Hypocrisy is the foundation of sin.
Proud patron of: The Magnanimous Household of Siblesz
"My grandfather rode a camel. My father rode in a car. I fly a jet airplane. My grandson will ride a camel." -Saudi Saying
Timendi causa est nescire.
Member of S.I.N.
Civitate
Because its the 'in' thing to do, Im convinced alot of anti bush people are simply morons who cant attack him and his policy on any coherent, intelligent manner that actually matters and have to resort to crap like this. Goering simply stated something that has been true since begining of time.
Although i'm quite opposed to bush, I agree with you. I hate all the bush hating for the sake of hating bush that goes on, and the people who just attack everything he does at the first second because it's bush doing it.
However, this statement is very very true, for america and for all countries.
Civitate
Yeah they drive me nuts because as generally a Bush supporter there are tons of valid things to attack him on, things I dont agree with him either but yet so many resort to pretty much childish, ad hominem attacks. Of course its not like Bush is the first leader to face this, Bill Clinton got alot of it from the right as well. I actually respect Anti Bush people who attack him on issues and policy intelligently
Civitate
Not all countries really. I mean, America's population has so much voice, just like alot of the other democracies, that they can make a big issue and win over the government to the point where the issue will be looked over again. We can do the same things, denounce pacifists, claim we were attacked. But it generally won't carry the opinion of the populace to the opinions of the leaders. Perhaps the rule worked in an age where patriotism was actually a virtue, but in today's world, it doesn't matter.
Et Slot i et slot
In fact, I think it would be more interesting to see why Nazis became the absolut personification of every evil. Is it the close temporal proximity that blinds us to the fact that, ruthless expansionism combined with mass murder, was not a Nazi invention?
Or is it just a minor deviation from Godwin's law? ("You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."
Richard Sexton (http://www.vrx.net/richard/) stating what would later be known as Godwin's Law, Message-ID <21000@gryphon.COM>, 16 Oct 1989)
And for you who are too young to remember it... :sweatingb
I. The Basics
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
2. What does it mean?
It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
approach one.
3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
Aah, now *there's* the real question.
In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
years or so, the Nazis were a German political party lead by Adolf Hitler
that slaughtered upwards of ten million people that didn't meet their
standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
Nazi comparison.
4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
So, what this means in practical terms:
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.
5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?
Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
II. What does it mean?
1. Didn't we already spend the last section talking about this?
Well, yeah, but people don't seem to get the point...
2. What happens if we're actually talking about Nazis?
Then you've already invoked Godwin's Law, and the chances are that
your thread isn't going to last all that much longer as a sane discussion.
Them's the breaks.
That isn't to say, of course, that you can't talk about Nazis and
such on Usenet - this *is* Usenet, after all, where virtually every
conversation that goes on is fairly ludicrous in the first place. It's
just going to take you a lot more effort to find real information out of
there and to avoid getting yourself off on side-threads - which you'll
eventually do regardless, but you can try to put it off.
This also applies if a thread mutates into an actual discussion of
Nazis, of course.
3. What about arguing with Neo-Nazis?
Arguing with Neo-Nazis is probably the quickest path to getting
Nazi invocations, because, well, they're actually accurate. Still, trying
to invoke Godwin's Law near a Neo-Nazi isn't really a good idea because
it's not terribly original and they'll probably get off on it anyway.
Just ignore them and occasionally publish a FAQ detailing what actually
happened during the Holocaust and such; arguing probably isn't going to
help you.
4. How can I use Godwin's Law to my advantage?
In the proper kind of flamewar, Godwin's Law can be used as a
gambit - how can you force your opponent to invoke the Law? Actually
teaching these skills is tough, of course, and is best done through
experience. Experience with chess and alt.flame are recommended.
5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.
6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads
virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to
the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (quirk@swcp.com):
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called
"Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
7. Does Godwin's Law apply in the real world?
Actually, yeah, but usually discussions in Real Life end by
somebody wandering off in disgust before it can be invoked.
8. Are there any topics that lead directly to Godwin Invocations?
Well, yeah. Of course. Case's Corollary to the Law states "if
the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi
comparison being made becomes equal to one" - but that's just an old list.
Abortion and gun control debates always lead to Nazi comparisons; talk
with a Libertarian for more than a few hours and he'll almost certainly
bring up Nazis; book-burning is pretty much considered a sub-topic of
Nazism at this point. Hell, talk about anything politically related and
you'll eventually get there.
If you're really bored, a fun game to play is Six Degrees of Godwin.
Take a topic - any topic - and see how quickly you can relate it to Nazis
using legitimate topic drift methods. For example: a discussion about
computers will eventually lead to discussions of keyboards and which are
best, followed by a lot of complaining about the Windows key on 104-key
keyboards, leading to complaints about Microsoft, forcing the standard
MS-vs-government flamewar that I'm sure you're all aware of, leading to
attacks on Microsoft's "fascist" tactics by one side or another, which
will force the other side to start talking about the differences between
fascism, capitalism, and, of course, Nazism! The fun never stops!
for more info:http://www.killfile.org/faqs/godwin.faq
Last edited by Garbarsardar; October 04, 2005 at 11:01 PM.
Citizen
I think the point being that President Bush (or, more precisely, the republican party) has ridden the propaganda horse to exhaustion, and then some.
Ask yourselves this: Why, when Clinton was president, did we spend millions of dollars investigating and impeaching him for a blowjob in the oval office when we now have high ranking politicians like Karl Rove flaunting far more important morals and who has yet to suffer any consequence?
It's about hype, about polarizing the population so we come to believe our best interests are shared by one group but ignored or outright opposed by the other. It is painfully obvious to me that a good number of us make dire judgements about other people and their actions more based on what we hear from our favorite personalities on television than we do the facts themselves. Most of the time we don't have access to the facts anyway. I must admit, when Bush can hug a black woman on television and gain 5% in his popularity rating, it is quite clear to me that most people do not approach decision making rationally.
Sure, the democrats use propaganda too. Just not *nearly* as much, or as questionably, as the republicans. The republican party has the clout (which means money) to make the political machine work for them. Of course, the democrats do not quite have that power. This is America, the land of the corporate conservative think-tank. These people do not want us to think on our own; they want us to believe that "technically" Rove broke no law when he revealed the identity of Plame. They want us to believe our sons and daughters are dying in a foreign land for something valuable. They want us to believe energy companies are in dire need of financial aid in order to better provide for us all. Finally, above all else, they want us to believe they and they alone are to be counted on to be our guardians and caretakers - and anyone who says otherwise is 'unpatriotic'.
Goering was correct, that is for certain. It is also certain that Goering, reviled as he is, should teach us not to allow ourselves to be swindled of our liberties and our well being. In all truth, remembering this is a never-ending ordeal for each of us born upon this earth. Sometimes, even, it seems impossible.
Sir Lucious Left Foot
What I find most revolting is how we are supposed to maintain both a moral superiority and yet use such tactics. If the advocates of Bush would acquise in this point, I would not find their arguments such ludicrous excuses.
Under patronage of Emperor Dimitricus Patron of vikrant1986, ErikinWest, VOP2288
Anagennese, the Rise of the Black Hand
MacMillan doesn't compensate for variable humidity,wind speed and direction or the coriolis effect. Mother nature compensates for where Macmillan's crosshairs are.
Indefinitely Banned
Okay, this is enough. This is where I step in to defend my comrades, the jewish people.
No one has any right to acuse them of racism, to make out they deserved to be killed by the evil nazis, or anything like that. They suffered more than any other group of religious people in history. More lies were spread about them by Christian Crusaders and some violent Muslim leaders centuries ago. This whole Nazi thing is disgusting.
And seriously, Goering was a piece of nazi filth. Why exactly are we supporting this excuse for a human being that murdered millions of people? I know we aren't really, but what relation does he have to Bush, other than that they are both nazis?(Bush isn't really a nazi but I hate him so much I think he deserves to be called one :wink: )
And Danzig.....
Please, don't support Bush. Ever. Again. Or I am leaving these forums. Lol. :laughing:
Sorry, I had to get that out. I just feel very angry when anyone defends the nazis, and I know that no one here did, but just talking about them makes me feel disgusted.
As a true communist, I must defend my comrades. And the jewish people are my comrades. Not imperialist pigs like Ariel Sharon in Israel or anything; the jewish people themselves, the working-class, ordinary people, no politicians.
And in case anyone was wondering why I defend them almost as much as I defend the muslim people, my grandfather was Jewish, and my great, great, great, great grandfather was muslim.
Sorry if I came off as a little harsh, but surely calling Goering "a piece of nazi filth" is okay, since he is?
Domesticus
Because right now, he is the one using this strategy for a stupid war. There's no doubt that, let's say, Osama, is doing the same thing, but anyone here thinks that his war is good? no. But a good bunch of people on this board think Bush war is justified.
Ah? Saddam attacked someone? I'm talking about actuality, not when USA actually gave him weapons to go in war. But yes he did some pretty nasty things, but that's irrevelant to the topic. Oh, and Blair is just Bush sidekick. As for Osama, well, when someone will tell me Osama is a good man that only protect his people, and that he does it for the universal good, etc. Well I'll put Osama's name instead of Bush's one.
Yes it's the "in" thing to do, but I'm not doing this because it's "in". I can't attack Bush policy on any coherent, intelligent manner that actually matters and have to resort to crap like this? Ok, since you're a Bush supporter and you will probably say that USA did not go there for oil, and that it's for the good of the invaded country's population, I won't even attack his policy on that.
"The current President Bush came into office and quickly turned all that progress around. He immediately gave yet another massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Clinton was in office the nation borrowed an additional 18 billion dollars, the first year Bush Jr. was in office he had to borrow 270 billion. The tax cut that caused this borrowing was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all this tax cutting and no cutting in what he is spending President Bush set a record in 2003 for the biggest single yearly increase in debt in the nation’s history, again in 2004 and by his own estimations he will break this record again in 2005. The debt is now increasing at the rate of 600 billion dollars a year."
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
This debt will be the burden of the next generation, that doesn't even count the hurricane's spendings, that would not have been necessary if bush wouldn't have cut in everything to put in the war effort. And don't blame "war necessities" on the huge spendings, because, yes it has a role, but bad management, lack of long-term vision and failed economic policies are the most important factor.
Ok, so I attack Bush's war just because it's Bush doing it? yeah, probably. Same thing for the debt, if it wasn't Bush I'd say: "Oh what a lovely debt! This president did well to do that!"
By the way, who cares what's the title, just read the quote and ask yourself: Do I support bush's war for the right reasons?
----------------------------------------------
"Not all countries really. I mean, America's population has so much voice, just like alot of the other democracies, that they can make a big issue and win over the government to the point where the issue will be looked over again. We can do the same things, denounce pacifists, claim we were attacked. But it generally won't carry the opinion of the populace to the opinions of the leaders. Perhaps the rule worked in an age where patriotism was actually a virtue, but in today's world, it doesn't matter."
Oh yeah, America's population is most critical minded population in the world... wow.
"We can do the same things, denounce pacifists, claim we were attacked. But it generally won't carry the opinion of the populace to the opinions of the leaders."
Actually, yes. If you analyse many of Bush's speech, it's funny how he sometimes, says the word terrorist in every sentence, refers to "suppositions" of danger, etc. We can even see some speech where he announces a security level increase, but doesn't say why. He also creates false menaces, like mass destruction weapons in Irak, terrorists possessing nuclear weapons, rumours of terrorists trying to use bacteriological agents, ...
"Perhaps the rule worked in an age where patriotism was actually a virtue, but in today's world, it doesn't matter."
Heh, american population is probably the most patriotic people on earth. Which is a good and bad thing.
"In fact, I think it would be more interesting to see why Nazis became the absolut personification of every evil. Is it the close temporal proximity that blinds us to the fact that, ruthless expansionism combined with mass murder, was not a Nazi invention?"
No nazis are not the absolute personification of evil, many african dictators, rebel factions, Staline,... were much more "evil" in my opinion.
"Or is it just a minor deviation from Godwin's law? ("You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis."
Well, if my quote would have came from someone else, I guess it would make sense, but I dragged out nazis, because the topic WAS about that.
So by replying that to my post, you mean that ANY thread involving Nazis, even if the subject, means that the discussion isgetting old. Very clever...
-----------------------
Merged. -MBM
Last edited by MadBurgerMaker; October 16, 2005 at 12:39 AM.
Civitate
Then why start a thread on a complete idiotic premise against Bush and not simply attack him on debt issue to begin with...an issue that IS valid? You were rather obviously attempting to tie in Nazi Germany with Bush admin, an invalid comparison and one that is insulting because despite Bush's flaws his admin he is hardly leading the Fourth Reich.
Lets see a terrorist attack, two major hurricanes...one of which was one of the most devestating storms to hit the US, an 'optional' war in Iraq, a valid war in Afganistan, a economy that was slowing and you are somehow suprised about increased debt? You do realize most economist peg the start of the US recession during last 5 months of Clinton's term...not placing blame on Clinton far from it just simply starting it started before Bush took office making a kick in the economy thru tax cuts necessary...now however tax cuts should be slowly rolled back given growth is healthy again."The current President Bush came into office and quickly turned all that progress around. He immediately gave yet another massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Clinton was in office the nation borrowed an additional 18 billion dollars, the first year Bush Jr. was in office he had to borrow 270 billion. The tax cut that caused this borrowing was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all this tax cutting and no cutting in what he is spending President Bush set a record in 2003 for the biggest single yearly increase in debt in the nation’s history, again in 2004 and by his own estimations he will break this record again in 2005. The debt is now increasing at the rate of 600 billion dollars a year."
Nature of american's political system...pass today's problems off to the next generation. Whether its debt, social security/medicad reform etc etc. Lack of long term vision is a fatal flaw of American politics as long as lobby groups are allowed to wield the amount of influence they do...no leader, no politican has the will to do what is good for America as a hole unless it also serves the needs of a lobbyist.This debt will be the burden of the next generation, that doesn't even count the hurricane's spendings, that would not have been necessary if bush wouldn't have cut in everything to put in the war effort. And don't blame "war necessities" on the huge spendings, because, yes it has a role, but bad management, lack of long-term vision and failed economic policies are the most important factor.
Because the right always demonizings the left and the left does like wise. All there is against Rove are accusations, accusations arent proof. Show me a politican or figure that is successful that doesnt have some accusations, charges laid at his feet by the other side of the political spectrum in American politics and Ill show you a talking horse. Clinton in no way deserved the treatment he got while in office for the whole Monica Lewisky thing, it was demeaning, stupid and a complete waste of tax payers money and did exactly what I said in my previous post, it takes away from valid criticism whether its Clinton or Bush lowering to a level where it gets personal does nothing but cloud important issues.Ask yourselves this: Why, when Clinton was president, did we spend millions of dollars investigating and impeaching him for a blowjob in the oval office when we now have high ranking politicians like Karl Rove flaunting far more important morals and who has yet to suffer any consequence?
Last edited by danzig; October 05, 2005 at 12:06 AM.
Puppeteer
First official numbers were 6 million, but I heard they have lowered the number of dead to 1,5 million.In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
years or so, the Nazis were a German political party lead by Adolf Hitler
that slaughtered upwards of ten million people that didn't meet their
standards of "ethnic purity"
But people seem to forget Stalin and the USSR (and mao of course). Stalin made Hitler look like a choirboy when it came to killing.They are generally considered the most evil group of
people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
Et Slot i et slot
You can always use Quirk's exception...:laughing:
The problem here is that while you have a valid argument and some strong points, you burry those with your first post. I am absolutely on your side on the national debt, but I would like this point to be presented properly.
P.S.:using the various formatting functions as the "quote" one, will greatly improve the readability of your posts.
I say it's coming......
Saddam attacked Iran and Kuwait. And yes, he did attacked Iran with American support, but that is besides the point. The point being made here is that leaders of different nations are as guilty to Goering's quote and Mr. Bush is.Ah? Saddam attacked someone? I'm talking about actuality, not when USA actually gave him weapons to go in war. But yes he did some pretty nasty things, but that's irrevelant to the topic. Oh, and Blair is just Bush sidekick. As for Osama, well, when someone will tell me Osama is a good man that only protect his people, and that he does it for the universal good, etc. Well I'll put Osama's name instead of Bush's one.
Buddy, I'm in your side of things... but I'm not a person who easily victimizes Bush for the horrors of the entire World when there is more than one side to the story. By limiting yourself to this one-sided antagonist perspective, you are acting in the same manner that the person that you hate behaves in. Many leaders have commited the same attrocities and mislead their own people... but the actions of these leaders aren't recorded by the lens of a CNN camera.
Open yourself to other perspectives. Bush is not the first person who has played this game, and he won't be the last.
Hypocrisy is the foundation of sin.
Proud patron of: The Magnanimous Household of Siblesz
"My grandfather rode a camel. My father rode in a car. I fly a jet airplane. My grandson will ride a camel." -Saudi Saying
Timendi causa est nescire.
Member of S.I.N.
A Medical Corporation
The numbers of dead from the Holocaust are estimated at approximately 10 million. Thats 6 million Jews and the 4 million other ethnic minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, political prisoners and other 'undesirables'.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/holocaust.htmFor many years there has been an accepted figure for the number of Jews murdered - six million. As a result of recently found evidence, this figure is now being upgraded and some historians have put the figure as high as 7 to 8 million. To this day mass graves are still found in Russia of Jews murdered by the Einsatzgruppen (SS) and so the final figure may never be truly known. The gypsy community claims that 50% of all gypsies in Europe (21,000 out of 23,000 at Auschwitz, for example) were murdered while the number of handicapped people murdered is not really known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Death_toll5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews[7]
2.5–3.5 million Gentile Poles
200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
10,000–25,000 gay men
2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
Young lady, I am an expert on humans. Now pick a mouth, open it and say "brglgrglgrrr"!
Puppeteer
I'll see if I can find that news article I was talking about so you can read it.The numbers of dead from the Holocaust are estimated at approximately 10 million. Thats 6 million Jews and the 4 million other ethnic minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, political prisoners and other 'undesirables'.
Et Slot i et slot
The truth is that the number of dead is very difficult to be confirmed, and it has been subject to manipulation from all interested parties. Of course that does not change the fact of the holocaust, and neither if one disputed the number killed in the cultural revolution (15-50 million) that would alter the essence of the crime.
On a side note, an Israeli friend of mine once told me: "Whenever there is a political argument between old people in Israel and the conversation heats up one or both parties will exclaim: {You cannot talk to me this way! I'm a holocaust survivor! }. I really wonder with so many survivors around me, it would be hard to believe the nazis killed anyone..."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
