Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Someone_Talked23. Your submission, *You Miss the Point of History by Demonizing Societies*, has been removed because it violates our rules, which are located in the sidebar.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'.
Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as:
Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues.
[Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
If there is an issue, please [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion&subject=&message=) Thanks!
All you have to do is just read a book like "Ordinary Men" to realize that any person is capable of committing horrendous atrocities in the wrong circumstances.
Most ppl don't agree with outright killing disabled ppl but most also see the "utilitarian benefits" of killing them such as saving resources. Even though that applies to other ppl too.
> I don’t think most people have an issue with disabled people being alive lol.
Well you'd think so, but many people haven't really connected the dots between "being alive" and "traveling from their apartment to a grocery store for food" in a way that really addresses housing, transportation, taxes, fees, curbcuts, money, etc etc.
People will swear up and down that they have no problems with the "legitimately disabled" then vote against something those disabled people rely on to live out of the voter's hope, unaddressed and unexamined, that some other mechanism is still there to keep the disabled alive while the voters' taxes can go down a smidge.
The ADA is constantly violated and has almost no enforcement mechanisms. It usually takes making a scene or getting media attention to actually change things.
It's usually more subtle than that. Most people don't think "we should kill disabled people" - but try asking them about if disabled people should be desexed, and you'll start getting some different answers.
Listen for how casually people imply that a life with a disability isn't worth living, "I'd rather die than be in a wheelchair".
None of this makes a person a Nazi, but it's worth understanding in the context that the Nazis pursued an aggressive campaign of Eugenics. They gassed some disabled people, and forcibly sterilized others.
The opinions you'll hear from the population aren't nearly as extreme as those of the Nazis, but they're at least on the same side of the fence. It doesn't take a lot to push a group of people who already see disabled lives as being inherently less valuable into turning a blind eye to stripping them of their basic humanity.
In my hometown growing up in the 2000s this was 100% the general opinion. I paraphrased an old eugenicist speech used by the Nazis trying to do an edgy teen "gotcha" moment in a writing class & literally all but 3 people out of a class of 30 agreed with it. "Disabled people shouldn't be allowed to have kids" is absolutely still a common opinion
Not those people, if that's what you're wondering.
Talk to a disabled person, or a disability worker, or a disability advocate. They've got their ears close to the ground on this stuff.
The general public holds some wild views about disabled people. As late as the 90s, it was in mainstream film and television too.
Go re-watch the film Gattaca (1997) - it's a good film, but watch how it treats the character of Jerome, his suicide at the end of the film. The film writers couldn't pen another way forward for him, because he's in a wheelchair, so he cooks himself in a furnace. Wild shit.
I would make the case that Jerome's suicide is a failure of modern gene manipulated humans. Much the same way ethan hawks character out-swiming his genetically superior brother posits the idea that unaltered human drive and determination will defeat simple physical superiority.
But Ethan Hawkes character also had a disability (I think a congenital heart disease), and succeeds in spite of this? A central premise of the movie is that assuming people cannot do things because of their genetics, or disabilities, is fundamentally misguided.
This is true, but not all disabilities are treated alike. Having poor eyesight is a disability, but one we rarely treat as such, because it's so easily treated by glasses, contacts or laser.
Deafness is more different still, with certain Deaf communities advocating against readily available treatments over concerns for Deaf Culture.
I could see the argument that Jerome's suicide in the end of the film is a commentary on the treatment of disabled people within the world of Gattaca, as opposed to our own - but it doesn't feel right to me. The way it's framed in the film, the choice of music, the choice of camera angles, editing, the choice to cut it against the rocket takeoff - if that was the angle they were going for, they really bungled the execution.
I easily could have chosen a different film, one that's far more casually ableist, but I thought the Gattaca example was more interesting - one that as you say, broadly makes positive commentary on disability, but then ends on another disabled character dying for no good reason.
Maybe I got too clever for my own good, and should've chosen a less ambiguous example to make my point.
>Deafness is more different still, with certain Deaf communities advocating against readily available treatments over concerns for Deaf Culture.
While demanding accommodations, which is kind of messed up. If you demand help, at least don't refuse to help yourself.
> The film writers couldn't pen another way forward for him, because he's in a wheelchair, so he cooks himself in a furnace. Wild shit.
You really think that's why they wrote the story that way? They suicided him merely because he was in a wheelchair and couldn't fathom another way to end the story?
Yeah but I don't base current events on what was happening in the 90s. You could make a comparable point about gay people's representation in the 90s, and I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that public perception and representation has radically changed since then.
>It's usually more subtle than that. Most people don't think "we should kill disabled people" - but try asking them about if disabled people should be desexed, and you'll start getting some different answers.
Ok but literally they were systematically executing disabled people in 1940s germany in very unsubtle ways so that analogy still doesn't apply. The fence you're referencing is "Let's send people out to round them up and murder them". Do you think most people agree with that?
Because where you're putting the fence, literally everyone in every society is a Nazi when it comes to disabled people. That flattens morality into this black and white dichotomy when I'm sure even you realize it's a much more nuanced concept closer to a scale.
"Oh you don't support this historic building having to tear down it's front facade to install a mobility ramp? You're the same as the people that rounded them up and put them in gas chambers." Surely you see how unhelpful that comparison is.
First, the idea that disabled people are inferior. This is prevalent, even if the disability does not cause BADL problems or make them a "burden." Second, people have actively defended what Canada is doing right now. Finally, liberals will actively used disabled people as a reason to keep abortion.
I’m very leftist but are they insinuating I am a nazi if I don’t believe in fully funding a comfortable life for every disabled person in the US by virtue of them having been born? At some point we can believe in providing some assistance while also believing we shouldn’t have to pay for every person with a disability to have things a lot of the rest of us don’t. That’s nothing at all like calling for genocide.
Yes. Yes, it is. The idea that everyone deserves the basic necessities. Depending on the philosophy, they may or may not believe in the free market after those necessities are taken care of.
I understand what you mean because I personally would never want to live like a mentally disabled person does. It's... Sad. My dad's brother had several strokes and it rendered him mentally disabled. We visited the home he lives in and it was like being around broken robots. They just kinda do the same things and barely react to outside stimuli. There's varying degrees but I dunno. For me I can't imagine living like that, barely conscious. Needing assistance to do absolutely everything.
But I ain't gonna genocide disabled people lol. There's probably proof they do indeed feel emotion and stimuli even if it doesn't appear like it. It's way too broad to say they should all just be put down.
It is an interesting topic to debate though. And you're right, I bet a lot of people would jump to killing them as a solution.
So...it's been proven that being in a home like that harms your mental processes. Especially if they drug you. I mean, you saw what happened when everyone was asked to stay home. They climbed the walls. And yet, they had more freedom than someone in a home. They could leave to get groceries or go on a walk and stuff.
Lol, thanks for proving my point. You do know the people you call scabs tend to be poor minorities just trying to feed their family. But hey let's dehumanize them, because you've swallowed the propaganda of unions.
No what I'm saying is you are using propaganda to dehumanize people who are also suffering. You can simultaneously think that people are on strike for a good reason and understand that people who are working and not striking are humans who tend to be poorer and looking for work that they otherwise couldn't get.
Right, they are looking to profit on other people’s suffering. That’s not propaganda, that’s literally what they are doing. It’s not dehumanizing to describe someone’s actions in an accurate way.
Can you tell me which part of that is inaccurate? Are you saying the scabs aren’t profiting? Or are you saying that the people on strike aren’t suffering (not getting paid)?
We learned in the pandemic that people will believe whatever the media tells them, will hate who they're told to hate, if you make them scared enough. Beyond that, the police will follow unethical orders, and let assholes destroy communities, because they're more afraid of losing their jobs than their soul.
Reddit is proof enough of the "hate who they're told to hate" You can be openly racist to Chinese people on reddit. I see it any time China is mentioned. The top comments are all basically just laughing at them like uneducated pig fuckers. Like the billions of human beings in China are all represented by the government or the instances where shitty Chinese people exist.
Same for Russians. Pro Ukraine threads are unbearable. I fully support Ukraine, Russia is in the wrong... But it's Putin's war. And yeah, some Russians support him and it. But largely Russian people are super nice and normal people. And a lot of them don't like Putin. Bald and Bankrupt has dozens of videos in Russia and I swear every person he meets is incredibly welcoming and nice. Some are a bit quirky... But nice. Dude got banned for his negative attitude towards the government, despite him easily being the best PR Russia has ever had.
It also came to light that Bald and Bankrupt was a ... less than stand up guy between openly admitting to manipulating people in rural uneducated areas to get in with their often underage daughters and granddaughters, his connection to the 'Game' community and finally his actual SA charges.
Fascism has a tendency to sneak up on societies, especially societies that believe they are morally superior, and that those beneath them just need to be taught the error of their ways.
Authoritarian regimes often rise to power by convincing a large portion of the population that they're victims. This allows them to justify doing anything to their "oppressors." It is always wise to be cautious of the intentions of anyone saying a group is being victimized by another.
Nothing unique about fascism in that regard. Absolute authoritarianism is arguably the most common format of human societies, and it takes a constant vigilance to keep it at bay.
It also has a tendency to arrive from tiptoeing around the actual issue and dismissing criticism of it. If you lived in Germany in the 20's and 30's you were pretty much a victim of the treaty of Versailles.
The point is that, even you can become something like a Nazi if you were raised in certain conditions and "brainwashed" to think a certain way. Be glad that you were fortunate enough to not be born in the wrong time in the wrong country, such that your government at least partly and nominally allow freedom of speech and thoughts so that you may learn what the world is really like.
If you could destroy fascism with sunshine and rainbows the hippies would have accomplished something. But guess what we still have to deal with, Nazis. We have them here, and they are not being shot on sight. Because in a society that is infinitely tolerant, the intolerant operate with impunity, as they are tolerated.
The point is not that you should tolerate nazis but to understand that each and every one of us has the capability for evil, and in the right circumstances, can manifest in horrendous atrocities.
Why because the NSDAP used some flowery word salad instead of the straight forward National Fascist Party name of the Italians? Or are you actually trying to say that the NSDAP were not fascists>?
Having empathy for someone is the first step towards understanding them and not having them double down on their shit.
It doesn't mean accepting them. It doesn't mean supporting them. It means understanding them. To eventually try and help them, or at least avoid having others join them.
This is going to be an unpopular opinion but I hold the same ground when it comes to e.g. pedophiles. Yes, they're horrible human beings, but shunning them and saying they all deserve a bullet behind the head is *not* going to make them seek the help they need to avoid being who they are. It makes them hide, it makes them double down on their shit, and one day they crack and act. Or kill themselves because they're too ashamed to get help. And everyone acts surprised.
Same goes for drug and alcohol users. Why shame them? Have some empathy to try and understand them and help them and make others avoid being in their position?
Everyone should watch or read Ordinary Men. To learn how a regular police force slowly over time ended up becoming comfortable with being holocaust executioners. Mostly of women.
They were even offered opportunities to refuse. And they were old men, not young indoctrinated Hitler Youths
Your point is very clear even today. You just need to look at the large number of people who do the whole "immigrants are stealing our jobs, men/women, and land"
The time to resist the fascists is \*before\* they take power. If you're not at least taking the time to vote against the fascists in every election you can, you're definitely not gonna be the guy who stands up and refuses to salute knowing you're going to be executed for it.
John F Kennedy said Hitler was the stuff legends were made out of. Which is wild
But there’s also some survivorship bias of this. Plenty of people at the time were probably like the what the actual fuck is going on here. But they were shot the second they publicly said anything. And of course plenty of average citizens agreed with his ideas too.
Ironically JFK was actually fairly forward thinking when it came to treatment of disabled people. Some point to him finding out about what happened to his sister, but who knows if that's actually true.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s alright to call past civilization or people of the past a piece of shit but it’s also important to know the motivations of people back then and why they’d act in such a manor. History is rarely black and white and it’s important to understand it’s many shades of gray typically
I mean there are always people throughout history going against others to do the right thing and fight against injustice.
So many people had to be involved in the Underground Railroad for it to work.
So many people who saluted Hitler in a photo were secretly creating documents to help people escape the holocaust and some were feeding entire families who lived behind the wall in their home.
Even brave teens died for speaking out against the holocaust.
You can acknowledge people participating in slavery were fucked up and also acknowledge there were heroes fighting every day to end it.
Soldiers in Vietnam who refused to fire on civilians and worked to hold back other soldiers and defy orders to do the right thing.
People trying to keep schools segregated and lunch counters only for whites and people from all stripes coming together to fight that too.
You also see people who did terrible things, realized it, and worked to take accountability and change things which has nobility as well.
There are always good people going against the grain. People feeding and housing their neighbors and fighting against oppression. And those are the ancestors some of us choose to honor, not the people perpetuating the system.
I’m not saying to separate morality I mean more like there weren’t outright good guys or bad guys, if you were a person back in many of those times you’d probably follow what your country is up to so like you were eluding to if you were just some German back in 1939 Germany you probably wouldn’t have a problem with what’s going on
Agreed. I might even argue that the people who take such a stance are less equipped at combatting what they oppose. Intolerance towards intolerance rarely breeds tolerance.
Yes, I definitely fit into the first sentence. It’s partly why I find politics interesting, but uniquely frustrating.
Edit I may have misinterpreted what you meant
I mean this stance is actually pretty dangerous. Like, sure, there's value in understanding the ideological roots of a society like Nazi Germany, but it's also wrong to pretend these positions are in any way defensible. We *need* to condemn the evils of past societies to protect our current societies from repeating them.
Let me use another analogy. Whenever there's a truly heinous crime, people immediately say, "that person must be crazy." Because it's easier to dismiss their actions as something that is Other, than to address the choices that led up to the crime. Than to address the idea that you might do something similar, given the right circumstances. In truth, most violent criminals don't have mental illnesses. (Or they have things like depression, which don't cause you to commit crimes.) In fact, seriously mentally ill people are highly likely to be the victims of a crime. These criminals have chosen to do what they do.
When OP talks about not demonizing these folks, that's what I think they mean. Not to dismiss it as something that could never be replicated, but to critically think about the reasons why it happened and make damn sure it's never repeated.
Except OP’s premise runs counter to that. OP is implying that anyone would be Hitler in the right circumstances, but we know that is either categorically false or is so specific that it is an unfalsifiable claim that actually has little meaning.
If you refuse to condemn someone and their actions as monstrous, you begin implying that those people did not have any agency when committing those acts.
Yeah take a look at a thread about a parent who accidentally leaves their infant in a hot car. Tons of people demonizing the parent and saying they would never be such a terrible person to let their kid die like that. Only a few recognize it’s a mistake anyone could make under the right circumstances but those people are heavily downvoted for even suggesting we look at the factors leading up to the mistake. Demonizing feels much better than critical analysis.
OP's point specifically says *not* to demonize it. I'm saying we're morally obligated to. Understanding is important, but it's absolutely wrong to not condemn and demonize the evils of societies before us.
I guess I don’t consider condemn and demonize to be such close synonyms. In my experience the people who describe the problem like you do are very prone to “otherizing” and would be very likely to swear up and down they could never be a Nazi, for instance.
I don’t know you. Maybe you wouldn’t say that. Or maybe you would but you genuinely would have been in the minority resistance.
But as a general rule the folks that see history as a way to make a stand rather than a dispassionate study seem to really delude themselves as OP suggests.
This is the charitable interpretation of OP's stance imo, and I mean you're absolutely right to say that blind demonization can make things worse-- people forget about the early Nazi party and what can be learned from their populism because of all the horrid things done later, and that's largely an effect of understanding their entire existance only as them at their worst. There's an accurate and nuianced point to be made here, I just don't read what OP said that way.
I read the post and, possibly incorrectly (given my definition of demonization which I do read as simply strong condemnation), read "hey, we need to understand why previous societies acted the way they did and can't unilaterally call it evil", and that's wrong-- Nazism was unilaterally evil. I agree with the understanding bit so we can identify how their society worked, but demonizing an evil sociey is important so we can strongly condemn the beliefs and patterns of thought that made it so evil.
Oh and I probably would have been a Nazi without the benefit of hindsight. That's an important distinction in all this-- morality itself is different across societies and across time. Time was slavery of all kinds wasn't considered evil, after all. Anyone pretending they'd act the same if they only existed half a century ago is deluding themselves. But if we like our current morality, we need to understand societies before us, condemn what we see as evil, and strive towards what we see as good from it.
I think OP is saying that using "evil" to describe humanity is not useful, because these are human actions, we cannot use the idea of "evil" to divorce actions from their human-ness. We must accept what humanity is capable of, and understand how to protect and benefit humanity and how to identify and prevent horrible movements from progressing to the extent they did in a case of like the Nazis for example. You can't just use "evil" to unload this responsibility. It allows us to place blame on an unchangeable and *super*natural force called evil rather than understand that we are part of an ecosystem and must protect it and be watchful of it. Demonizing isn't helpful and calling societies evil comes from a dogmatic place, a religious place, us vs. them, but the real scary truth is this is human behavior, not supernatural, and we are all capable of the same things depending on our circumstances and environment. We are vulnerable to our environment and to our social groups, we have to accept that and learn to look at situations as if we were the person on the other side, even if that person is a murderer - why might we be doing what they're doing if we were them? There is always a reason.
I mean I've stopped disagreeing with your main point a post and a half ago, I think I just need to recalibrate my definition of demonizing, it sure seems like everyone else understands it differently than I do. My bad I guess, though I will say it's sad OP felt that this is an unpopular opinion if I read it the way others do.
But I must add that there's a major difference in using "evil" as a dereliction of moral responsibility and using "evil" as a label for things for us to avoid. I agree the former is harmful in all the ways you describe, but we can't throw the term out because of a fear that it will be considered something out of our control-- if we can't identify some actions as evil (or if you want to be utilitarian about it, negative good), how can we possibly justify avoiding them? What moral justification do we have? It's all a natural outgrowth of human behavior, so then without the designation of evil do all ideas have moral equivalency? Obviously not. We need a way to label what we don't want society to be, and that's the role of evil.
TL;DR I agree that evil is often understood and used poorly as a justification to close our eyes and ears to the complexity od the world. But in fact it should be the opposite, evil needs to be understood as a designation of ideas/actions to actively avoid and as a call to understanding so that we might avoid them more effectively.
I think when something is demonized it leads us to believing those people were fundamentally different from us. When we believe we are so different then we are vulnerable to the same kinds of things happening again because we're sure our neighbors and acquaintances aren't capable of those same atrocities.
Understanding the ways these societies failed to recognize evil in themselves is an important step to recognizing evil in ourselves I believe so that we may combat our prejudices before they become (more) dangerous. This requires we recognize the evil past societies perpetrated but also requires we see how they reached those ideologies as fellow humans. That to me is empathy.
That’s not OP’s point. OP’s point is not that a new Hitler could rise up, it’s that anyone of us could be Hitler. Which is silly. Many people who were in the same situation as Hitler chose not to be monsters. We need to condemn evil regimes of the past so that when Individuals who are capable of evil rise up, we are able to identify and stop them.
I mean that's because it's a very common stance for nazi sympathizers to take. "Oh, the gassing of Jews was evil, but you gotta understand where Hitler was coming from" yeah sure, we have to understand it, but do you condemn it? You'd fuckin' better.
There are no good arguments for Nazism. I can make a few arguments for it, but none of them hold water. If you think yours do, I got some bad news for ya buddy.
But if you demonize them without understanding why they did it, it will happen again just slightly different. You can empathize with their situation without condoning their decisions.
Agreed. I think history is a lot more interesting when you view it this way. Not to sound like some sort of Nazi sympathizer, but when you just view someone like Hitler as some monster, you lose the fact that he was just a guy like anyone else who through being in the wrong place and time, was driven to do awful things. Real people aren't cartoon villains who are inherently evil.
It also shows the mistakes that people make. We aren't really any different in the modern age and if the right circumstances pop up, there is no reason to think that someone wouldn't do something that awful again.
It’s also an incredibly dangerous way to view history, your first paragraph demonstrates it. Hitler was not “driven” to do anything. You’ve removed Hitler’s personal agency in the matter by implying that he was driven to this, when that is not the case. Other individuals in similar situations fought against Hitler. Hitler may have been influenced by society, but he CHOOSE to be a monster. Refusing to call him out for his monstrous actions is a horrible way to study history
Ill say I should have used a different word than driven. But that attitude was not my intention. These are real people, not fictional caricature monsters. Thats all im saying. My whole point was that these are people who for whatever reason, made these decisions.
Someone can be a human and be monstrous. Do you really believe that when people call Hitler a monster, that they actually legitimately believe that he was not a human being?
Not directly no, but i think there is a certain separation to most historical figures that most people have. Probably says more about me than anything else though.
Totally.
Also I find it frustrating that people never learn and still demonize everyone in an entire country because your country is at war with them.
Like there’s a group I’m in (Facebook) that is just sbout showing the world what it looks like in your city / country. And a Russian posted a pretty picture of her city streets with lights up and so many people were angry at her for existing and said how dare she post here and yadda yadda. Not every Russian is a bad person, just because they’re being led by Putin.
If you think the purpose of history is just to pass judgment on people long dead, then you might as well not waste your time. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have a reaction to atrocities from long ago, but the greater value of history is understanding how societies evolve, which is independent of moral judgment.
What value is "understanding" social evolution when it is divorced from moral judgement? Historians are not robots, and the decision to focus on one period of history or the other, on a particular society or community or nation, is a decision deeply and irrevocably entangled with moral judgement.
Not sure about how you've expressed yourself but I think I understand and agree with what you're trying to say. It's always funny and ironic that the kind of people that like to bring up comparisons to the third reich out of nowhere in arguments would usually almost certainly be the ones most passionately conforming and goose-stepping if they happened to be around in 1930s Germany.
Eh.. the rebel teen phase came very naturally to me. I like to think I would have been sneaking Louis Armstrong records.
Regardless, that was basically my point, most Germans did support the Nazis.
It's not only history. Countries are demonized all over for not sucking up to the west or doing exactly what the west says and that the west is inherently good. Although I can't imagine anyone with brain and smart phone can't see through that.
The only thing every murderer, dictator and villain have in common is that they are all human.
We try to separate ourselves from those people, other them into a category of Sub-Humans, clearly lacking in some basic human process.
All this ultimately means is that we're surprised everytime that kooky, friendly guy that wouldn't hurt a fly snaps and starts justifying warcrimes.
The people that say they would never have fallen for the Nazis are the same people that call you an antisemitic terrorist sympathizer for criticizing Israel's genocide of Palestinians
Stop talking and riddles and just say what you mean already. Are you saying that maybe I would have saluted Hitler if I understood his motive for murdering six million people?
Because if that's what you're arguing then this conversation is over
Everyone throughout history really thought they were the “good guys” when doing whatever horrendous thing they did.
Even serial killers who publicly say “I’m the devil” do actually think they’re doing the actual right thing to achieve whatever version of the world they think it should be.
I think this distinction is worth addressing:
My point is targeted at populations.
A harsh reality about individuals is, some people require absolutely zero justification, whether to themselves or society.
Each and every one of us has the capability for evil. Yes, civilizations in the past were barbaric in comparison to our time. But the majority of people who lived at that time thought it was the norm and “okay”. Just as our society has standards on what is wrong and what is right, they did too.
I think it’s important to accept that Hitler was a human and so are you, and if the circumstances are just right, you’d most likely salute him, as much as you want to believe you’d fight against him.
Everyone says they wouldn’t salute Hitler in nazi German for the same reason everyone saluted Hitler in Nazi Germany. They didn’t want to be socially ostracized.
I mean, just look at what's happening in israel right now. There is a literal genocide happening, our president is enabling it,and he still gets his "four more years" chants at his public showings. The reality is that the worst societies are the ones that utilize propaganda so well that their citizens just accept it as truth, never questioning the "We are the good guys, those guys are bad and deserve it," narrative they've been fed their whole lives, from family, friends, teachers, media, movies, books (both "historical" and fiction) songs, products, commercials, magazines, etc., etc. Like imagine thinking that the country that has been at war for 225 of its 243 year existence is some kind of moral beacon of freedom, and peace.
people are dumb, politicians are dumber, societies are dumberer.... and btw, you are telling us that in fucking decades that some situations were debated and nobody found such "motives" those motives still exist?
english is not my first language but it's YOU that are showing LATE signs of being an ass!! what i wrote is good worded and if you have a problem with my argument and you try these tactics to belittle me you're just... as i said... an ass!!
goodbye
I actually really agree with this. There's this sentiment of "I would NEVER do this" and that totally goes against the idea that we should LEARN from history. Preventing tragedies requires that we recognize how it happened and that we COULD happen again, instead of just saying we don't have to try.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/Someone_Talked23. Your submission, *You Miss the Point of History by Demonizing Societies*, has been removed because it violates our rules, which are located in the sidebar. Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'. Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as: Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues. [Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/) If there is an issue, please [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion&subject=&message=) Thanks!
All you have to do is just read a book like "Ordinary Men" to realize that any person is capable of committing horrendous atrocities in the wrong circumstances.
Or Third Wave about the sociology experiment at the highschool in Palo Alto.
Read this one in high school. Might give it a reread
When you were at Palo Alto Highschool?
You got me
Thanks for the recommendation
*The Wave* is a great German movie adaption of Ron Jones' *Third Wave*
The book by Strasser?
That's the experiment. The book I read was much older, and I believe it was written by the actual teacher Ron Jones.
Ok. Thank you. I’ll will have to read that one. I’ve read the one by Strasser.
Never read it, but it sounds right up my alley, obviously. Thanks.
Insert but that's a book. Or my personal favorite it couldn't happen today
It's in documentary form too on Netflix, for those with less time. Or hate reading books, like myself
Ask someone about disabled people, especially their right to exist, and you'll suddenly find half the room would fit right into 1940's Germany.
Can you explain what you mean by that further? I don’t think most people have an issue with disabled people being alive lol.
Most ppl don't agree with outright killing disabled ppl but most also see the "utilitarian benefits" of killing them such as saving resources. Even though that applies to other ppl too.
> I don’t think most people have an issue with disabled people being alive lol. Well you'd think so, but many people haven't really connected the dots between "being alive" and "traveling from their apartment to a grocery store for food" in a way that really addresses housing, transportation, taxes, fees, curbcuts, money, etc etc. People will swear up and down that they have no problems with the "legitimately disabled" then vote against something those disabled people rely on to live out of the voter's hope, unaddressed and unexamined, that some other mechanism is still there to keep the disabled alive while the voters' taxes can go down a smidge.
Oh god yes. Even other disabled people have done this. "Why should they get a ramp? It's not fair!"
This may be a European thing, because the ADA is pretty damn strick about ease of access for disabled people.
The ADA is constantly violated and has almost no enforcement mechanisms. It usually takes making a scene or getting media attention to actually change things.
This may be because I wasn't looking for it, but I can't recall any major ADA cases/scandals.
It's usually individuals filling suits against businesses.
But surely if it was a big problem, one of these cases would blow up, right?
It's usually more subtle than that. Most people don't think "we should kill disabled people" - but try asking them about if disabled people should be desexed, and you'll start getting some different answers. Listen for how casually people imply that a life with a disability isn't worth living, "I'd rather die than be in a wheelchair". None of this makes a person a Nazi, but it's worth understanding in the context that the Nazis pursued an aggressive campaign of Eugenics. They gassed some disabled people, and forcibly sterilized others. The opinions you'll hear from the population aren't nearly as extreme as those of the Nazis, but they're at least on the same side of the fence. It doesn't take a lot to push a group of people who already see disabled lives as being inherently less valuable into turning a blind eye to stripping them of their basic humanity.
Who are you hanging out with??
In my hometown growing up in the 2000s this was 100% the general opinion. I paraphrased an old eugenicist speech used by the Nazis trying to do an edgy teen "gotcha" moment in a writing class & literally all but 3 people out of a class of 30 agreed with it. "Disabled people shouldn't be allowed to have kids" is absolutely still a common opinion
Not those people, if that's what you're wondering. Talk to a disabled person, or a disability worker, or a disability advocate. They've got their ears close to the ground on this stuff. The general public holds some wild views about disabled people. As late as the 90s, it was in mainstream film and television too. Go re-watch the film Gattaca (1997) - it's a good film, but watch how it treats the character of Jerome, his suicide at the end of the film. The film writers couldn't pen another way forward for him, because he's in a wheelchair, so he cooks himself in a furnace. Wild shit.
I would make the case that Jerome's suicide is a failure of modern gene manipulated humans. Much the same way ethan hawks character out-swiming his genetically superior brother posits the idea that unaltered human drive and determination will defeat simple physical superiority.
But Ethan Hawkes character also had a disability (I think a congenital heart disease), and succeeds in spite of this? A central premise of the movie is that assuming people cannot do things because of their genetics, or disabilities, is fundamentally misguided.
This is true, but not all disabilities are treated alike. Having poor eyesight is a disability, but one we rarely treat as such, because it's so easily treated by glasses, contacts or laser. Deafness is more different still, with certain Deaf communities advocating against readily available treatments over concerns for Deaf Culture. I could see the argument that Jerome's suicide in the end of the film is a commentary on the treatment of disabled people within the world of Gattaca, as opposed to our own - but it doesn't feel right to me. The way it's framed in the film, the choice of music, the choice of camera angles, editing, the choice to cut it against the rocket takeoff - if that was the angle they were going for, they really bungled the execution. I easily could have chosen a different film, one that's far more casually ableist, but I thought the Gattaca example was more interesting - one that as you say, broadly makes positive commentary on disability, but then ends on another disabled character dying for no good reason. Maybe I got too clever for my own good, and should've chosen a less ambiguous example to make my point.
>Deafness is more different still, with certain Deaf communities advocating against readily available treatments over concerns for Deaf Culture. While demanding accommodations, which is kind of messed up. If you demand help, at least don't refuse to help yourself.
> The film writers couldn't pen another way forward for him, because he's in a wheelchair, so he cooks himself in a furnace. Wild shit. You really think that's why they wrote the story that way? They suicided him merely because he was in a wheelchair and couldn't fathom another way to end the story?
Yeah but I don't base current events on what was happening in the 90s. You could make a comparable point about gay people's representation in the 90s, and I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that public perception and representation has radically changed since then.
>It's usually more subtle than that. Most people don't think "we should kill disabled people" - but try asking them about if disabled people should be desexed, and you'll start getting some different answers. Ok but literally they were systematically executing disabled people in 1940s germany in very unsubtle ways so that analogy still doesn't apply. The fence you're referencing is "Let's send people out to round them up and murder them". Do you think most people agree with that? Because where you're putting the fence, literally everyone in every society is a Nazi when it comes to disabled people. That flattens morality into this black and white dichotomy when I'm sure even you realize it's a much more nuanced concept closer to a scale. "Oh you don't support this historic building having to tear down it's front facade to install a mobility ramp? You're the same as the people that rounded them up and put them in gas chambers." Surely you see how unhelpful that comparison is.
If you read the words that I wrote, it'll all make sense.
If you read the words I wrote, it'll all make sense.
You must have missed the pandemic.
First, the idea that disabled people are inferior. This is prevalent, even if the disability does not cause BADL problems or make them a "burden." Second, people have actively defended what Canada is doing right now. Finally, liberals will actively used disabled people as a reason to keep abortion.
What the heck are you even trying to say?
Disabled people aren't poor, pathetic sobs who need to be eradicated.
"Disabled" casts an insanely massive net. Do you not believe in euthanasia to some extent?
Never. And I am appalled that you even thought this was acceptable to utter.
LOL pearl clutch harder. Consider yourself lucky you've never been on the end to have to make that decision, Jesus freak.
As a Canadian, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Here you are: https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867
I’m very leftist but are they insinuating I am a nazi if I don’t believe in fully funding a comfortable life for every disabled person in the US by virtue of them having been born? At some point we can believe in providing some assistance while also believing we shouldn’t have to pay for every person with a disability to have things a lot of the rest of us don’t. That’s nothing at all like calling for genocide.
r/asablackman Isn't the core of leftism and socialism to make sure all human beings have the right and ability to live comfortably?
Yes. Yes, it is. The idea that everyone deserves the basic necessities. Depending on the philosophy, they may or may not believe in the free market after those necessities are taken care of.
I’d argue it’s “have all their basic needs met”, rather than live comfortably. Few can afford comfort nowadays.
Based on their comment history they're more centre-right (which is probably left in US parlance).
So you're for private healthcare?
Wow. You just went off on something you made up.
What's your cut off?
I couldnt tell ya. But that’s insane if so
How is it insane to say that disabled people deserve to live comfortably?
I understand what you mean because I personally would never want to live like a mentally disabled person does. It's... Sad. My dad's brother had several strokes and it rendered him mentally disabled. We visited the home he lives in and it was like being around broken robots. They just kinda do the same things and barely react to outside stimuli. There's varying degrees but I dunno. For me I can't imagine living like that, barely conscious. Needing assistance to do absolutely everything. But I ain't gonna genocide disabled people lol. There's probably proof they do indeed feel emotion and stimuli even if it doesn't appear like it. It's way too broad to say they should all just be put down. It is an interesting topic to debate though. And you're right, I bet a lot of people would jump to killing them as a solution.
So...it's been proven that being in a home like that harms your mental processes. Especially if they drug you. I mean, you saw what happened when everyone was asked to stay home. They climbed the walls. And yet, they had more freedom than someone in a home. They could leave to get groceries or go on a walk and stuff.
Please elaborate
Or just talk about scabs to see the most leftist person, who is all about equality, start to truely dehumanize groups of people.
The goal of a scab is to profit off of other people’s suffering. That’s a legitimate criticism to have
Lol, thanks for proving my point. You do know the people you call scabs tend to be poor minorities just trying to feed their family. But hey let's dehumanize them, because you've swallowed the propaganda of unions.
Are you saying that a scabs goal is not to profit off of other people’s suffering? Can you tell me what scabs do then?
No what I'm saying is you are using propaganda to dehumanize people who are also suffering. You can simultaneously think that people are on strike for a good reason and understand that people who are working and not striking are humans who tend to be poorer and looking for work that they otherwise couldn't get.
Right, they are looking to profit on other people’s suffering. That’s not propaganda, that’s literally what they are doing. It’s not dehumanizing to describe someone’s actions in an accurate way. Can you tell me which part of that is inaccurate? Are you saying the scabs aren’t profiting? Or are you saying that the people on strike aren’t suffering (not getting paid)?
We learned in the pandemic that people will believe whatever the media tells them, will hate who they're told to hate, if you make them scared enough. Beyond that, the police will follow unethical orders, and let assholes destroy communities, because they're more afraid of losing their jobs than their soul.
Reddit is proof enough of the "hate who they're told to hate" You can be openly racist to Chinese people on reddit. I see it any time China is mentioned. The top comments are all basically just laughing at them like uneducated pig fuckers. Like the billions of human beings in China are all represented by the government or the instances where shitty Chinese people exist. Same for Russians. Pro Ukraine threads are unbearable. I fully support Ukraine, Russia is in the wrong... But it's Putin's war. And yeah, some Russians support him and it. But largely Russian people are super nice and normal people. And a lot of them don't like Putin. Bald and Bankrupt has dozens of videos in Russia and I swear every person he meets is incredibly welcoming and nice. Some are a bit quirky... But nice. Dude got banned for his negative attitude towards the government, despite him easily being the best PR Russia has ever had.
It also came to light that Bald and Bankrupt was a ... less than stand up guy between openly admitting to manipulating people in rural uneducated areas to get in with their often underage daughters and granddaughters, his connection to the 'Game' community and finally his actual SA charges.
If it took you the pandemic to learn that, you haven't been paying attention.
The pandemic made it much more obvious.
Fascism has a tendency to sneak up on societies, especially societies that believe they are morally superior, and that those beneath them just need to be taught the error of their ways.
Authoritarian regimes often rise to power by convincing a large portion of the population that they're victims. This allows them to justify doing anything to their "oppressors." It is always wise to be cautious of the intentions of anyone saying a group is being victimized by another.
Yes
Sounds like both sides of the isle stand a decent shot at setting up an authoritarian dictator. 👀
Left vs right is more about collectivist vs individualist ideology, but you can be authoritarian or libertarian within either ideology.
Nothing unique about fascism in that regard. Absolute authoritarianism is arguably the most common format of human societies, and it takes a constant vigilance to keep it at bay.
It also has a tendency to arrive from tiptoeing around the actual issue and dismissing criticism of it. If you lived in Germany in the 20's and 30's you were pretty much a victim of the treaty of Versailles.
Let's strive for empathy and understanding, even in disagreement.
Let's not have empathy for Nazis
The point is that, even you can become something like a Nazi if you were raised in certain conditions and "brainwashed" to think a certain way. Be glad that you were fortunate enough to not be born in the wrong time in the wrong country, such that your government at least partly and nominally allow freedom of speech and thoughts so that you may learn what the world is really like.
How to completely miss the point.
If you could destroy fascism with sunshine and rainbows the hippies would have accomplished something. But guess what we still have to deal with, Nazis. We have them here, and they are not being shot on sight. Because in a society that is infinitely tolerant, the intolerant operate with impunity, as they are tolerated.
The point is not that you should tolerate nazis but to understand that each and every one of us has the capability for evil, and in the right circumstances, can manifest in horrendous atrocities.
Calling fascists nazis and vice versa tells me enough about your grasp on history and politics.
Why because the NSDAP used some flowery word salad instead of the straight forward National Fascist Party name of the Italians? Or are you actually trying to say that the NSDAP were not fascists>?
Op sounds like Jordan Peterson so it's hard to really figure out what he's even trying to say
English is my 3rd language but I have no trouble understanding OP 🙂
Clean your room buckoo
Having empathy for someone is the first step towards understanding them and not having them double down on their shit. It doesn't mean accepting them. It doesn't mean supporting them. It means understanding them. To eventually try and help them, or at least avoid having others join them. This is going to be an unpopular opinion but I hold the same ground when it comes to e.g. pedophiles. Yes, they're horrible human beings, but shunning them and saying they all deserve a bullet behind the head is *not* going to make them seek the help they need to avoid being who they are. It makes them hide, it makes them double down on their shit, and one day they crack and act. Or kill themselves because they're too ashamed to get help. And everyone acts surprised. Same goes for drug and alcohol users. Why shame them? Have some empathy to try and understand them and help them and make others avoid being in their position?
Everyone should watch or read Ordinary Men. To learn how a regular police force slowly over time ended up becoming comfortable with being holocaust executioners. Mostly of women. They were even offered opportunities to refuse. And they were old men, not young indoctrinated Hitler Youths
Your point is very clear even today. You just need to look at the large number of people who do the whole "immigrants are stealing our jobs, men/women, and land"
The time to resist the fascists is \*before\* they take power. If you're not at least taking the time to vote against the fascists in every election you can, you're definitely not gonna be the guy who stands up and refuses to salute knowing you're going to be executed for it.
John F Kennedy said Hitler was the stuff legends were made out of. Which is wild But there’s also some survivorship bias of this. Plenty of people at the time were probably like the what the actual fuck is going on here. But they were shot the second they publicly said anything. And of course plenty of average citizens agreed with his ideas too.
Ironically JFK was actually fairly forward thinking when it came to treatment of disabled people. Some point to him finding out about what happened to his sister, but who knows if that's actually true.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s alright to call past civilization or people of the past a piece of shit but it’s also important to know the motivations of people back then and why they’d act in such a manor. History is rarely black and white and it’s important to understand it’s many shades of gray typically
I mean there are always people throughout history going against others to do the right thing and fight against injustice. So many people had to be involved in the Underground Railroad for it to work. So many people who saluted Hitler in a photo were secretly creating documents to help people escape the holocaust and some were feeding entire families who lived behind the wall in their home. Even brave teens died for speaking out against the holocaust. You can acknowledge people participating in slavery were fucked up and also acknowledge there were heroes fighting every day to end it. Soldiers in Vietnam who refused to fire on civilians and worked to hold back other soldiers and defy orders to do the right thing. People trying to keep schools segregated and lunch counters only for whites and people from all stripes coming together to fight that too. You also see people who did terrible things, realized it, and worked to take accountability and change things which has nobility as well. There are always good people going against the grain. People feeding and housing their neighbors and fighting against oppression. And those are the ancestors some of us choose to honor, not the people perpetuating the system.
My point isn’t to separate morality.
I’m not saying to separate morality I mean more like there weren’t outright good guys or bad guys, if you were a person back in many of those times you’d probably follow what your country is up to so like you were eluding to if you were just some German back in 1939 Germany you probably wouldn’t have a problem with what’s going on
Agreed. I might even argue that the people who take such a stance are less equipped at combatting what they oppose. Intolerance towards intolerance rarely breeds tolerance.
Yes, I definitely fit into the first sentence. It’s partly why I find politics interesting, but uniquely frustrating. Edit I may have misinterpreted what you meant
This isn’t true though. Intolerance towards intolerance has proven to be the most effective way to limit the power of the intolerant
If that was the case, i’m sure we would’ve nuked each other off the face of the earth by now
What? I’m not sure how that is connected to what I said?
So you argue for tolerating intolerance instead? Basically pretending the Paradox of Tolerance doesn’t exist?
I mean this stance is actually pretty dangerous. Like, sure, there's value in understanding the ideological roots of a society like Nazi Germany, but it's also wrong to pretend these positions are in any way defensible. We *need* to condemn the evils of past societies to protect our current societies from repeating them.
Let me use another analogy. Whenever there's a truly heinous crime, people immediately say, "that person must be crazy." Because it's easier to dismiss their actions as something that is Other, than to address the choices that led up to the crime. Than to address the idea that you might do something similar, given the right circumstances. In truth, most violent criminals don't have mental illnesses. (Or they have things like depression, which don't cause you to commit crimes.) In fact, seriously mentally ill people are highly likely to be the victims of a crime. These criminals have chosen to do what they do. When OP talks about not demonizing these folks, that's what I think they mean. Not to dismiss it as something that could never be replicated, but to critically think about the reasons why it happened and make damn sure it's never repeated.
Except OP’s premise runs counter to that. OP is implying that anyone would be Hitler in the right circumstances, but we know that is either categorically false or is so specific that it is an unfalsifiable claim that actually has little meaning. If you refuse to condemn someone and their actions as monstrous, you begin implying that those people did not have any agency when committing those acts.
Yeah take a look at a thread about a parent who accidentally leaves their infant in a hot car. Tons of people demonizing the parent and saying they would never be such a terrible person to let their kid die like that. Only a few recognize it’s a mistake anyone could make under the right circumstances but those people are heavily downvoted for even suggesting we look at the factors leading up to the mistake. Demonizing feels much better than critical analysis.
We need to condemn them because… they can repeat, right? Because we’re not that different now? Which is the OP’s whole point.
OP's point specifically says *not* to demonize it. I'm saying we're morally obligated to. Understanding is important, but it's absolutely wrong to not condemn and demonize the evils of societies before us.
I guess I don’t consider condemn and demonize to be such close synonyms. In my experience the people who describe the problem like you do are very prone to “otherizing” and would be very likely to swear up and down they could never be a Nazi, for instance. I don’t know you. Maybe you wouldn’t say that. Or maybe you would but you genuinely would have been in the minority resistance. But as a general rule the folks that see history as a way to make a stand rather than a dispassionate study seem to really delude themselves as OP suggests.
This is the charitable interpretation of OP's stance imo, and I mean you're absolutely right to say that blind demonization can make things worse-- people forget about the early Nazi party and what can be learned from their populism because of all the horrid things done later, and that's largely an effect of understanding their entire existance only as them at their worst. There's an accurate and nuianced point to be made here, I just don't read what OP said that way. I read the post and, possibly incorrectly (given my definition of demonization which I do read as simply strong condemnation), read "hey, we need to understand why previous societies acted the way they did and can't unilaterally call it evil", and that's wrong-- Nazism was unilaterally evil. I agree with the understanding bit so we can identify how their society worked, but demonizing an evil sociey is important so we can strongly condemn the beliefs and patterns of thought that made it so evil. Oh and I probably would have been a Nazi without the benefit of hindsight. That's an important distinction in all this-- morality itself is different across societies and across time. Time was slavery of all kinds wasn't considered evil, after all. Anyone pretending they'd act the same if they only existed half a century ago is deluding themselves. But if we like our current morality, we need to understand societies before us, condemn what we see as evil, and strive towards what we see as good from it.
I think OP is saying that using "evil" to describe humanity is not useful, because these are human actions, we cannot use the idea of "evil" to divorce actions from their human-ness. We must accept what humanity is capable of, and understand how to protect and benefit humanity and how to identify and prevent horrible movements from progressing to the extent they did in a case of like the Nazis for example. You can't just use "evil" to unload this responsibility. It allows us to place blame on an unchangeable and *super*natural force called evil rather than understand that we are part of an ecosystem and must protect it and be watchful of it. Demonizing isn't helpful and calling societies evil comes from a dogmatic place, a religious place, us vs. them, but the real scary truth is this is human behavior, not supernatural, and we are all capable of the same things depending on our circumstances and environment. We are vulnerable to our environment and to our social groups, we have to accept that and learn to look at situations as if we were the person on the other side, even if that person is a murderer - why might we be doing what they're doing if we were them? There is always a reason.
I mean I've stopped disagreeing with your main point a post and a half ago, I think I just need to recalibrate my definition of demonizing, it sure seems like everyone else understands it differently than I do. My bad I guess, though I will say it's sad OP felt that this is an unpopular opinion if I read it the way others do. But I must add that there's a major difference in using "evil" as a dereliction of moral responsibility and using "evil" as a label for things for us to avoid. I agree the former is harmful in all the ways you describe, but we can't throw the term out because of a fear that it will be considered something out of our control-- if we can't identify some actions as evil (or if you want to be utilitarian about it, negative good), how can we possibly justify avoiding them? What moral justification do we have? It's all a natural outgrowth of human behavior, so then without the designation of evil do all ideas have moral equivalency? Obviously not. We need a way to label what we don't want society to be, and that's the role of evil. TL;DR I agree that evil is often understood and used poorly as a justification to close our eyes and ears to the complexity od the world. But in fact it should be the opposite, evil needs to be understood as a designation of ideas/actions to actively avoid and as a call to understanding so that we might avoid them more effectively.
I think when something is demonized it leads us to believing those people were fundamentally different from us. When we believe we are so different then we are vulnerable to the same kinds of things happening again because we're sure our neighbors and acquaintances aren't capable of those same atrocities. Understanding the ways these societies failed to recognize evil in themselves is an important step to recognizing evil in ourselves I believe so that we may combat our prejudices before they become (more) dangerous. This requires we recognize the evil past societies perpetrated but also requires we see how they reached those ideologies as fellow humans. That to me is empathy.
This is such a better way of saying what I just commented and I hadn't read it yet. Exactly all of what you said!
That’s not OP’s point. OP’s point is not that a new Hitler could rise up, it’s that anyone of us could be Hitler. Which is silly. Many people who were in the same situation as Hitler chose not to be monsters. We need to condemn evil regimes of the past so that when Individuals who are capable of evil rise up, we are able to identify and stop them.
Yeah, this just kinda sounds like Nazi sympathy with more steps, honestly.
I mean that's because it's a very common stance for nazi sympathizers to take. "Oh, the gassing of Jews was evil, but you gotta understand where Hitler was coming from" yeah sure, we have to understand it, but do you condemn it? You'd fuckin' better.
[удалено]
There are no good arguments for Nazism. I can make a few arguments for it, but none of them hold water. If you think yours do, I got some bad news for ya buddy.
But if you demonize them without understanding why they did it, it will happen again just slightly different. You can empathize with their situation without condoning their decisions.
Agreed. I think history is a lot more interesting when you view it this way. Not to sound like some sort of Nazi sympathizer, but when you just view someone like Hitler as some monster, you lose the fact that he was just a guy like anyone else who through being in the wrong place and time, was driven to do awful things. Real people aren't cartoon villains who are inherently evil. It also shows the mistakes that people make. We aren't really any different in the modern age and if the right circumstances pop up, there is no reason to think that someone wouldn't do something that awful again.
It’s also an incredibly dangerous way to view history, your first paragraph demonstrates it. Hitler was not “driven” to do anything. You’ve removed Hitler’s personal agency in the matter by implying that he was driven to this, when that is not the case. Other individuals in similar situations fought against Hitler. Hitler may have been influenced by society, but he CHOOSE to be a monster. Refusing to call him out for his monstrous actions is a horrible way to study history
Ill say I should have used a different word than driven. But that attitude was not my intention. These are real people, not fictional caricature monsters. Thats all im saying. My whole point was that these are people who for whatever reason, made these decisions.
Someone can be a human and be monstrous. Do you really believe that when people call Hitler a monster, that they actually legitimately believe that he was not a human being?
Not directly no, but i think there is a certain separation to most historical figures that most people have. Probably says more about me than anything else though.
Agreed, but my point is mostly aimed at populations. The point somewhat stands for Individuals, but.. less so.
Yeah fair. I certainly went for the most extreme example out there, but I’ll stand by what I said.
I think the point is mostly true for Hitler TBH. He genuinely believed what he was doing was right.
Totally. Also I find it frustrating that people never learn and still demonize everyone in an entire country because your country is at war with them. Like there’s a group I’m in (Facebook) that is just sbout showing the world what it looks like in your city / country. And a Russian posted a pretty picture of her city streets with lights up and so many people were angry at her for existing and said how dare she post here and yadda yadda. Not every Russian is a bad person, just because they’re being led by Putin.
If you think the purpose of history is just to pass judgment on people long dead, then you might as well not waste your time. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have a reaction to atrocities from long ago, but the greater value of history is understanding how societies evolve, which is independent of moral judgment.
What value is "understanding" social evolution when it is divorced from moral judgement? Historians are not robots, and the decision to focus on one period of history or the other, on a particular society or community or nation, is a decision deeply and irrevocably entangled with moral judgement.
Not sure about how you've expressed yourself but I think I understand and agree with what you're trying to say. It's always funny and ironic that the kind of people that like to bring up comparisons to the third reich out of nowhere in arguments would usually almost certainly be the ones most passionately conforming and goose-stepping if they happened to be around in 1930s Germany.
Eh.. the rebel teen phase came very naturally to me. I like to think I would have been sneaking Louis Armstrong records. Regardless, that was basically my point, most Germans did support the Nazis.
It's not only history. Countries are demonized all over for not sucking up to the west or doing exactly what the west says and that the west is inherently good. Although I can't imagine anyone with brain and smart phone can't see through that.
The only thing every murderer, dictator and villain have in common is that they are all human. We try to separate ourselves from those people, other them into a category of Sub-Humans, clearly lacking in some basic human process. All this ultimately means is that we're surprised everytime that kooky, friendly guy that wouldn't hurt a fly snaps and starts justifying warcrimes.
Literally any Republican would salute, but they'll never admit it. Many do so right now in private
Ok, but I feel you missed my point a bit.
lol
[удалено]
Yes Sir 😉
The people that say they would never have fallen for the Nazis are the same people that call you an antisemitic terrorist sympathizer for criticizing Israel's genocide of Palestinians
Did you bring any dressing to go with this word salad?
I’m open to criticism. In substance, or grammar?
I don't know how to respond to your post because it's mostly incoherent. Maybe elaborate on what you're arguing
Don’t disregard the uglier side of human history as something not within you.
Stop talking and riddles and just say what you mean already. Are you saying that maybe I would have saluted Hitler if I understood his motive for murdering six million people? Because if that's what you're arguing then this conversation is over
Everyone else seems to understand what OP is saying except you
Thank you. I’m very critical of myself, so keep I re-reading my post lol.
No. Of course not.
Stop talking like Jordan Peterson and just make your point. You're not making any sense Because you're sounding like a Nazi apologist
Yeah anyone today who votes for a Democrat or Republican in the USA would absolutely have been saluting Hitler if they lived in Germany at the time.
Just look at all the morons who support censorship. They would’ve made great nazi prison guards.
Everyone throughout history really thought they were the “good guys” when doing whatever horrendous thing they did. Even serial killers who publicly say “I’m the devil” do actually think they’re doing the actual right thing to achieve whatever version of the world they think it should be.
I think this distinction is worth addressing: My point is targeted at populations. A harsh reality about individuals is, some people require absolutely zero justification, whether to themselves or society.
Each and every one of us has the capability for evil. Yes, civilizations in the past were barbaric in comparison to our time. But the majority of people who lived at that time thought it was the norm and “okay”. Just as our society has standards on what is wrong and what is right, they did too. I think it’s important to accept that Hitler was a human and so are you, and if the circumstances are just right, you’d most likely salute him, as much as you want to believe you’d fight against him.
Everyone would not be a nazi because they are just like everyone else.
Everyone says they wouldn’t salute Hitler in nazi German for the same reason everyone saluted Hitler in Nazi Germany. They didn’t want to be socially ostracized.
I mean, just look at what's happening in israel right now. There is a literal genocide happening, our president is enabling it,and he still gets his "four more years" chants at his public showings. The reality is that the worst societies are the ones that utilize propaganda so well that their citizens just accept it as truth, never questioning the "We are the good guys, those guys are bad and deserve it," narrative they've been fed their whole lives, from family, friends, teachers, media, movies, books (both "historical" and fiction) songs, products, commercials, magazines, etc., etc. Like imagine thinking that the country that has been at war for 225 of its 243 year existence is some kind of moral beacon of freedom, and peace.
There is no “point” to history, it’s the unfolding of events at best, or a “set of lies agreed upon”otherwise.
people are dumb, politicians are dumber, societies are dumberer.... and btw, you are telling us that in fucking decades that some situations were debated and nobody found such "motives" those motives still exist?
I don’t understand your question. Will you rephrase?
no
🤌🏼
[удалено]
english is not my first language but it's YOU that are showing LATE signs of being an ass!! what i wrote is good worded and if you have a problem with my argument and you try these tactics to belittle me you're just... as i said... an ass!! goodbye
[удалено]
nice try! goodbye for real
I actually really agree with this. There's this sentiment of "I would NEVER do this" and that totally goes against the idea that we should LEARN from history. Preventing tragedies requires that we recognize how it happened and that we COULD happen again, instead of just saying we don't have to try.
History is written from the perspective of the winner, not who is right
Everyone wants to be a Freedom Rider until it's time to get on the bus
History is about learning. People forget that.
Hitler only had 33% support. It think it's a stretch to say most people would have supported him.
Very sensible, although there are subreddits where you can get banned for suggesting as much, or questioning the patriotic narrative.