I would disagree with that. The leaders were different, and critically, the ideologies were very different.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
"Hitler was a great man."
- Thread starter Nix_Hex
- Start date
I understand where you are coming from, but I have to hop out to work. I'll reply fully to this with the reasoning when I am done.
I have a hard time believing that "inner racist sentiments" are the reason Hitler gets blocked off the most. In my experience, when people praise such a hated figure, it's for the shock value. It's an attention grabber, it puts them in the spotlight. It's obviously not positive attention, but time and time again it's been shown that attention sucks don't really care what kind of attention they get, so long as it's attention.
There is likely the occasional person who says that who really would harbor internal racist sentiments, but I think that they are by long and far the minority. If you want a better indicator, look for them making admiring comments about lesser known racist leaders. If they do that, it's much less likely they're just looking for attention.
I disagree. I think almost everyone thinks in a racist manner to some extent. That's a natural human tendency. We judge on appearance, we seek to make groupings, and we favour our group over other groups.
And while few people will make blatantly racist statements or acts, many people will act in a racist manner in more subtle ways. If you're an ethnic minority, I'd bet money that your friendship group includes a disproportionate number of the same minority when compared to the general population.
That's not necessarily a race-motivated decision. It can be created by language, and by social opportunity (the latter being created by the former in large cultural groups).
I don't really like the broad definition of racism (i.e. any kind of conscious or subconscious or nonconscious differentiation between people based on their race) because it frequently gets conflated with the negative definition (negative predjudice toward and belief of superiority over another person based entirely on race), and they're not the same. The former is unavoidable by our biology (the brain works by grouping things, it's how it makes shortcut decisions) and in many cases is not a problem at all. For example, recognising that someone's African genetics makes them at greater risk of sickle cell anemia, or even just recognising that two people have different skin tones fit under the former definition.
Well Mr.Indigo already basically did my rebuttal for me XD but I'll add my little bit of clarification.
What you are calling "inner racist sentiments" and what I'm calling "inner racist sentiments" is not the same. I'm talking about internally wishing that other races weren't around, or genuinely believing that your race is superior to others. This, is also what I think Nix (the OP) is referring to (though I may be wrong there) as that explains his disgust. Of course he could disgusted at what you are calling racism, in which case he seriously needs to loosen up his standards a bit.
Question.
On forums, I hear many comments on how racism is bad. However, racism isn't any worse, or better, than homophobia, sexism, agism or any other kind of discrimination, visible or not. Why does racism get talked about more?
Second question. Is it discrimination to simply not being confortable around people of a particuliar group, or do we say that, considering this discrimination is taking political correctness too far?
Third question. Is it okay to discriminate people based on their free will (assuming it exist) ? If I am free to do something stupid and I do it, are you justified to be predjudiced against me for that?
On forums, I hear many comments on how racism is bad. However, racism isn't any worse, or better, than homophobia, sexism, agism or any other kind of discrimination, visible or not. Why does racism get talked about more?
Second question. Is it discrimination to simply not being confortable around people of a particuliar group, or do we say that, considering this discrimination is taking political correctness too far?
Third question. Is it okay to discriminate people based on their free will (assuming it exist) ? If I am free to do something stupid and I do it, are you justified to be predjudiced against me for that?
All are excellent questions, and I will answer them as best I can.
First question: I agree that racism is no worse than other forms of discrimination. Why it is focused on more, it's hard to say, but I honestly think it might lead back to the Holocaust. People are so focused on race because of the Holocaust, IMO. I think it is brought into light purely because of the genocide that the Holocaust was, that is, targeting a specific group of people, and is usually associated with race, when in fact, genocide can be caused by any type of discrimination.
Second question: This question is hard to answer. Some would argue that yes, it is discrimination, while others would argue that it isn't. I will have to look into it more to get a solid answer.
Third question: I do not believe it is okay to discriminate against people based on their own free will. They have a right to do what they want (well, to an extent, anyway), and just because they do something you don't agree with doesn't mean you have the right to discriminate against them or others who do similar things.
It doesn't.
You hear about any kind of discrimination all the time. I don't understand what makes you think you never hear of homophobia or sexism, otherwise you wouldn't know those terms and they'd never come to mind at all.
I'm assuming you'd recently taken a blow to the head when you posted this.
Constance McMillan, for example, is gay discrimination everyone's heard about just in the last month or so.
As a counter exemple, I've seen being a devout christian as an "excuse" to be homophobic. On this very forum.
I don't think being religiously devout can pass as an excuse for racism anymore, even if it was not long ago. The Klan, for exemple, based their racism on religious ground. Or so I heard.
I don't think being religiously devout can pass as an excuse for racism anymore, even if it was not long ago. The Klan, for exemple, based their racism on religious ground. Or so I heard.
Right, but Jack Jack did not claim to never have heard of homophobia. He's just saying he hears a lot more about racism.
I think not. Considering Jesus was of jewish/arab descent. (the man anyway?)
Never did I mention as an argument that the majority always is right; never did I mention that because a majority agrees with certain morals that these become objective. The majority doesn't matter, however at times a majority can agree with something for that something might be right. What you are trying to do is basically deform my words to make it sound like a fallacy so you could use it as a valid ''argument'' versus my purpose. For example, if we would to argue that whether or not the earth is a cube; you would say that because most people agree it is not a cube with reason and that I stated that, then I did a fallacy; that's not how it works. You could only claim that I did such a fallacy if I used the majority as an argument which I did not.
Now, I never recalled mentioning Hitler as being ''evil''. I mentioned him being unjust (or bad since in this situation I considered them synonyms although they aren't). One could debate with reason and good arguments that justice does not exist much like good/evil doesn't, but that is beside the point right now.
Also, you seem to have misread my sentences (or I may have made mistakes, or I may have even not expressed myself clearly which is possible seeing as English is not my first language) for I never mentioned that my morals where objectives; what I did say however is that my morals where just, however that is subject to debate. I never claimed my morals to be absolute, nor supreme and even less objective.
As far as Hitler is concerned, I already enunciated my opinions many times. I do not believe it is necessary for me to repeat them.
Hardly anyone is openly racist anymore, the same can't be said for homophobia. Hell just look at Californias Prop 8:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
in case you don't want to read it I'll leave you this
You would be surprised: in some countries, people are still openly racist. Besides, being openly or secretly racist isn't what actually matters for what is important is racism itself, not how it is expressed. Otherwise, if you exclude every non-open racist, both Canada & USA nearly defeated racism, GG. However, that would be a pitiful ''victory''; it's more like a cowardly escape.
As for which problems is more apparent in our current society, I would somewhat agree that maybe there are more homophobic than racist, but it isn't really the issue since each civilization at any given time had it's own major issues.
At any rate, for what concerns this thread I believe that there aren't that many real Nazi anymore, fortunately.
As for which problems is more apparent in our current society, I would somewhat agree that maybe there are more homophobic than racist, but it isn't really the issue since each civilization at any given time had it's own major issues.
At any rate, for what concerns this thread I believe that there aren't that many real Nazi anymore, fortunately.
depends. If you still deny a job or a rent to someone because of irrelevant criteria, that is bad. Wheter you are usually open or not. In that sense, we still have work to do to defeat all forms of discrimination.
Ultimately, what we need to defeat is irrationality. Irrationality is the source of all discrimination. It's also the reason why discrimination is bad in the first place; If you discriminate someone based on a valid rational thought process, then it's no longer bad and that discrimination is most likely justified.
For exemple, Hema Québec does not accept blood donation from men who had sex with other men since 1970 because they are more likely to carry std. It would be reasonable if they specified unprotected sex. (they accept blood for people who have had unprotected sex, as long as they've stopped to have unprotected sex for a certain period of time, I think it's one year )
Ultimately, what we need to defeat is irrationality. Irrationality is the source of all discrimination. It's also the reason why discrimination is bad in the first place; If you discriminate someone based on a valid rational thought process, then it's no longer bad and that discrimination is most likely justified.
For exemple, Hema Québec does not accept blood donation from men who had sex with other men since 1970 because they are more likely to carry std. It would be reasonable if they specified unprotected sex. (they accept blood for people who have had unprotected sex, as long as they've stopped to have unprotected sex for a certain period of time, I think it's one year )
This is what I was hoping to hear on the subject of discrimination. It can be justified. That's not to say it is usually, but to try and put an end to all forms of discrimination is simply irrational.
This seems rather homophobic. I have no clue what the actual rates are, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to request they get tested instead or something?
"This seems rather homophobic. I have no clue what the actual rates are, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to request they get tested instead or something? "
I don't either. But you seem to suggest that the rates are relevant.
Which, in fact, they are. We are talking about a government-run agency that collect blood donations, they can't run the risk of collecting contaminated blood. Not when it have happened in the past.
Also, for some reason, they have a policy of not relying on tests. I mean, a positive test means they trash the whole thing, but apparently, negative test don't have them keep blood from people with "risky behavior".
I don't know much about the organisation thought. I was just trying to come up with an exemple of justified discrimination.
I've donated blood to them before. About that, I should go donate some more...
What I wanted to say is, you've got absolutely no reason to lie to them. And they do a very good job at hammering the point home that this is blood your brother could receive, you'd be an asshole to not tell the truth, especially since professional confidentiality is in effect.
Then again, assholes exist.
I don't either. But you seem to suggest that the rates are relevant.
Which, in fact, they are. We are talking about a government-run agency that collect blood donations, they can't run the risk of collecting contaminated blood. Not when it have happened in the past.
Also, for some reason, they have a policy of not relying on tests. I mean, a positive test means they trash the whole thing, but apparently, negative test don't have them keep blood from people with "risky behavior".
I don't know much about the organisation thought. I was just trying to come up with an exemple of justified discrimination.
I've donated blood to them before. About that, I should go donate some more...
What I wanted to say is, you've got absolutely no reason to lie to them. And they do a very good job at hammering the point home that this is blood your brother could receive, you'd be an asshole to not tell the truth, especially since professional confidentiality is in effect.
Then again, assholes exist.
But do "men who have sex with men" even have a significantly higher risk than others - to the point that it should be singled out as a risk factor over others like location or age?
And anyway, all blood donations should be screened.
Edit; damnit, ninja'd. But still, is there any reason to believe the behaviour is risky. Who do you think would be more likely to have HIV - a man in a steady homosexual relationship, or a man with a string of heterosexual partners?
And anyway, all blood donations should be screened.
Edit; damnit, ninja'd. But still, is there any reason to believe the behaviour is risky. Who do you think would be more likely to have HIV - a man in a steady homosexual relationship, or a man with a string of heterosexual partners?
At any rate, it isn't, indeed, possible to justify racism in any way; racism is clearly irrational and there is absolutely no objective way to show the superiority of a race over another.
Ignoring the fact that the policy isn't exactly perfectly reasonable in any state, there is no 100% safe sex. Condoms do not block the transmission of any disease 100%, and some diseases are not affected much at all by condoms. Condoms are a fucking great idea and they should be used all the time yadda yadda yadda, but they are not 100% effective and you can't safely (as in safely enough for blood banks, not safely enough for personal use) assume that if a condom is present the chance of an STD is nil.
(edit before someone says it: yes, less than 100% effective with perfect use)