"Even Hitler during WWII arguably had good intentions"

[2xx1xy1JD]

I read Libby Anne's Love, Joy, Feminism blog. I don't agree with everything, but she often has some great, thoughtful posts.

For that reason, I was totally shocked and disappointed to read this from a post last week, where she discusses an email exchange between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky. In her post, she writes this bit of WTF:

In contrast, Chomski [sic] pointed out that even the Japanese and Hitler during WWII arguably had good intentions. Chomski made it clear that he sees harm done as significantly more important to the ethicality of an act than the intentions of the perpetrator. He contended that benign intentions coupled with a lack of care for the havoc wreaked by one’s actions could be seen as more ethically problematic than malicious intentions that at least acknowledge the harm caused. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... qus_thread

[Not breaking the link since the link is automatically inserted when I cut and paste, so I believe that it's part of the copyright condition, and she's not a fundie.]

I'm not saying that she's some sort of neo-Nazi - she's clearly not. I am, however, concerned that she makes a throwaway comment like this without bothering to stop for a moment and question whether it is true. She questions Harris' points, but not Chomsky's.

The thing is - she actually misquotes Chomsky here. His comments were still outrageous IMHO, but he was talking about the Japanese and Hitler during WWII being more sincere than the Clinton administration, in the context of a discussion where it's clear that he did not believe the Clinton administrations reasons for a bombing in Sudan. Libby Anne is the one who interpreted this to mean that Hitler had "good intentions".

According to her, Hitler had "good intentions", but we need to judge him on the basis on the actual harm caused.

She completely misses a crucial point. The actual harm was horrific - but the intended harm was even worse. For example, the actual harm was that 1/3 of the Jewish population of the world was murdered. The intended harm was that the other 2/3 would be killed as well. Using a term like "good" in relation to Hitler's intentions ignores the fact that Hitler and other Nazi ideologues believed in a Fascist ideology, inspired by Nietzsche, which rejected the very notion of good and evil and taught that the "ubermentsch" could do anything as he was beyond good and evil. Hitler specifically said that he wanted a "brutal, fearless, domineering, cruel youth" when he created the Hitler Youth. He was perfectly aware that his plans were considered evil by the rest of the civilized world, and went so far as to create a "model concentration camp" at Terezin to fool the Red Cross into believing that conditions were good www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Ho ... rezin.html.

Libby Anne may choose to believe that most people mean well and have good intentions, but she doesn't get to rewrite history. That simply wasn't the case with Hitler. It wasn't the case with a number of other atrocities either. What "good intentions" caused children to be hacked to death in front of parents in Rwanda, or cause rape to be used as a weapon of war? I can understand that an ordinary soldier may believe propaganda, or people may justify cruel actions in their own minds, but that doesn't mean that these are "good intentions".

[Coco]

That's disappointing. I really like her blog, her series on the Pearls was life-changing for me.

[Burris]

That simply wasn't the case with Hitler. It wasn't the case with a number of other atrocities either. What "good intentions" caused children to be hacked to death in front of parents in Rwanda, or cause rape to be used as a weapon of war? I can understand that an ordinary soldier may believe propaganda, or people may justify cruel actions in their own minds, but that doesn't mean that these are "good intentions".

No, it does not. And it's disturbing to find people far enough removed from information about how these atrocities occurred that they could believe the leaderships that caused them - the leaderships that contrived incredible visual, audio, and written lies in an effort to create ethnic paranoia and hatred - had "good intentions."

And by the time a soldier reaches the point where he hacks kids' arms off in front of their parents, whatever he used to be, and whatever he eventually becomes, at that moment, he does not have good intentions either.

This is the exact wrong way to try understanding the mindset of people who develop and contribute to atrocity - by attempting to minimize terrible actions in such a way that the person doing the minimizing can then try to achieve some level of understanding through the assumption of good intentions with which she can then empathize.

No. Wrong.

Unless she thinks it's okay to depopulate areas for the sake of her ethnic group, she is never going to get anywhere near understanding what war criminals are thinking {ETA: For example, that the meanings of "good" and "bad" are blurred] - and if that thing she wrote is the best outcome of her effort in this misguided thought experiment of hers, she needs to stop trying at all and simply admit that, holy shit, some people really do start out with bad intentions.

[louisa05]

I find that many former fundies never truly get rid of the instinct to think in black and white terms. They just reverse the colors. Libby Anne is one that seems to be this way. So where in her fundie upbringing, everything conservative was good and everything liberal was bad, now she tends toward the opposite view. Chomski is a liberal and thus can't be questioned.

[Palimpsest]

I'm sure Libby Anne would welcome your viewpoints in comments on her blog. She has always seemed open to discussion and pretty good about accepting new ideas and clarifying her meaning when necessary. She accepts her ExFundie limitations, I think.

That said, perhaps you may want to reread what Libby Anne actually wrote. I agree it was a bit clumsy and she might want to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s more. It seems to me that she came out in the right place with her final paragraph. I see a hefty dose of sarcasm in the first sentences I bolded.

And honestly, who doesn’t have good intentions? Everyone is justified in their own eyes. If we use intentions to gauge whether or not an act is ethical, we will quickly find ourselves in very deep water. The harm an action causes has to matter more to us than the intentions of the one causing the harm, regardless of the worldview within which they are operating.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/05/do-intentions-matter-on-sam-harris-and-noam-chomsky

In other words, anyone (however evil, see Hitler) can justify their actions as having "good intentions," within their specific world view (in Hitler's case ridding the world of Jews, Romany, people with disabilities, and anyone who threatens a sick idea of Aryan superiority so I can take over the world.)

Such (evil) people try to justify horrendous collateral damage within those (claimed, but disputable) "good intentions."

That fits with the other examples Libby Anne chose. Including US foreign policy, which can indeed be criticized in many world arena. So did she mean that we should look hard at the harm caused by actions in the name of the specific "good intentions of the specific world view" claimed by those who perpetrate them.

To my mind, questioning intent is important. Questioning specific world views is important. Assessing collateral damage in the contexts of not necessarily good intentions and specific but often biased world views is incredibly important.

If this is what Libby Anne meant, I don't disagree. At all.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm sure Libby Anne would welcome your viewpoints in comments on her blog. She has always seemed open to discussion and pretty good about accepting new ideas and clarifying her meaning when necessary. She accepts her ExFundie limitations, I think.

That said, perhaps you may want to reread what Libby Anne actually wrote. I agree it was a bit clumsy and she might want to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s more. It seems to me that she came out in the right place with her final paragraph. I see a hefty dose of sarcasm in the first sentences I bolded.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/05/do-intentions-matter-on-sam-harris-and-noam-chomsky

In other words, anyone (however evil, see Hitler) can justify their actions as having "good intentions," within their specific world view (in Hitler's case ridding the world of Jews, Romany, people with disabilities, and anyone who threatens a sick idea of Aryan superiority so I can take over the world.)

Such (evil) people try to justify horrendous collateral damage within those (claimed, but disputable) "good intentions."

That fits with the other examples Libby Anne chose. Including US foreign policy, which can indeed be criticized in many world arena. So did she mean that we should look hard at the harm caused by actions in the name of the specific "good intentions of the specific world view" claimed by those who perpetrate them.

To my mind, questioning intent is important. Questioning specific world views is important. Assessing collateral damage in the contexts of not necessarily good intentions and specific but often biased world views is incredibly important.

If this is what Libby Anne meant, I don't disagree. At all.

FWIW, I did comment on her blog. She has said that she doesn't always bother to read all the comments, she frequently doesn't bother to respond to comments, and she has others who help moderate comments. There is no email address on the website. Long story short - I have no idea if she read my comments or if any of her views have changed as a result.

I also had to walk away from the comments, because I simply reached my limit while reading comments like:

The Nazis thought they were working to rid the world of two interrelated, terrible scourges: "World Jewry" and Bolshevism.

By their lights such accomplishments would obviously have been for the good of the world

and

He and a lot of other Nazis definitely seemed to think that they were cleaning the world of a terrible demonic force - of course they were deluded and paranoid but they themselves thought they were heroic dragonslayers There is a statement by Hitler saying something to the effect that "If the jews succeed the planet will be sucked dry and all life will die and earth will fly through space without humans again like it did before humans came to be" There is another a statement by Heinrich Himmler that even sounds kinda self-sacrificial which goes sort of like this "I know its so hard to kill all these people but we have to do it, there is no other way" So yeah, the Nazis themselves thought they were saving the world and all humanity, which is a good intention, in fact probably the best intention one can have.

This isn't all about my feelings, because I'm a big girl, but these comments left me profoundly disturbed, as in thinking about it all weekend/shaking/being on the verge of tears. I've never felt that way about a Libby Anne post before, and it's really rare that I have a reaction like that at

It's hard to tell tone on the internet, but she's far less sarcastic in general than we tend to be here. Maybe it's an ex-fundie thing, but I find that she tends to take things very seriously and doesn't show much of a sense of humor. She was told that her parents and other fundies around her had great intentions, even when doing bad things, and she believed it.

I don't think she distinguished, at all, the idea that someone intended a specific consequences (which might be objectively good or bad) vs. the idea that someone is justified in their own mind. She just seemed to miss the point, since the discussion triggered memories of how her parents justified shit by their "good intentions" to save her soul.

Harris was making the point that someone with an intent to cause harm can pose a continuing threat. In this particular email exchange, he isn't talking about whether someone feels justified in their own mind at all.

Chomsky was making the point (somewhat clumsily) that you can claim, "we intended to stop terrorists", but if you launch a military attack, you should at least be honest about what you are doing and admit that the true intent is "we want to stop terrorists, and are prepared to launch a miltary attack which may violate another country's sovereignty and therefore international law, based on intelligence which might be faulty, and take the risk that civilians and civilian infrastructure in that foreign country may be harmed instead."

[slightly OT, but I'll add in here that Harris is a recognized expect in neuroscience, Chomsky is a recognized expert in linguistics - and they can both be complete fools when dealing with this topic, which is outside of their respective areas of expertise. Harris seems locked into this view that the Muslim world is at a different "stage of moral development", thinks that it's a good idea to profile anyone who "looks Muslim". He doesn't seem to really acknowledge that civilizations can regress as well as progress. We saw regression into genocide in Nazi Germany, the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda - all places that had been (at least nominally) Christian. He doesn't acknowledge that many of the issues in the Muslim world aren't "traditional" at all, and that there has been active regression in terms of intolerance over the past several decades. Iranian women prior to the Revolution had rights, as did Afghan women prior to the Taliban. Many Muslim countries once had thriving Jewish communities. He doesn't mention the influence of Sayyid Qutb, nor does he acknowledge the influence of Christian anti-semitism and Nazi ideology on modern Muslim anti-semitism.]

[Anny Nym]

That´s why one shouldn´t (over-) use the failed postcard painter when trying to to make a point or as clickbait: It could seriously derail a topic.

Libby Anne isn´t talking about him or N*zis at all, she is merely quoting Chomsky once, who made the mistake I mentioned above.

She uses the Clinton-bombing as an example, as well as the killing of infants by "christian" missionaries. Whis are both very good examples.

Especially the latter one, as this is obviously a violation of the 10 Commandments, while the example with quicksilver is a simple case of "we honestly didn´t know it better".

Also, one may now argue with the fact that US- (and not only US!) foreign policy often uses the "b-but TERRORISTS, you guys!" argument to justify militaric actions, solely for their own geo-political advantage, and DEFINITELY NOT out of selfless good intent.

So maybe we shouldn´t b so unfair to make this article into a "All about Adi", because Libby Anne isn´t either.

[Burris]

This isn't all about my feelings, because I'm a big girl, but these comments left me profoundly disturbed, as in thinking about it all weekend/shaking/being on the verge of tears. I've never felt that way about a Libby Anne post before, and it's really rare that I have a reaction like that....

[slightly OT, but I'll add in here that Harris is a recognized expect in neuroscience, Chomsky is a recognized expert in linguistics - and they can both be complete fools when dealing with this topic, which is outside of their respective areas of expertise. Harris seems locked into this view that the Muslim world is at a different "stage of moral development", thinks that it's a good idea to profile anyone who "looks Muslim". He doesn't seem to really acknowledge that civilizations can regress as well as progress. We saw regression into genocide in Nazi Germany, the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda - all places that had been (at least nominally) Christian. He doesn't acknowledge that many of the issues in the Muslim world aren't "traditional" at all, and that there has been active regression in terms of intolerance over the past several decades. Iranian women prior to the Revolution had rights, as did Afghan women prior to the Taliban. Many Muslim countries once had thriving Jewish communities. He doesn't mention the influence of Sayyid Qutb, nor does he acknowledge the influence of Christian anti-semitism and Nazi ideology on modern Muslim anti-semitism.]

Three things:

1a) I heard an argument similar to the one Harris uses 23 years ago - and believed it. 1b) I've been taking a crash course on Islamic history over the past few weeks and while I've known for years that views such as that of Harris are total bullshit, I had no idea just how much bullshit they managed to cram into sentiments such as that a sixth of the world is on a less evolved moral plane. Harris and his type are so wrong on this that they are...not even wrong, anymore; they're reaching into another universe where language just doesn't do this level of wrong justice.

2) The correctives that have any hope at all of pushing back these wrong-headed views are of the kind in which you specialize. In fact, some of your smack-downs are so incredible that they leave me in awe and I've been writing correctives for a long time. (It's the primary reason why I - and I have no reason at all to expect you'll thank me for it - have inflicted you with my story; because one day I know damned well you'll get (another) chance to clobber some idiot with the truth of what happens when "civilized" nations tilt into genocide.) And one day, God willing, your words will stick.

3) Even people such as me can learn - well, some of us. Maybe it's not too much to hope others will learn as well, but without having to make the same damnable mistakes:

Even if the OP doesn't read your rebuttal, some of her commenters will.

The more people armed with the truth - even if just one, this time - the better.

...so if it's any consolation, you made the world at least a little better by taking the time to address this issue here and at the LJF blog.

[Burris]

Libby Anne isn´t talking about him or N*zis at all, she is merely quoting Chomsky once, who made the mistake I mentioned above.

Setting everything else about this argument aside, why in hell would you censor the word Nazi.

They're part of our history; hiding one letter under an asterisk makes no sense; it also makes no difference.

ETA: Libby Anne may not have meant to spark this debate, but check out what her commenters have to say - because we aren't the only ones who read her words this way...and some of the ones who did read them thus are basically defending Nazism in a sense by arguing the Nazis saw themselves as dragon-slayers.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Burris:

My particular interest in Islamic history tends to revolve around relations with the Jewish community (big surprise, right?), but studying that tends to lead to broader trends. The two books I can recommend are Martin Gilbert's "In Ishmael's House" and Tarek Fatah's "The Jew is Not My Enemy".

I really hate the "that region/those people have always been backward and screwed up" narrative. Hamas repeats the blood libel from Europe in the Middle Ages. Egypt ran a mini-series based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was a Czarist forgery. There was a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in 1941, followed by a pogrom against Baghdad's Jews in June, 1941.

It also makes me a bit insane to read Harris' debate on racial profiling with an actual security expert. He knows that terrorists recruit those who don't fit the stereotype, he knows the story of the pregnant Irish woman whose Jordanian fiance planted a bomb in her suitcase, he knows that Muslims come from all racial groups - and he just keeps repeating the same lines. No, there is no such thing as profiling anyone who "looks Muslim", because you would either profile everyone (which isn't profiling) or you'd miss terrorists. Events since that debate have shown that. Even in the Muslim world, most people are not so batshit crazy that they are anxious to kill themselves. You actually have to recruit crazy people, and prisons and the internet are good places to find sociopaths of all races.

[OkToBeTakei]

Setting everything else about this argument aside, why in hell would you censor the word Nazi.

They're part of our history; hiding one letter under an asterisk makes no sense; it also makes no difference.

ETA: Libby Anne may not have meant to spark this debate, but check out what her commenters have to say - because we aren't the only ones who read her words this way...and some of the ones who did read them thus are basically defending Nazism in a sense by arguing the Nazis saw themselves as dragon-slayers.

I'm only going to assume it's because Anny is German or similar. It's a complicated area I've discovered having German friends.

Was this article in particular about the holocaust or a more general picture of the atrocities of war and individuals. I didn't read it as a single subject matter.

[Burris]

I'm only going to assume it's because Anny is German or similar. It's a complicated area I've discovered having German friends.

Oh I know about that. The censorship still makes no sense. It takes nothing away.

[Anny Nym]

*sigh*... don`t get all worked up, Burris... nobody is "trying to hide a part of our history", I wouldn`t even have recognized, if you wouldn`t have mentioned it:

If you write a posting containing the word Hitler or Nazi (or SS, or NSDAP, or the numbers 88, etc.) on a forum, especially at the big online communities at austrian newspapers, your post will get most likely manually checked if you don't write anything "forbidden" by the Verbotsgesetz(that`s a prohibitive law here) - which could take up to several hours, depending on the forum mods. This proves to be very inconvenient for any discussion flow: it is no fun debatting with someone online and have to wait 3 hours until your answers show up. So alot of people got used to "coding" certain terms or simple self- censor certain words, including me. Like N*zi. It`s no big deal or super-speshul- sekkret meaning, I just did it automatically, because I forgot to switch to "american forum " mode in my head ;)

(sry,typing on my phone, so bad spacing)

[Palimpsest]

I'm sorry you are so upset about this, 2xx and Burris. I did not have time to read all the comments on that post.

I would still strongly suggest that you contact Libby Anne with your reaction. She may want to clarify or even retract. Her email is on her blog, albeit her "about" section and a broken link. Here you go:

Whatever your perspective, I’d also like to invite you to comment on my blog (read my comment policy here). I am often amazed by the further insight commenters have to offer on any given issue, and I find that highly valuable. I encourage commenters to state their opinions and views emphatically, call it like they see it, and offer criticism of others’ arguments or opinions, but ask that disagreements be conducted civilly and politely.

Feel free to contact me at lovejoyfeminism (at) gmail (dot) com. I’m always glad to hear from my readers.

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... FfrdQ.dpuf

2xx1xy1JD said:

I'm not saying that she's some sort of neo-Nazi - she's clearly not. I am, however, concerned that she makes a throwaway comment like this without bothering to stop for a moment and question whether it is true. She questions Harris' points, but not Chomsky's.

The thing is - she actually misquotes Chomsky here. His comments were still outrageous IMHO, but he was talking about the Japanese and Hitler during WWII being more sincere than the Clinton administration, in the context of a discussion where it's clear that he did not believe the Clinton administrations reasons for a bombing in Sudan. Libby Anne is the one who interpreted this to mean that Hitler had "good intentions".

In reference to the bolded in your quote, what Libby Ann said is [my emphasis]: "In contrast, Chomski pointed out that even the Japanese and Hitler during WWII arguably had good intentions. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... PxVTP.dpuf"

It seems that you are mostly upset with Libby Anne because she a) "made a throwaway point" mentioning Hitler/WWII and b) failed to question Chomsky's points but did question Harris's.

I agree with Anny Nym, Libby Anne using Hitler as click bait was disrespectful. Mentions of Hitler/ WW2 should never be made casually. It also derailed the whole point she was trying to make.

I'm aware of both Chomsky and Harris and this definitely reminds me of the Dawkins debate thread! Neuroscientists and linguists this time - how dare they express opinions not in their realm of expertise! Harris is an asshole. Noam Chomsky, who once claimed to be Zionist, has drawn considerable ire from other Zionists for strongly criticizing Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories and US foreign policy towards Israel over the years.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks for the email. I didn't see it on the sidebar but didn't think to check the About section. I'll contact her after my trial.

To clarify, I was upset because she didn't question THIS point from Chomsky (which she interpreted in a way that makes it even worse, by switching sincere to good), but seemed to simply accept that sure, even Hitler arguably had good intentions.

I don't think that she necessarily used Hitler as click bait. I don't get the sense that it would be her style. I do think that Chomsky may have used the Hitler reference to get attention and be outrageous.

It's too bad, because it's a valid debate in general. I might have enjoyed the post without that line. I do get irritated when I see people debating badly, though. Part of me wants to jump in and say, "please don't mention Hitler, don't start with nonsense about stages of moral development, and keep focused." For bonus points, I'd have loved a question about whether the Left tends to use "but...Resistance!" the same way that the Right tends to use "but....Terrorrism!", as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free, we can't ask hard questions thing.

Of course, Harris and Chomsky can express opinions in whatever areas they like. I just don't see any reason to give those opinions much weight. There is no such thing as an expert in all things. We rely on experts to give us information in areas that aren't common knowledge, where they have knowledge and experience that the rest of us lack. If I want to know about neural pathways or speech patterns around the world, a neuroscientist and linguist would be useful. It's over-reaching to expect that same respect in areas that are not within their expertise.

[Burris]

*sigh*... don`t get all worked up, Burris... nobody is "trying to hide a part of our history", I wouldn`t even have recognized, if you wouldn`t have mentioned it:

If you write a posting containing the word Hitler or Nazi (or SS, or NSDAP, or the numbers 88, etc.) on a forum, especially at the big online communities at austrian newspapers, your post will get most likely manually checked if you don't write anything "forbidden" by the Verbotsgesetz(that`s a prohibitive law here) - which could take up to several hours, depending on the forum mods. This proves to be very inconvenient for any discussion flow: it is no fun debatting with someone online and have to wait 3 hours until your answers show up. So alot of people got used to "coding" certain terms or simple self- censor certain words, including me. Like N*zi. It`s no big deal or super-speshul- sekkret meaning, I just did it automatically, because I forgot to switch to "american forum " mode in my head ;)

(sry,typing on my phone, so bad spacing)

Oh, I see. My apologizes. I write pretty much the same when I see someone * out the e in sex - although less vehemently.

If that is standard policy on Austrian forums, that's really...well, there's no nice way to put this: It's dumb. So, so painfully dumb. Do they honestly think that by developing a moderation system which forces people to debate in code they're somehow going to..you know...control the Neo-Nazis? Those assholes probably a whole secret language by now in part because censors hold up anything that deals in an ugly part of history to ensure it isn't glorifying Hitler. (That also makes it really, really funny in addition to its being incredibly dumb.)

Or can't the Neo-Nazis simply set up their own private servers and "wank off" to pictures of Hitler until their mindless heads cave in?

I'm not laughing at you, Anny Nym; I know you don't make the rules there.

[OkToBeTakei]

*sigh*... don`t get all worked up, Burris... nobody is "trying to hide a part of our history", I wouldn`t even have recognized, if you wouldn`t have mentioned it:

If you write a posting containing the word Hitler or Nazi (or SS, or NSDAP, or the numbers 88, etc.) on a forum, especially at the big online communities at austrian newspapers, your post will get most likely manually checked if you don't write anything "forbidden" by the Verbotsgesetz(that`s a prohibitive law here) - which could take up to several hours, depending on the forum mods. This proves to be very inconvenient for any discussion flow: it is no fun debatting with someone online and have to wait 3 hours until your answers show up. So alot of people got used to "coding" certain terms or simple self- censor certain words, including me. Like N*zi. It`s no big deal or super-speshul- sekkret meaning, I just did it automatically, because I forgot to switch to "american forum " mode in my head ;)

(sry,typing on my phone, so bad spacing)

That's fascinating in a WTF way. Thanks for explaining, I've had similar experiences with friends.

[Burris]

I'm sorry you are so upset about this, 2xx and Burris. I did not have time to read all the comments on that post.

I would still strongly suggest that you contact Libby Anne with your reaction. She may want to clarify or even retract. Her email is on her blog, albeit her "about" section and a broken link. Here you go:

Thank you for the contact info. I somehow suspect my e-mail could make an impact.

[Palimpsest]

Thanks for the email. I didn't see it on the sidebar but didn't think to check the About section. I'll contact her after my trial.

To clarify, I was upset because she didn't question THIS point from Chomsky (which she interpreted in a way that makes it even worse, by switching sincere to good), but seemed to simply accept that sure, even Hitler arguably had good intentions.

I don't think that she necessarily used Hitler as click bait. I don't get the sense that it would be her style. I do think that Chomsky may have used the Hitler reference to get attention and be outrageous.

It's too bad, because it's a valid debate in general. I might have enjoyed the post without that line. I do get irritated when I see people debating badly, though. Part of me wants to jump in and say, "please don't mention Hitler, don't start with nonsense about stages of moral development, and keep focused." For bonus points, I'd have loved a question about whether the Left tends to use "but...Resistance!" the same way that the Right tends to use "but....Terrorrism!", as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free, we can't ask hard questions thing.

Of course, Harris and Chomsky can express opinions in whatever areas they like. I just don't see any reason to give those opinions much weight. There is no such thing as an expert in all things. We rely on experts to give us information in areas that aren't common knowledge, where they have knowledge and experience that the rest of us lack. If I want to know about neural pathways or speech patterns around the world, a neuroscientist and linguist would be useful. It's over-reaching to expect that same respect in areas that are not within their expertise.

Good. I hope you do contact Libby Anne. I don't always agree with her either, but consider her a good writer with very valuable insights into the evils of Christian Fundamentalism. I suspect she will be horrified at your valid response to this post. We all miswrite or misspeak on occasion, so she should be given a chance to address this properly. I'll be disappointed in her if she doesn't. A better title might have been: The Road to Hell is Paved With What Some Might Try to Make Us Believe Are Good Intentions!

To the bolded, yes! That would have been a much better debate and I love your bonus points!

Hell no, I'm not going to get drawn into the experts pontificating outside their areas of expertise debate again! I thought we hashed that one out thoroughly on the last Richard Dawkins is a misogynistic, crass, bombastic, attention-seeking, atheist, idiot thread. :lol:

We essentially agree! Every single thing we read or hear should be critically assessed within the context of the person and his/her biases -- and they do not get to claim extra credibility just because they are supposed to be world experts within their specific fields.

I only argue, then and now, that gagging these people is impossible. We will never be able to stop the Dawkinses, Harrises, and Chomskys from expressing personal opinions while waving their academic credentials in our faces. All we can do is identify and emphasize when they are spouting personal opinions outside their zones of competency.

[Palimpsest]

Thank you for the contact info. I somehow suspect my e-mail could make an impact.

You are welcome, Burris. Can you update this thread if/when Libby Anne responds to you? Not copying the email here (against TOU) but the general gist? I respect Libby Anne overall and hope that she will respond to constructive criticism well. TIA.

[Anny Nym]

Oh, I see. My apologizes. I write pretty much the same when I see someone * out the e in sex - although less vehemently.

If that is standard policy on Austrian forums, that's really...well, there's no nice way to put this: It's dumb. So, so painfully dumb. Do they honestly think that by developing a moderation system which forces people to debate in code they're somehow going to..you know...control the Neo-Nazis? Those assholes probably a whole secret language by now in part because censors hold up anything that deals in an ugly part of history to ensure it isn't glorifying Hitler. (That also makes it really, really funny in addition to its being incredibly dumb.)

Or can't the Neo-Nazis simply set up their own private servers and "wank off" to pictures of Hitler until their mindless heads cave in?

I'm not laughing at you, Anny Nym; I know you don't make the rules there.

No problem, Burris - If I would be non-austrian, I would find it probably unusual too. So I understand your original objection.

With the big-coverage newspaper forums for instance, it´s - because that whole social media issue is a sensible topic already- a act of self-protection. They won´t to get in any way liable themselves for possible violations of the Verbotsgesetz caused by a user, so they just opt for strict moderation instead.

We also code in real life for the very same reason btw, I could tell you around 10 synonyms for Hitler we use in daily language without having to think hard about it ( NOT that we talk about him all day long...you know what I mean), which just leads me right to the one part of your comment about the secret language, to which the answer is : Yes. Yes, they do indeed.

And because apparently some people in my beautiful country, who are in charge of keeping up with such things, think the best answer to this is "MORE PROHIBITING!", the BMVIT, the Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, now has to seriously debatting a law to prohibit the numbers 18, 88, 311 as well as the letters A H, as well as N and S on licence plates...

Make out of that what you like.

Or can't the Neo-Nazis simply set up their own private servers and "wank off" to pictures of Hitler until their mindless heads cave in?

That is actually a way more complicated question than it may look like:

You see, theoretically anything (symbols, texts, songs, books, quotes, pictures, clothing, gestures) tied to the NS- time are prohibited to be made public accessible or being repeat in public.

So one now could debatte about how private is a private server? Because the internet itself is accessible by the public.

I think if one Neonazi sets up his own private server, only for him, he could legally wank off to a portrait of Hitler until his head caves in. As soon as he invites a friend over, it becomes illegal. Or so... It´s really complicated.

Apart from that whole issue now, causually using references to WWII or NS-ideology like "grammar -nazi" or "food -nazi" just make me wince. The same with calling anyone a "Nazi", because you are upset or disagree. This is not a thing here, however I see that often on us-tv or on social media sites. People really need to stop doing that.

[Palimpsest]

No problem, Burris - If I would be non-austrian, I would find it probably unusual too. So I understand your original objection.

With the big-coverage newspaper forums for instance, it´s - because that whole social media issue is a sensible topic already- a act of self-protection. They won´t to get in any way liable themselves for possible violations of the Verbotsgesetz caused by a user, so they just opt for strict moderation instead.

We also code in real life for the very same reason btw, I could tell you around 10 synonyms for Hitler we use in daily language without having to think hard about it ( NOT that we talk about him all day long...you know what I mean), which just leads me right to the one part of your comment about the secret language, to which the answer is : Yes. Yes, they do indeed.

And because apparently some people in my beautiful country, who are in charge of keeping up with such things, think the best answer to this is "MORE PROHIBITING!", the BMVIT, the Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, now has to seriously debatting a law to prohibit the numbers 18, 88, 311 as well as the letters A H, as well as N and S on licence plates...

Make out of that what you like.

That is actually a way more complicated question than it may look like:

You see, theoretically anything (symbols, texts, songs, books, quotes, pictures, clothing, gestures) tied to the NS- time are prohibited to be made public accessible or being repeat in public.

So one now could debatte about how private is a private server? Because the internet itself is accessible by the public.

I think if one Neonazi sets up his own private server, only for him, he could legally wank off to a portrait of Hitler until his head caves in. As soon as he invites a friend over, it becomes illegal. Or so... It´s really complicated.

Apart from that whole issue now, causually using references to WWII or NS-ideology like "grammar -nazi" or "food -nazi" just make me wince. The same with calling anyone a "Nazi", because you are upset or disagree. This is not a thing here, however I see that often on us-tv or on social media sites. People really need to stop doing that.

I totally agree with the bolded.

Not to derail this thread, but I spy an interesting rabbit hole. As I always understood it, Verbotsgesetz was enacted post-WWII as a de-nazification measure and has also been used against Holocaust denial. In the 2015 internet communication era, however, it doesn't seem workable. Nor do I see it as a viable law really because it just seems to push the problem underground.

I understand that the law has been ratified and updated in Austria since. Why - as in under what circumstances was it updated? How does it work in practice? Is it really effective against neo-Nazi groups?

Anny, any other comments or suggestions for further reading? Thanks.

[2xx1xy1JD]

What is the significance of the number 18? I'm sorry if this sounds ignorant, but I've never come across that before. It's traditionally considered a "lucky" number in the Jewish community because the numerical value of the letters in the Hebrew word for life add up to 18.

[Palimpsest]

What is the significance of the number 18? I'm sorry if this sounds ignorant, but I've never come across that before. It's traditionally considered a "lucky" number in the Jewish community because the numerical value of the letters in the Hebrew word for life add up to 18.

You misread Anny's post. 88 not 18

88 and 14 are neo-Nazi symbols. More explanation here:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 70820.html

[Anny Nym]

Ui Burris, there you gave me some exercise :lol: Okay, let´s see if I get it all together in the most honest way, because that is a sensible topic nonetheless (and I have to put the Nymlings in bed soon, so this is going to be a short-ish post - for now. Also I had a quite exciting day, so my english may derail a bit and I tend to go off-topic when I´m tired, so excuse that beforehand please ^^)

In the 2015 internet communication era, however, it doesn't seem workable.

And it isn´t really, because one would have to censor the whole internet Kim-Jong-Un style to make it workable.

Is it really effective against neo-Nazi groups?

Against the dumb ones, yes. Against others? No. And never was.

Why - as in under what circumstances was it updated?

The biggest change in recent times was probably the "Beweisthemenverbot" I THINK the correct english translation is "prohibition of admissible evidence/admissible evidence prohibition "? I am not sure.) in the 1990s. That seems to be somehow tied to David Irving and his attempted visit to Austria around this time. (mind you, I´m born 86´, alot of this things happened before I was able to actively notice anything going on regarding this issue).

In the 1950s happened alot of changes too: Austria was occupied until 1955 and parted in 4 different zones: russian, american, english, french. Every zone handled "denazification" differently. So like the collective punishment was at one point revoked in the russian zone (I don´t know the accurate year, prob. end-40s/1950), where for instance my family lived: Before, my paternal grandpa wasn´t allowed to finish high-school and was forced to work at a Usia instead, because he was at a napola. Afterwards he then could officially.

What else, 1950 death penalty was abolished, the occupational ban for certain fields must have been long in use, until the early 1960s as far as I understand it.

The rest, especially regarding suggestions for further readings in english, I have to recherche that a bit too - but I will, promised!