Your a Nazi! No YOUR a Nazi! No You are. No YOU ARE!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Do you think it's unfair to point-out people that use propaganda techniques similar to that of the Nazis?

Fair, unfair, ridiculous concepts as far as I am concerned. Much as with most of the unsavory side of politics and humanity, there's always just enough truth in any propaganda to draw in the "normal" person. That fact makes it very easy to call any unsavory position "propaganda" and, in turn associate any "propaganda technique" to that of the Nazis. My point is that this attempt to compare Trump's immigration position with anything Nazi related is utter horsecrap and reeks of a flailing, pathetic attempt at deflection away from a topic that (while inconvenient to some) must be discussed.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Do you think it's unfair to point-out people that use propaganda techniques similar to that of the Nazis?

Fair, unfair, ridiculous concepts as far as I am concerned. Much as with most of the unsavory side of politics and humanity, there's always just enough truth in any propaganda to draw in the "normal" person. That fact makes it very easy to call any unsavory position "propaganda" and, in turn associate any "propaganda technique" to that of the Nazis. My point is that this attempt to compare Trump's immigration position with anything Nazi related is utter horsecrap and reeks of a flailing, pathetic attempt at deflection away from a topic that (while inconvenient to some) must be discussed.

I'm talking about language and propaganda. Is it "wrong", since unfair is unsavory, to link specific techniques and styles to the very tactics used, and perfected, by the Nazis?

a reply to: introvert

The "pre-Nazi" early 20th century Communist propaganda was just as effective if not more so.

Then it's all Authoritarian-a-go-go after that.

IMO the bottom line is that if your platform can't stand without... "THOSE NAZIS SUCK" you don't have much of a platform. Put forth what you intend.... as long as it's not, "They suck". Give the people something to vote FOR.

a reply to: introvert

All politics is propaganda.

Take it straight from the propaganda Meister's own lips:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. Read more at: www.azquotes.com...

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Read more at: www.azquotes.com...

There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the **er, and this will always be "the man in the street." Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology. Read more at: www.azquotes.com...

Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will. Read more at: www.azquotes.com...

A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth Read more at: www.azquotes.com...

For the umpteenth time.

Truth is like Holy water to Politicians.

I have seen this happen on these forums far too many times. There are a few people here who seem to rely on it heavily. I even added a statement at the beginning of my own thread saying that it has nothing to do with nazis so please leave them out of the conversation.

Hitler did a lot of despicable things. He made it necessary to register weapons which, after he subsequently banned them, made them much easier to find and confiscate. He accomplished that by promising the masses that it would lead to a safer Germany. We saw how that worked out. And Germany didn't have a second amendment in their Constitution. We do, and we still see it beginning to happen here. Does that qualify as worse than a nazi?

Overuse of the term only trivializes what happened, and what happened is anything but trivial.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The "pre-Nazi" early 20th century Communist propaganda was just as effective if not more so.

Then it's all Authoritarian-a-go-go after that.

It's not effectiveness that I am discussing.

I'm talking about specific techniques being used that were created and perfected by the Nazis.

I ask this because we can agree that it is tiring of people invoking Godwin's Law, but there are instances in which certain propaganda techniques being used in modern politics and media can be linked to the Nazis.

Do we not mention that because of their ties to the Nazis? At what point can a discussion be had in which talking about Nazis is not equal to invoking the Law?

a reply to: neo96

I rest my case.

All of the quotes provided are tied to Nazis.

a reply to: neo96

Is Trump a Nazi? No. Have I said he's a Nazi? No.

Is he using Nazi-inspired political tactics? I think so, and say so.

That doesn't make him a Nazi, and doesn't justify some "Godwin's law" victim-mentality being applied to the GOP/Trump.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it might not *be* a duck, but it's certainly duck-like.

originally posted by: introvert
I'm talking about language and propaganda. Is it "wrong", since unfair is unsavory, to link specific techniques and styles to the very tactics used, and perfected, by the Nazis?

I'd argue that it's inaccurate and based largely in hubris in most of the instances of the accusation I've ever seen. Hell, America wasn't too damn far behind Germany's "perfected" techniques in WWII. Obviously the subject matter was different, but there's not much technique variance between this:







So, would it be appropriate for us to also start calling politicians who use fear mongering propaganda "Roosevelts?"

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Not quite, you might want to read up on your WWII history:

In 1928 this legislation was relaxed. "Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have [] permits…Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to '…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit.'" Again, this was before Hitler came to power.

In 1938, Hitler relaxed the law further. Rifles and shotguns were completely deregulated, permits were extended to three years, and the age at which guns could be purchased was lowered to 18.

Link

So, it wasn't quite as simple as "Hitler came to power and took away the people's guns!" ... guns were already taken away after WWI before Hitler even came to power, and Hitler even resorted the ability to own guns back to the people once he was in power.

EDIT: Well, unless you were a Jew. In that case, no Hitler wouldn't let you have guns.

a reply to: neo96

But...but...if you take that away, whatever will anyone do to demonize the opposition??? They'd have to come uo with actual, valid arguments. Can't have that, now, can we?

/sarcasm

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That is completely true and I thank you for posting that information. It helps inform people on the subtitles and styles of propaganda.

But my issue is with language and the specific tactics used in speech and written communication. I believe the Nazis had a unique approach and it worked.

Since ATS is about written communication, at what point can we "expose" those similarities with Nazi-like tactics without being accused of invoking Godwin's law?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: neo96

But...but...if you take that away, whatever will anyone do to demonize the opposition??? They'd have to come uo with actual, valid arguments. Can't have that, now, can we?

/sarcasm

Call them racist!

No wait.

Call them xenophobic!

No wait.

Correct their grammar!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Wow.....some of those posters? Man...if they were put out in today's world....the PC crowd would all have strokes!

Things are certainly different now.......

If and when a politician doesn't fit the technical definition of a fascist; I shall defer to how many fascists support that politician as a measuring stick.

a reply to: neo96

There are two historical fallacies at work in the comparison. There's the "history repeats itself" fallacy, which is absurd, and the "comparing apples and oranges" fallacy, which happens when comparing two different times, settings, and socio-economic situations together. They are ridiculous comparisons. It's like comparing DaVinci and Hitler together because they were both artists.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Not quite, you might want to read up on your WWII history:

In 1928 this legislation was relaxed. "Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have [] permits…Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to '…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit.'" Again, this was before Hitler came to power.

In 1938, Hitler relaxed the law further. Rifles and shotguns were completely deregulated, permits were extended to three years, and the age at which guns could be purchased was lowered to 18.

Link

So, it wasn't quite as simple as "Hitler came to power and took away the people's guns!" ... guns were already taken away after WWI before Hitler even came to power, and Hitler even resorted the ability to own guns back to the people once he was in power.

EDIT: Well, unless you were a Jew. In that case, no Hitler wouldn't let you have guns.

Perhaps you should find more reputable sites to do your research than MotherJones. There are a lot of versions out there...and I dare say they may fall in to the category of propaganda.

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group. In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

link

a reply to: introvert

But my issue is with language and the specific tactics used in speech and written communication. I believe the Nazis had a unique approach and it worked.

quizlet.com...

Read it.

'Gun Violence.

Mass shootings

Assault weapons.

Climate Change.

The Rich should pay their fair share.

Fat Cat Ceo's.

Racist

ALL propaganda.(loaded words).

a reply to: neo96

I appreciate the "flash cards", Neo. I'm not really talking about politics or political talking points, per say. I'm talking about specific techniques.

My point is at what point does it go from talking about real facts surrounding Nazi actions, and being accused of invoking Godwin's Law.