Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11478Re: [MedievalSawdust] Re: 'Nazi' - Insulting in the extreme

Expand Messages
  • leaking pen
    May 4, 2009
      ::applauds, points with a sign saying, THATS WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY,
      and sits down before the mod god smites me hard for continuing to post
      on the topic::


      On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 1:45 PM, <conradh@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > And even setting current political jabs aside, long before the German Nazi
      > Party got around to truly notorious stuff like running murder factories
      > and starting World War II, it was already well known for being into
      > intolerance, sucking up to authority, abusing authority they happen to
      > have themselves, dress codes, elaborate rules and general bad boundaries.
      > The people (myself definitely included) who find the "Authenticity Nazi"
      > label appropriate for a certain sort of reinactor have these vices in
      > mind, not anti-Semitism or militarism.
      >
      > The "bad boundaries" issue is central here. If you have high standards of
      > authenticity _for yourself_ there is nothing to criticize and much to
      > admire, IMHO. Whether this comes from perfectionism, artistic motives,
      > curiousity or serious experimental archaeology, it's all good.
      >
      > Where the bad boundaries come in is when people forget that other people
      > have different motives. The person who really believes that "this really
      > upsets _me_, so _you_ have to stop doing it right now!" is being utterly
      > selfish in a way they usually don't even recognize as such.
      >
      > There's nothing wrong with having your own standards. There's nothing
      > wrong with using those standards to judge other people, or artifacts,
      > either. But there's a million miles of difference between having
      > standards and thinking that having standards gives you the right to push
      > other people around.
      >
      > Ulfhedinn
      >
      > On Sun, May 3, 2009 11:37 pm, leaking pen wrote:
      >> What? Both groups believe in a very strong moral code, with laws that
      >> match, and a heavily governed and controled social situation. I was not
      >> trying to be insulting, but merely give a modern comparison to that
      >> segment of the philosophy of the Nazi party. If we were talking about
      >> social welfare, I'd point out that the Nazi parties views on such were
      >> very similar to the current Democratic party, in that they believed in a
      >> "safety net" for those too old or infirm to work, and
      >> several minimums of standard including a minimum wage and profit caps on
      >> industries.
      >>
      >> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:29 PM, quailriver <quailriver@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>> Other than being athiest in general, the Nazi party was very similar
      >>>> to the fundamentalist Christian arm of the Republican party in that
      >>>> regard.
      >>>
      >>> Wow, that remark is really sickly twisted!
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, leaking pen <itsatrap@...>
      >>> wrote:
      >>>
      >>>>
      >>>> The Nazi party was a world wide fascist movement that favored strong
      >>>> govermental control of society, and a very stringent moral requirement
      >>>> that people follow. There was a very large Nazi party here in the
      >>>> us. Other than being athiest in general, the Nazi party was very
      >>>> similar to the fundamentalist Christian arm of the Republican party in
      >>>> that regard. ONE BRANCH of the Nazi Party, the one in Germany that
      >>>> elected Adolph Hitler as their party candidate to the German
      >>>> presidential election, which he then won, then went largely
      >>>> anti-semetic and went on a rampage throughout Europe, which pretty
      >>>> much killed the party, in name at least, else where in the world. But
      >>>> teh word Nazi was used to mean , for lack of a better term, anal about
      >>>> something, long before world war 2. it is NOT a comparison to Hitler
      >>>> or anti-semetism, but to FASCISM, which, in this case, isn't too far
      >>>> off. Very stringent rules, forced following of the most stringent
      >>>> application of the rules, no exceptions? sounds about right.
      >>>>
      >>>> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Jeff Johnson <jljonsn@...> wrote:
      >>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>> I wish people would refrain from casually throwing out the term
      >>>>> "Authenticity Nazi". It's highly offensive for anyone to be compared
      >>>>> to mass-murdering fascists.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >
      >
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic