Devaluing the Nazis is a bad thing, according to new agey, pseudo-Buddhistic bullshit. — Xtrix

If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration. The Nazis were firm believers in your position; not mine.

The Nazis were firm believers in your position; not mine. — Cheshire

So were the Allies allied against the Nazis.

How is *not* devaluing Nazis going to prevent one from becoming a Nazi?

See the tool example. Everything doesn't have to be either/or. There are gradients in life. But the left, in general does not stand up on their hind legs when doing so might keep us all from war. They let the right push them around and use those methods until war becomes necessary. Then they get their asses up off the couch, kick some ass, and go back to their lives. Maybe if they stood up a little sooner, engaged in a little push-back, speak a little of the right's language, then we would not end up in a war. So yeah, fuck Trump and his acolytes. I hope the DOJ burns them down. — James Riley

I share the sentiment with regard to the struggle in today's landscape. Taking the 'high road' in the moment looks like weakness, but we forget it's a choice. It is often frustrating to play by the rules while the opponent would cheat at every turn.

How is *not* devaluing Nazis going to prevent one from becoming a Nazi? — James Riley

In principle it sets one further apart from Nazism.

So were the Allies allied against the Nazis. — James Riley

Considering things in the context of active military engagement presupposes quite a bit. I'm not sure it's suited for broad application; unless normalizing the state of war is desirable.

In principle it sets one further apart from Nazism. — Cheshire

I'm not asking about me. I'm asking about the prospective Nazi.

Considering things in the context of active military engagement presupposes quite a bit. I'm not sure it's suited for broad application; unless normalizing the state of war is desirable. — Cheshire

That just makes my point about gradients and tools. Devaluation may underlie bad (which you focus on) but it also underlies good (which I focus on). You might say that if it somehow went away, then we would be all kumbha ya. Great: start with the Nazis and get back to me. You can not devalue them and then say to the prospective Nazi "Hey, see, I didn't devalue Nazis. You should thus avoid them."

I share the sentiment with regard to the struggle in today's landscape. Taking the 'high road' in the moment looks like weakness, but we forget it's a choice. It is often frustrating to play by the rules while the opponent would cheat at every turn. — Cheshire

To paraphrase one wag: "When Michelle Obama says 'When they go low, we go high' I'm thinking 'How about middle?'"

You might say that if it somehow went away, then we would be all kumbha ya. — James Riley

I don't recall saying this or suggesting it; which proves my point better than my argument.

I'm not asking about me. I'm asking about the prospective Nazi. — James Riley

A person unwilling to devalue the worst amongst us in principle, will never devalue the innocent in practice. In practice is where it matters and in principle we create the boundaries that prevent falling into the same patterns with different names.

To paraphrase one wag: "When Michelle Obama says 'When they go low, we go high' I'm thinking 'How about middle?'" — James Riley

If your going to be ruthless, then why be slightly ruthless?

If your going to be ruthless, then why be slightly ruthless? — Cheshire

Lazy.

It's not all gold.

I don't recall saying this or suggesting it; which proves my point better than my argument. — Cheshire

The fact you don't say or suggest something proves a point better than argument? Hmmm. I'll have to take that one under advisement.

A person unwilling to devalue the worst amongst us in principle, will never devalue the innocent in practice. — Cheshire

That is so fundamentally untrue as to be crazy. In fact, shit rolls down hill. Think master, house slave, field slave.

In practice is where it matters and in principle we create the boundaries that prevent falling into the same patterns with different names. — Cheshire

I've got not truck with that. I just apply it differently.

It's not all gold. — Cheshire

It's like getting the sleeping giant up off the couch. It's hard to be ruthless. Until it's not.

So were the Allies allied against the Nazis. — James Riley

See nobody thinks "oh I know it's wrong to hate all asian americans, but I'm doing it anyway!"

No, everyone who does this sort of thing believes it's ok to dehumanize part of the human population.

You're one of those.

No, everyone who does this sort of thing believes it's ok to dehumanize part of the human population.

You're one of those. — frank

Sorry, frank, but you need to brush up on your analytic reading skills. We have expressly distinguished between dehumanization and devaluation. I'll wait while you catch up.

I don't recall saying this or suggesting it; which proves my point better than my argument.
— Cheshire
The fact you don't say or suggest something proves a point better than argument? Hmmm. I'll have to take that one under advisement. — James Riley

Do you not understand what I'm saying here? You are demonstrating the flaw of assigning thoughts to a person based on your perception of the group of people you have in mind. And doing so inaccurately.

When some one arguing the counter position demonstrates the issue in a way that supports your argument; it is more compelling, than your argument.

I've got not truck with that. I just apply it differently. — James Riley

Fair enough.

Do you not understand what I'm saying here? You are demonstrating the flaw of assigning thoughts to a person based on your perception of the group of people you have in mind. And doing so inaccurately. — Cheshire

Was it the "kumbha ya" that you took issue with, or the idea that a tool taken off the bench would make the work better? If the former, then no, you did not use those words. But if the latter, maybe I missed your point. You don't like devaluation of groups. I say it is merely a tool that can be used for bad (Nazis) or good (allies) and you seem to be arguing that if no one ever devalued groups then things would be better. I used "kumbha ya" to summarize. If that is not what you are saying, then please enlighten me.

It's what I quoted is what I took issue with; maybe sit with this a minute. I'll assume your right till you let me know otherwise if it helps.

It's what I quoted is what I took issue with; maybe sit with this a minute. I'll assume your right till you let me know otherwise if it helps. — Cheshire

I sat with it. I went back up and re-read what I said (summarizing my understanding of what you said), and then re-read your taking issue with that, followed by my explanation. You did not use the words "kumbha ya" but your argument seems to be that things would be better if we did not devalue groups. By better, I mean all hunky dory, kumbha ya, etc. Prospective Nazis would not become Nazis if we would only refrain from devaluing Nazis. Devaluing groups is bad, like the Nazis did. It is not good, like the Allies did. What am I missing?

If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration. — Cheshire

It worked wonders for Chamberlain. :roll:

Sorry, frank, but you need to brush up on your analytic reading skills. We have expressly distinguished between dehumanization and devaluation. I'll wait while you catch up. — James Riley

Oh thanks. What's the mark of distinction?

What's the mark of distinction? — frank

Dehumanization is what it says it is: De-humanizing. Personally, I hate the term, because is implies that that which is not human is somehow less, or that humans are somehow entitled to a consideration not applicable to others. I have the same problem with the term "humane." Seems like BS to me, since I've never met an animal that was as inhumane as most folks I know. Nevertheless, I digress.

Devaluing is a different animal (pun intended) all together. Devaluation recognizes the "humanity" of the person or group that is devalued. It just notes that they are worthy of less consideration in the making of plans. An example: When Lt. Aldo Raine carves a swastika into the forehead of a Nazi POS, he is just devaluing the individual for having aligned himself with a group that is an enemy. He has usually inquired as to what the Nazi intends to do after the war, or if released. The Nazi usually says what he hopes will buy his pardon; like doffing the uniform of the group and slipping back into the status of grey man, having learned his lesson and wanting peace. That, however, is not reliable. Thus, he is branded with his own brand so others will forever know he was a Nazi. He can go back to the plow and peace, but he will have to warn others of what he is and was. He's still human. But he has not been dehumanized. Indeed, he has been accorded all that humanity would call for. In this case, that would be devaluation.

(I could go on about uniforms and ranks and groups and the reasons therefor, but it's a long history.)

So, the unprofessional, emotional, childish person would need to dehumanize the opposition in order to impose upon them that which most humans deem as applicable to animals (after all, we treat animals like shit). Whereas the professional fully recognizes the humanity of the opposition and simply devalues him in accord with his perceived worth; a worth that he himself has accorded himself by his actions and affiliations. He may be highly valued among his own, but not so much among those he dehumanized.

Hope that helps.

What am I missing? — James Riley

The dynamic Xtrix created that influenced your interpretation of my position. When he devalued the group of people that might caution against thinking like a nazi; suddenly the thoughts of the person that holds a cautionary principle is worthy only of dismissal or easily attributed absurdist views.

I'm not even saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced in a way that doesn't serve the truth of things. It does serve a willingness to set ourselves above others. Which is what the Nazis did. I wouldn't have selected that group as an example of who we ought give consideration toward; but if I can present a reasonable argument against the worst example, then maybe my thoughts have objective merit. I always expect and receive fair treatment in our discussions. I have no complaints.

If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration.
— Cheshire
It worked wonders for Chamberlain. :roll: — Xtrix

I swear it's like arguing with the evil version of myself. Maybe, I agree with you and hold you to a higher standard because of it. But, I doubt it.

Devaluation recognizes the "humanity" of the person or group that is devalued. It just notes that they are worthy of less consideration in the making of plans. — James Riley

Oh. I have no idea what that means and the Nazi story didn't help explain it.

Sounds pretty benign, though.

Oh. I have no idea what that means — frank

That's okay. It's there if you want it. Or not.

Sounds pretty benign, though. — frank

It is. Much more benign than dehumanization.

It is. Much more benign than dehumanization. — James Riley

Oh good. Nothing to see here. Move on.

The dynamic Xtrix created that influenced your interpretation of my position. When he devalued the group of people that might caution against thinking like a nazi; suddenly the thoughts of the person that holds a cautionary principle is worthy only of dismissal or easily attributed absurdist views.

I'm not even saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced in a way that doesn't serve the truth of things. It does serve a willingness to set ourselves above others. Which is what the Nazis did. I wouldn't have selected that group as an example of who we ought give consideration toward; but if I can present a reasonable argument against the worst example, then maybe my thoughts have objective merit. I always expect and receive fair treatment in our discussions. I have no complaints. — Cheshire

I don't think what Xtric said influenced my interpretation of your position. I was pretty much dealing with your statements alone. If anything, there is the opposites of "no devaluation vs devaluation" which I was trying to thread between: i.e. Devaluation is just a tool and not good or bad in itself. Rather, the extremes of those who wield it, or refuse to wield it, can generate an outcome that can be good or bad.

In fact, I was not saying you are wrong, only that your beliefs about my position were unduly influenced by your assumption that devaluation is inherently bad or only used for bad (and should thus be avoided). I was not saying it was bad or good; only that it is not inherently bad. Just because Nazis did it does not mean that is the only use of the tool. Nazis used guns, too. They used language, food, all kinds of things. So did we.

Your initial statement on the matter was interpreted by me as "devaluation leads to bad things." That may be true, on occasion, but that is not always true. It can lead to good things. The uniform lets us know who to shoot at and who not to shoot at. When a soldier dons his enemy's uniform, he becomes a spy. They get a whole different devaluation treatment.

Devaluation does indeed serve a willingness to set ourselves above others. That can be a good thing. Nazis, not so much. Allies, yes. I'll not cede the field to them in their use of the tool.

My devaluation did not start with Nazis but they do serve a useful foil. Most everyone is familiar with them and their use of devaluation. My devaluation started with Trumpsters/Republicans, but not everyone on this board is from the U.S. or is familiar with their level of devaluation and dehumanization of the left, so yeah, Nazis work.

Replying not to just this point, but in general to your quest:

When it starts to effect society, the education of future generations, and the future of the planet, then I don't take this position anymore. I think it should be called out -- but whether one should bother spending time running through claim after debunked claim, that's a different question entirely. — Xtrix

The issue aren't the specific claims (whether the topic is slavery, climate change, or the pandemic, or whatever), but the basic mode of interaction.
On your part, and on the part of so many who are enthusiastic about vaccination, this basic mode of interaction is combative, it's contempt. What is more, this hasn't come into being in this pandemic, it's been there for centuries. It's become normalized.

And what many people are actually replying to, is precisely this combativeness, this contempt. That's why arguments about what ostensibly seems to be the topic are irrelevant. You have not demonstrated goodwill toward them, and that's why they don't listen to you.

Since a combative culture is already in place, one that has been combative for so long (remember, you had a civil war and multiple civil unrests), it will be very difficult to change things at this point.

President Biden will likely succeed with forcing people to get vaccinated, but this will likely only further cement the combative culture. Forcing people to get vaccinated may help to weather the covid pandemic, but it's questionable whether such force will help in the future crises that are sure to come.

My question is whether we should engage with them -- assuming I'm correct about their irrationality. — Xtrix

new agey, pseudo-Buddhistic bullshit. — Xtrix

Do you really think that farting a few quips of contempt in the general direction of those you don't like is going to make them change their minds and become more to your liking, err, "finally see the truth"?

You want the world to be the way you want it to be -- but what are you willing to invest?
What are you willing to do to change the world?

Some people who want to change the world amass wealth, armies, they seamslessly inflitrate themselves into people's lives, they take decisive action, they make an effort. But what are you doing? You just expect others to be other than they are, as if they owed you that. What if someone treated you that way? Would you change? If someone considered you a child, irrational, you'd tell them to fuck off, wouldn't you?

Good to know I’m not alone in my empathy fatigue. — Xtrix

Should other people work hard to earn your empathy?

contempt — baker

This is true, but in the American culture war, if that's part of the topic here, it goes both ways. We're practically famous for deep currents of anti-intellectualism, occasionally politicized, religious suspicion of education, rural suspicion of cities, and so on. Broad strokes, I know, but hard to miss.