Neo Nazis and the Alt Right


#2485

Your quotes simply show that it is very difficult to replace a bureaucracy overnight. But the motivation is clear: Nazis were not welcomed with open arms, they were begrudgingly hired when there was no other choice.

That’s not evidence that they were redeemable, that’s evidence of pragmatism. Your own article provides no better proof: this policy was not widely publicized at the time and caused embarrassment when finally brought to light. Why be ashamed of hiring someone who really is “redeemed”?

And as time went on and the need became less acute, a Nazi past presented a greater and greater obstacle to power in Germany. Today it is almost fully disqualifying. That’s the opposite of redemption.


#2486

That bears no relation to your original statement. Thanks for disingenuously changing the goalposts though!

I also never argued that Nazism was redeemed, I stated that former Nazis were. Your counter argument is that because Nazism as philosophy hasn’t been redeemed, that’s proof former Nazis weren’t redeemed.

Your original statement was wrong. I proved it. You changed your argument and accused me of stating something I quite demonstrably didn’t.

If you aren’t bothered arguing with what I did in fact post, why are you arguing at all?


#2487

I’ll spell it out: you said that former Nazis were redeemable, and provided immediate postwar Germany as an example. But that’s simply an example of pragmatism.

If former Nazis were redeemable, then a former Nazi would face no difficulty achieving political power in modern Germany. But that’s not the case.


#2488

kedeha is right on the history here. West Germany integrated former Nazis into the government, and ended up with a stable democracy. East Germany did not, and ended up with a totalitarian dictatorship. (Of course being a former Nazi now is disqualifying, since it means being upwards of 90 years old).


#2489

I think the fact that east Germany was run by the Soviets probably had a TINY bit to do with that.


#2490

What exactly do you think the word ‘redeem’ means, because it seems by your posts to bear no relation to the dictionary definition.

I’m also not sure why you’re posing an impossible hypothetical as if it’s some sort of ‘gotcha’. I proved your statement to be wrong and you’ve done everything you can since to avoid that.

You were demonstrably unaware of post WW2 German history, but it seems you’ll argue whatever it takes to avoid accepting that.

@Timex still waiting for that quote. You wouldn’t be all talk would you?


#2491

You’re insulting with every question you ask. Is there a particular reason you’re being a dick or are you just having a bad dad?


#2492

That’s how he is. He’s literally an asshole 100% of the time. That’s why I don’t bother engaging him. It’s a waste of time.


#2493

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

West Germany also had better Riesling vineyards, and ended up with a stable democracy. East Germany did not, and ended up with a totalitarian dictatorship.

I think the real reason for the different outcomes was neither the wine nor the Nazis. It was the political domination by the USSR, just like all the other non-former Nazi countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Sure, but former Nazis were in the right generation to govern Germany from 1970 through 1990. And yet they were shunned.


#2494

All talk!

@Nesrie no evidence then?


#2495

The dictionary lists “atone” as a synonym. If you want an operational definition, someone is redeemed when they are restored to their original status. If you are forever a cause of shame, then you are not fully redeemed. Like most former Nazis.

You haven’t proven anything at all. You disagreed with Armando, gave a worthless example, and then forgot the point.


#2496

Yeah so professional asshole. i think I blocked you on the last board if I recall properly. I won’t be engaging you.


#2497

Oh dear. You must defend your ignorance of that particular period in history at any cost.

Here is what you said:

It’s arguable that post-WW2 Germany is what it is today because the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power

I proved that was not the case. You’ve changed the argument multiple times since then.

Walter Scheel, President of West Germany from 74-79 was a former NSDAP member. Kurt Georg Kiesinger, Chancellor of Germany from 66-69 was a former NSDAP member. 79% of Supreme Court Judges were former NSDAP members/supporter in 1956. I can list tens more. You are clearly not well-versed with this period of history.

@Nesrie That’s still not evidence.


#2498

Like I said, you forgot the point. You were defending Nazis as redeemable, remember?

As for me, I still think your example is worthless. And I still think that modern Germany is what it is today because modern Germany excludes former Nazis from power.

I can clarify what I mean, now can you clarify your defense of Nazis?


#2499

As for me, I still think your example is worthless. And I still think that modern Germany is what it is today because modern Germany excludes former Nazis from power.

Oh, you mean you’re changing your argument after I proved you wrong?

You really are thoroughly dishonest.

It’s arguable that post-WW2 Germany is what it is today because the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power

Post-Nazi government somehow now means ‘modern Germany’, but only after 5 posts and after I proved you to be thoroughly ignorant about German history?

And then, redeemable now means ‘fully redeemable’?

Where have I defended Nazis?


#2500

No, I’m being honest. Your argument really is shit.


#2501

I quoted you completely changing your argument, but you’re being honest? How does that cognitive dissonance work?

How is that defending Nazis exactly?

Actually, nevermind.

“Hey, I’m magnet, I know nothing about post WW2 german political history but I’m going to pretend I do and then effectively lie about my own posts so I can avoid being wrong”.


#2502

It’s quite simple.

  1. First I thought your argument was shitty because modern Germany excludes Nazis from power.

  2. Then you pointed out that by “post-WW2 Germany”, you actually meant the years immediately following the war, not modern Germany.

  3. Then I thought your argument was shitty because it demonstrates pragmatism, not any real sense of “redemption” or general acceptance by society. As demonstrated by the fact that modern Germany excludes Nazis from power.

Either way, your argument is shitty. Faced with this incontrovertible fact, you have decided to focus on #2 and my confusion over what you meant. Then, to cap it all off, you took a page from Trump and accused me of the intellectual dishonesty that you continually demonstrate.


#2503

Even after I provided the spiegel link you continued to argue that I was wrong, which would suggest this post is a lie. Which would further suggest you will go to any length to avoid acknowledging or admitting that you were ignorant of the subject you were talking about.

It’s not dishonest to change your argument after I disprove it?

It’s not dishonest to change ‘redeem’ to ‘fully redeem’? That doesn’t constitute changing the goalposts?

It’s not dishonest to lie about what you thought I meant, a lie demonstrated amply by your own posts?

Ok, whatever.

It certainly makes sense that talking about Nazis in post WW2 Germany would refer to 2017, and that you would still believe I was talking about 2017 even after I posted a source and quotes that were about the 40s-60s.

I’d rather be Timex’s asshole than be someone who’ll lie to avoid being wrong.

Here, a quote damning you with your own words:

It’s arguable that post-WW2 Germany is what it is today because the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power and banned the rise of new Nazis.

You quite clearly didn’t think I was referring to modern Germany. Go lie some more.


#2504

My argument is the same: your argument is shitty and you are intentionally trying to distract me from how shitty it is. As exemplified by the fact that you would rather write about me than the redeemability of Nazis.

The reason why it is shitty changed after you gave me your Spiegel link, because I realized you were making a different shitty argument than the shitty argument you originally seemed to be making.

It is not dishonest to find more reasons why your argument is shitty. In fact, here is one more: if your argument relies on parsing the difference between “redeem” and “fully redeem”, then you demonstrate that it is even shittier than I originally thought. So thanks for helping me making my point.

And now, faced with the shittiness of your argument, you make things up.