What lesson(s) should be learned from the history of the holocaust?

Jan 2017
1,293
Durham
#81
It seems my English is really bad. It is exactly what I wasn't saying.

But thank You for Your posts. And we do agree. Apart the leaving EU thing, that I don't exactly understand, but it's not the place to discuss it. (we can clarify it through PM, if You feel like it).
No bother, Deaf Tuner. I think we're a bit different in this country in the way we think and I'd put that down to geography, i.e. being an island nation.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,582
San Antonio, Tx
#84
Are there only 'radical Muslims' who wear such attire, and is the man forcing it upon her? I'd imagine the vast majority aren't 'radical Muslims' in the sense of what that term is generally understood to mean.

I think you'll find different reasons depending upon the couple.

Ultimately though, a woman is entitled to walk down the street wearing whatever she wants, in whatever way that has been agreed upon behind closed doors, and I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that she is being forced to wear it. We know at least some haven't been forced.

Freedom of expression is for everyone. It's all or nothing. Upon deciding who is and isn't worthy of this most basic of human desires, you simply don't have freedom of expression.

It is important to protect the rights of women from that background. The exact same mistrust and outright lack of regard was meted out to Jews. Continental Europeans don't understand this, or perhaps wilfully ignore it and simply don't care.
I’m having some difficulty getting a handle on this issue. Generally I have no objections to how people choose to display themselves in public, LOL. Usually this pertains to how many or how few garments are chosen to accomplish this. Eyebrows have a tendency to raise at sights that leave little to the imagination. The issue with Moslem women wearing “floor to ceiling” clothing including face coverings is the opposite of ladies wearing too few clothes. I don’t care about the floor length robes - usually black, but not always - that some Muslim women wear; it’s the face coverings that I object to.

My own view is that wearing a face mask “erases” the person and is a sneaky way to denying a person’s identity, as if she did not exist or isn’t “there”. Now, in today’s environment, hiding one’s identity in public isn’t so different from the classic comic book ploy of identifying burglars by drawing masks over their eyes, or faces. Not to mention, it is not an American custom to hide one’s womenfolk in public and if our visitors from abroad want to respect our mores, they should “shuck the habit” when here. At home and behind closed doors they can do as they please, but I know that Moslem women don’t wear them behind closed doors.

When I spent several years traveling to Saudi Arabia many years ago, I noticed that in the “gold souk” young men would hang around and leer at the ladies who had to lift their veils in order to try on a necklace. What a thrill.

In today’s heightened security sensitivity, I’m sure there are those who worry about the concealment of possible weapons under those long robes. It has happened before.
 
Jan 2017
1,293
Durham
#85
My own view is that wearing a face mask “erases” the person and is a sneaky way to denying a person’s identity, as if she did not exist or isn’t “there”.
That's the crux of it. In your own words: it's your own view. All of these things which end up in oppression of minorities is people's own view. The Nazis believed they were justified, everyone believes they're justified when it comes to these situations. Doesn't matter if it's a religion, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour, whatever background. People are more than entitled to hold views outside of the norm, and in any reasonable society individuals are allowed to express themselves without being banned in some way because of someone else's view. In this case we're talking about a Western view of Islam, or being kind Islamic attire.

My view is I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with a woman walking down the street in whatever religious attire she chooses to wear, providing she's not breaking the law, and in my experience such people do not break the law.

I would agree when it comes to something like education because children need to see the expressions of teachers, but a woman walking past in me in the street? I don't think it's reasonable to expect that woman to change her appearance because of someone else's views. I'd imagine if you were to research some of the comments the Nazis had about the Jews in the 1930s, some of them wouldn't be too dissimilar, i.e. because of Jewish religious attire it somehow took something away from society.

Not to mention, it is not an American custom to hide one’s womenfolk in public and if our visitors from abroad want to respect our mores, they should “shuck the habit” when here.
I would agree that the people of the United States are entitled to run their country as they see fit. But, let's have it right, the implication would be that Americans do not like people being different. I'd imagine you'd argue there's a lot of difference in the US, so let's just say the implication would be a certain group of people are not allowed to be different. And, a reasonable person would ask him/herself: "why?", "why this particular group of people?"
 
Aug 2019
5
Albania
#86
That gas chambers are a waste of time and delusionally-ridden nonsense. You can just kill who you hate racially. No need to waste time on silly fantasy-cliche things. Hint: I don't support the holocaust in the slightest.
 
Mar 2019
1,626
Kansas
#87
My view is I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with a woman walking down the street in whatever religious attire she chooses to wear, providing she's not breaking the law, and in my experience such people do not break the law.
Yes, I do not recall ever seeing a nun or a priest set upon for wearing the trappings of their particular faith.
 
Jan 2017
1,293
Durham
#88
Yes, I do not recall ever seeing a nun or a priest set upon for wearing the trappings of their particular faith.
Aye, I should have said: "some Americans". I could be wrong, but as far as I know the United States doesn't ban people's religious dress, which tells a story.

And, I would disagree with Royal on his point about Western women. It's a cultural take. I see nothing wrong with the way Western women dress but someone from a different culture may have a different point of view, just as Royal has his point of view on the dress chosen by some women from an Islamic background. Surely the point is live and let live unless they break the law. Otherwise it's a licence to stop people doing what they want to do as a result of personal whims.
 
Jan 2017
1,293
Durham
#89
I not aware of any attempt to ban Naxzi speech. How is this a lesson from the Holocaust?
That's not the point being made.

The point is that freedom of expression is far more important than political persuasion.

So, when the Nazis could have been stopped, people should have stood with the communists and the like in making sure the Nazis weren't able to shut them down. Instead they didn't, because they were only communists and so they were left to fend for themselves, weakened by a lack of support. And, before you knew it, everyone was fair game, even fellow Nazis.

The Nazis wouldn't have got off the ground had Germans who thought they were a pack of idiots supported those from a different political persuasion who also thought they were a pack of idiots.
 
Oct 2009
3,605
San Diego
#90
Freedom of Speech is a red herring.

You don't really have freedom of speech.

you can SAY anything you want- but you are NOT shielded from consequences for what you say.


You can't lie about someone without getting sued for libel.
You can't yell fire in a crowded theater without getting charged with negligence.
You can't incite violence or threaten harm without being sued or charged.
When "speech" is part of a conspiracy to commit a crime, that speech can be used to convict you regardless of whether you actually committed the crime.

If you express ideas or beliefs that expose your employer to litigation, or do not fit with their company policies- you WILL be fired.
So- are you free to say what you want, really?

I firmly believe that bad ideas can be defeated by better ones.
But verbal intimidation is not really an exercise in freedom of speech. Its a form of assault.
And are we not all intimidated to NOT speak certain things by the Consequences we would suffer from our peers?

Freedom goes hand in hand with Responsibility.
And what we have today is a bunch of folks spewing their most hateful ideas under cover of anonymity so that they can escape responsibility for what they say publicly.
( not just the authoritarians-the current vogue on the left for social scolding of everyone is also fueled by anonymity.- anonymity brings out the worst conduct in everyone )
This is the linguistic equivalent of doorbell ditching.

The idea of freedom of speech was NEVER meant to protect ANONYMOUS speech. It was coined in an era when if you had something to say- everyone KNEW who you were.
Letters to the editor were SIGNED.

I am all for freedom of speech.
But I believe EVERYTHING people want to say publicly should be truthfully ATTRIBUTABLE to whoever is saying it.

If you choose to stand on a soapbox- your entire community should be able to see your face.

And then the only censor of our speech would be whether we were willing for our co-workers, neighbors, friends and relatives to KNOW that we were the ones who said it.
And if our ideas are unacceptable to the communities in which we live... we should expect to be shunned or fired.



The internet has led too many people into the hinterlands of anti-social extremism.
we NEED to have a Community Consensus for what we will tolerate in the public sphere.

If what you have to say incites other to commit murder... then you should be held responsible.
And if your freely expressed views causes your peers to call you a Nazi- then maybe you ought to Read UP on some history so you understand WHY people STILL think that is a very BAD THING.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions