WHERE'S YOUR GODWIN, NOW?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"Intentionalist historians of Nazi Germany traditionally emphasize the unique role of Hitler in legitimizing and directing Nazi rule from the very beginning of the movement (Jaeckel 1972; Bracher 1979).7 On this view, German fascism is seen as a ‘monocratic’ system of rule (Alleinherrschaft) which is not only dependent on the ideological vision of the leader but on his personal decision making. As structuralist historians argue, however, this interpretation downplays the multi-dimensional nature of decision making in the Third Reich and the deliberate cultivation of the ‘Führer myth’ as a legitimation device, which allowed Nazi rulers to attribute policy successes to the leader while blaming lesser functionaries for the chaotic reality of polycratic rule (Broszat 1981; Mason 1971; Mommsen 1991b). As Kershaw points out, this allowed the Nazi elite to project an image of the Führer as a leader without sin, a person who could transcend sectional interests and rise above everyday political squabbles."

Or this, thanks to Cain BTW:

"Fascism was intended to increase the effectiveness of the state in the management of economic and social processes, but resulted instead in the erosion of an older distinction between state and civil society, a fragmentation of government into multiple competing agencies, and a decline of the old state bureaucracy as a site of unified, autonomous decision making. Although founded in principle on the concentrated authority of the state, fascism in Germany devolved decision-making authority to co-opted elites, creating a dynamic towards polycracy. By undermining routinized administration, fascism led to infighting, short-termism, organizational chaos, and policy radicalization, encouraging leaders to embark on adventurist policies and periodic campaigns to mobilize their support base. As Broszat argues, National Socialism created a tendency towards expedience which ‘disrupted any rational overall organization of government and reinforced the particularist egocentricity of the respective departmental values and ideologies’ (1981: 358). In this environment, law effectively lost its universal regulatory function, degenerating into a system of contradictory decrees articulating the interests of power-elites who attempted to manipulate the apparatus to defeat rivals or to win favour with the leader. To this extent, at least, the rivalry between fascist oligarchs confirms one of the primary theoretical arguments of competitive elitism, namely that political outcomes are – to a large extent – determined by the balance of power between elites for influence in the state."

Congratulations, you can quote passages. Some of us use our own words. The best of us use both.

This isn't anything resembling an argument. There isn't anything to rebutt, agree with, or otherwise discuss. You haven't made an actual point.

My god.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Let me put it this way: Hitler is like the clitoris. You don't just go stampeding straight towards it and blow your load; you work your way down, slowly, with forethought and tenderness. Going zero-to-Hitler turns everyone else off unless you have literally the best argument anyone has ever come up with, because people are constantly comparing anyone they don't like to goddamned Hitler.

First of all, you don't know shit about my clitoris and should not fucking talk for everyone even if you aren't a Ron Paul sockpuppet and have a vagina.

Nigel’s clitoris was bitten by a cobra and after five days of excruciating pain... the cobra died.

He who laughs last, laughs best. He who laughs at Nigel’s clitoris, it's definitely his last laugh.

The easiest way to determine Nigel’s clitoris's age is to cut it in half and count the rings

Nigel’s clitoris doesn't dial the wrong number. You answered the wrong phone.

Nigel’s clitoris knows Victoria's secret.

If Nigel’s clitoris was a Spartan in the movie 300, the movie would be called 1.

When Nigel’s clitoris swims in the ocean, the sharks are in a steel cage.

Nigel’s clitoris will never have a heart attack. Nigel’s heart isn't nearly foolish enough to attack it.

Nigel’s clitoris once kicked a horse in the chin. Its descendants today are known as giraffes.

Nigel’s clitoris doesn't breathe air. It holds air hostage.

Nigel’s clitoris can delete the Recycling Bin.

Nigel’s clitoris has already been to Mars. That's why there are no signs of life.

Nigel’s clitoris can kill two stones with one bird.

Nigel’s clitoris's calendar goes straight from March 31st to April 2. No one fools Nigel’s clitoris.

Nigel’s clitoris wears sunglasses so that it’s eyes won't hurt the sun.

If you see Nigel’s clitoris crying it will grant you a wish, if your wish is dying.

When Nigel’s clitoris works out it doesn't get stronger, the machine does.

Nigel’s clitoris does not sleep; it waits.

 

[Salty]

"Intentionalist historians of Nazi Germany traditionally emphasize the unique role of Hitler in legitimizing and directing Nazi rule from the very beginning of the movement (Jaeckel 1972; Bracher 1979).7 On this view, German fascism is seen as a ‘monocratic’ system of rule (Alleinherrschaft) which is not only dependent on the ideological vision of the leader but on his personal decision making. As structuralist historians argue, however, this interpretation downplays the multi-dimensional nature of decision making in the Third Reich and the deliberate cultivation of the ‘Führer myth’ as a legitimation device, which allowed Nazi rulers to attribute policy successes to the leader while blaming lesser functionaries for the chaotic reality of polycratic rule (Broszat 1981; Mason 1971; Mommsen 1991b). As Kershaw points out, this allowed the Nazi elite to project an image of the Führer as a leader without sin, a person who could transcend sectional interests and rise above everyday political squabbles."

Or this, thanks to Cain BTW:

"Fascism was intended to increase the effectiveness of the state in the management of economic and social processes, but resulted instead in the erosion of an older distinction between state and civil society, a fragmentation of government into multiple competing agencies, and a decline of the old state bureaucracy as a site of unified, autonomous decision making. Although founded in principle on the concentrated authority of the state, fascism in Germany devolved decision-making authority to co-opted elites, creating a dynamic towards polycracy. By undermining routinized administration, fascism led to infighting, short-termism, organizational chaos, and policy radicalization, encouraging leaders to embark on adventurist policies and periodic campaigns to mobilize their support base. As Broszat argues, National Socialism created a tendency towards expedience which ‘disrupted any rational overall organization of government and reinforced the particularist egocentricity of the respective departmental values and ideologies’ (1981: 358). In this environment, law effectively lost its universal regulatory function, degenerating into a system of contradictory decrees articulating the interests of power-elites who attempted to manipulate the apparatus to defeat rivals or to win favour with the leader. To this extent, at least, the rivalry between fascist oligarchs confirms one of the primary theoretical arguments of competitive elitism, namely that political outcomes are – to a large extent – determined by the balance of power between elites for influence in the state."

Congratulations, you can quote passages. Some of us use our own words. The best of us use both.

This isn't anything resembling an argument. There isn't anything to rebutt, agree with, or otherwise discuss. You haven't made an actual point.

 

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

M: No you didn't!

O: Yes I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I'm telling you, I did!

M: You did not!

O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.

O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.

O: Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not!

O: Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

(pause)

M: It's just contradiction!

O: No it isn't!

M: It IS!

O: It is NOT!

M: You just contradicted me!

O: No I didn't!

M: You DID!

O: No no no!

M: You did just then!

O: Nonsense!

M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

(pause)

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is!

(pause)

M: I came here for a good argument!

O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

O: It is NOT!

M: It is!

O: Not at all!

M: It is!

[Salty]

[LMNO]

Would you like to recite the Dead Parrot sketch next, or go straight to the Cheese Shop?

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

More to the point has Trump said anything expansionist, especially any kind of stupid bullshit "well historically [insert foreign country or territory] already belongs to us" (although not limited to this). Most of what I've heard of him seems to be more isolationist.

[Salty]

More to the point has Trump said anything expansionist, especially any kind of stupid bullshit "well historically [insert foreign country or territory] already belongs to us" (although not limited to this). Most of what I've heard of him seems to be more isolationist.

I think this is a good transition. You went from an incomprehensibly stupid post to an only moderately stupid one. PROTIP: when you've typed something to post, give it a moment to reconsider. Then delete it, close your browser, turn off your computing device, and fuck off.

[LMNO]

More to the point has Trump said anything expansionist, especially any kind of stupid bullshit "well historically [insert foreign country or territory] already belongs to us" (although not limited to this). Most of what I've heard of him seems to be more isolationist.

Would it be of any concern to you that his picks for Foreign Policy advisors are hawkish expansionists?

[The Wizard Joseph]

First of all, you don't know shit about my clitoris

Let me just stop you there. I don't care.

Second,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-age-of-trump-grim-warnings-from-holocaust-survivors/2016/01/27/c65ea38c-c549-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.fb64fad6b633

Holocaust survivors are absolutely entitled to draw meaningful comparisons to Hitler, and are worth listening to. That being said, a Holocaust survivor making extremely reserved comments about being weary of demagogues doesn't give random crazies on the Internet license to claim that someone is literally a Nazi.

Discussing this woman's experiences and the merits of her testimony? No, that's not Godwin's Law, and thank you for providing the link. The stupid shit that Vivat and Roger are trolling? Totally Godwin's Law.

Done with you.  We already have an RP and a Brother Nihil.

This.

[Pope Nope]

Done with you.

Good. Fuck off. You're literally a Maoist, anyway.

[Pope Nope]

Oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse.

[Pope Nope]

This thread has devolved into the intellectual equivalent of people sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting. The entire discussion is a facade for a debate on whether or not Trump is a Nazi - or whether or not it's reasonable to call him a Nazi and has absolutely balls to do with Godwin's Law at this point - especially since people can read the thing for themselves and then continue to insist that it's a thing that it isn't.

Half of the people arguing for one side are doing nothing but quoting passages from tangentially-related essays and then claiming anyone who doesn't connect the invisible dots on their own is an idiot, mostly as a way to compensate for the fact that they can't construct an argument using that information. When they're not not-busy doing that, they're scrambling for new reasons to justify the comparison, as if at some point some individual one is going to grant permission.

The other half is lashing out with personal attacks, words like "good riddance", and all the other kinds of intellectually dishonest ways of acting like you're walking away from a discussion you can't win while simultaneously feeling like you did win.

There's a third half (now we're up to three halves and I don't know how it came to this) that just keeps posting this fucking party-hat emoji, which I'm starting to think is the most convincing of all the arguments.

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Elvis fellow has discovered the holymost secret of discordian debate!
 

[Junkenstein]

Dude.

Demonstrate some testicular fortitude or Ovarian might or whatever and stop. Think. Realise you're acting like a silly arse and there's a reason you're getting these kind of responses. The reason is you.

Work on that.