Freedom of press.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2017, 02:23 AM)Dill Wrote: I haven't been looking for anyone to blame in this dialogue. Quite the contrary.

You wrote: If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame.

I provided two examples of bad political outcomes in which some reasonable people could not articulate their words into ideas "sufficient to win over the people."   I could add many more, like those few voices who sought to dissuade Confederate states from seceding from the Union.  I don't think Dredd Scott and Homer Plessy have only themselves to blame for losing their Supreme Court cases.  Jews don't have only themselves to blame for not dissuading their fellow German voters from supporting Hitler, though they tried.

Your point falls apart in this case as both examples involved rhetoric coupled with violence, as I pointed out and you failed to acknowledge.  In the future Confederacy violence and rhetoric were hand in glove.  In Weimar Germany political violence was the norm, not the exception.  As we are arguing whether meeting words, and only words, with violence is acceptable or not both of your examples not only fail to prove your point but are poor choices on your part.

Quote:There are many reasons why words don't "win over the people," and looking over the political history of modern states, I find it strange and harsh to "blame" people who don't win out.

Blaming people, no.  Blaming the strength of their arguments, yes.  The democrats lost the last election not because the opposing candidate was better, but because they were tone deaf to the cries of many voters, took their victory for granted and treated opposing viewpoints as disdainful relics of a bygone era.  In short, they are a recent, and excellent example of the point I am making, if your argument cannot win over people then your argument was improperly formulated.

Quote:Pointing out Nazi vote totals doesn't affect my point. The other parties could not dissuade enough people from voting Nazi to prevent their plurality. And it was this plurality that made Hitler the most powerful partly leader in Germany in 1932. So it hardly matters whether a July vote was their "high water mark" since they maintained their plurality through the next election. Liberals and other decent folks could not articulate their words sufficient to win over enough people to block Nazi power in nation wide elections. 

Please, you're treating the German parliament like our Congress.  It didn't, and doesn't, work that way.  The NSDAP plurality didn't mean much as they could find no partners to form a coalition government with, a crucial task in that type of parliamentary democracy.  The fact that their political power was on the wane is a key point, their message was failing.  It is purely due to the machinations of von Schleicher and von Papen that Hitler became chancellor.

Quote:Words are subject to legal censorship/criminalization. And someone gets to determine which words.

Only direct incitement to violence or speech that immediately endangers people through gross negligence, e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater.  You'll notice that even censored speech does not permit a violent response under the law.  You lose this argument on every level, despite your attempts to re-frame the debate.

Point blank, words do not warrant, or justify, a physically violent response and anyone advocating otherwise is irresponsible, immature and criminal.  

[Dill]

(03-04-2017, 03:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Blaming people, no.  Blaming the strength of their arguments, yes.  The democrats lost the last election not because the opposing candidate was better, but because they were tone deaf to the cries of many voters, took their victory for granted and treated opposing viewpoints as disdainful relics of a bygone era.  In short, they are a recent, and excellent example of the point I am making, if your argument cannot win over people then your argument was improperly formulated.

You did Write: "If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame."

You DID NOT write: If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have the strength of your argument to blame.

And I disagree with you either way. There are many reasons why arguments might not "win" people over. the criterion "properly formulated" begs many questions. Hitler won over many people. His argument was properly formulated for a certain audience.  Is there an audience-independent criterion?  

The winning candidate in the last presidential election was fine with "treating opposing view points as disdainful relics of a bygone era"--whether opposing Republicans or Democrats. His voters loved it when he shut up "little Marco" for his "bygone" immigration stance. Perhaps this was "properly formulated" for that audience, but not for Democrats?

[Dill]

(03-04-2017, 03:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your point falls apart in this case as both examples involved rhetoric coupled with violence, as I pointed out and you failed to acknowledge.  In the future Confederacy violence and rhetoric were hand in glove.  In Weimar Germany political violence was the norm, not the exception.  As we are arguing whether meeting words, and only words, with violence is acceptable or not both of your examples not only fail to prove your point but are poor choices on your part.

The secession and the rise of Nazi Germany were not offered as cases in which meeting only words with violence was acceptable.  They were offered as cases in which people with honorable motives and good arguments failed to win over enough people to their side. Given these and many more examples (e.g., SCOTUS cases involving Dredd Scott and Homer Plessy), my claim was that the "losers" in such cases do not have "only themselves" to blame.

To recap, I said: I don't think that German liberals who couldn't dissuade people from voting Nazi in 1932 had only themselves to blame.

And you said: Given that a large percentage of the population voted for a party other than the NSDAP, and their vote count was actually receding by the time Hitler was appointed (not elected people) I'd say you'd be wrong about that.

[Dill]

(03-04-2017, 03:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please, you're treating the German parliament like our Congress.  It didn't, and doesn't, work that way.  The NSDAP plurality didn't mean much as they could find no partners to form a coalition government with, a crucial task in that type of parliamentary democracy.  The fact that their political power was on the wane is a key point, their message was failing.  It is purely due to the machinations of von Schleicher and von Papen that Hitler became chancellor.

??If I say that the Nazi party plurality made Hitler the prime player in forming any government in the 1932-33 Reichstag, then I am treating the Reichstag like our congress???   That is almost as surprising as your claim a plurality doesn't "mean much" while presuming familiarity with the Weimar parliamentary system.

Claiming that the Nazi party could find no partners to form a coalition government is just factually wrong. A coalition with the DNVP was a condition of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933 and gave the Nazi Party a majority in the Reichstag. The Zentrum joined them to pass the Enabling Act with a two-thirds majority. At each step of this process, some party members failed to dissuade other party members from voting with the Nazis.   

Had Hitler's opponents dissuaded enough people from voting NSDAP, Hitler would not have been a player.  That violence attended the elections of '32 and '33 does not negate this point. How would it? If anything, that violence reduced the Nazi vote. Plenty of groups and individuals were publicly arguing against Nazis and other anti-Semitic groups, e.g., in newspapers and pamphlets. But they did not dissuade enough people from voting. 

Saying these people had only themselves to blame is cruelly indifferent as well as simplistic.  Yet you must conclude that if you stick by this claim:  "If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame."

My counter-point is still that there are many reasons why people lose arguments, court cases, and elections. They may themselves be to blame sometimes, but certainly not always. People do not have only themselves to blame when they fail to convince people not to vote for bad leaders.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2017, 04:55 PM)Dill Wrote: You did Write: "If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame."

You DID NOT write: If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have the strength of your argument to blame.

This distinction is such hair parsing as to be inane and boring by definition.  See what you've been reduced to?

Quote:And I disagree with you either way. There are many reasons why arguments might not "win" people over. the criterion "properly formulated" begs many questions. Hitler won over many people. His argument was properly formulated for a certain audience.  Is there an audience-independent criterion?  

Absolutely there is.  If you don't tailor and modify your argument to fit the vagaries of the present situation then you failed as a messenger.  It often times doesn't even have to be that severe a change.

Quote:The winning candidate in the last presidential election was fine with "treating opposing view points as disdainful relics of a bygone era"--whether opposing Republicans or Democrats. His voters loved it when he shut up "little Marco" for his "bygone" immigration stance. Perhaps this was "properly formulated" for that audience, but not for Democrats?

100% incorrect.  He did not treat opposition arguments as relics, he treated them as disdainful pandering to the mores of a culture obsessed with political correctness and protecting people's feelings.  You watched the last year and half worth of events and clearly learned nothing.

(03-05-2017, 05:20 PM)Dill Wrote: The secession and the rise of Nazi Germany were not offered as cases in which meeting only words with violence was acceptable.  They were offered as cases in which people with honorable motives and good arguments failed to win over enough people to their side. Given these and many more examples (e.g., SCOTUS cases involving Dredd Scott and Homer Plessy), my claim was that the "losers" in such cases do not have "only themselves" to blame.

Except the counter arguments won over far more people than they lost.

Quote:To recap, I said: I don't think that German liberals who couldn't dissuade people from voting Nazi in 1932 had only themselves to blame.

Nope, they have the political machinations of von Schleicher, von Papen and Hindenburg to blame.

Quote:And you said: Given that a large percentage of the population voted for a party other than the NSDAP, and their vote count was actually receding by the time Hitler was appointed (not elected people) I'd say you'd be wrong about that.

You'd be 100% wrong by indisputable fact.

German federal election, July 1932:


NSDAP: 13,745,680 votes / 37.27% of the vote


German federal election, November 1932:



NSDAP: 11,737,395 votes / 33.09% of the vote


Hitler appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg on 01/30/1933.


Facts prove you to be incorrect.

(03-05-2017, 06:45 PM)Dill Wrote: ??If I say that the Nazi party plurality made Hitler the prime player in forming any government in the 1932-33 Reichstag, then I am treating the Reichstag like our congress???   That is almost as surprising as your claim a plurality doesn't "mean much" while presuming familiarity with the Weimar parliamentary system.

LOL, no.  The NSDAP was not going to partner with anyone unwilling to subjugate themselves to their party agenda.  They were incapable of forming a coalition government, largely because their expressed intent was to destroy the system from the inside.  Given that, and their extreme views, no other party was willing to cooperate with them despite their plurality.

Quote:Claiming that the Nazi party could find no partners to form a coalition government is just factually wrong. A coalition with the DNVP was a condition of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933 and gave the Nazi Party a majority in the Reichstag. The Zentrum joined them to pass the Enabling Act with a two-thirds majority.  At each step of this process, some party members failed to dissuade other party members from voting with the Nazis.   

Your argument has now entered the inane.  Of course they formed a coalition government after Hitler was backdoored into the Chancellorship, they had no choice.  Additionally, it was part of the naive strategy of von Papen that a coalition would allow him to control and reign in Hitler's, and the NSDAP's, more extreme views.  In short, they thought they could box Hitler in, they couldn't have been more wrong.

Quote:Had Hitler's opponents dissuaded enough people from voting NSDAP, Hitler would not have been a player.  That violence attended the elections of '32 and '33 does not negate this point. How would it? If anything, that violence reduced the Nazi vote. Plenty of groups and individuals were publicly arguing against Nazis and other anti-Semitic groups, e.g., in newspapers and pamphlets. But they did not dissuade enough people from voting. 

In the long run, they absolutely did.  Support for the NSDAP was on the wain.  Again, their high water mark only encompassed around 1/3 of voters. Hardly earth shattering.  Consider that the Dems are whining about Trump winning the presidency with a far larger share of the vote and then realize how weak your argument is.

Quote:Saying these people had only themselves to blame is cruelly indifferent as well as simplistic.  Yet you must conclude that if you stick by this claim:  "If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame."

Endless repetition of failure doesn't produce different results.  Make a new point or stop wasting my time.

Quote:My counter-point is still that there are many reasons why people lose arguments, court cases, and elections. They may themselves be to blame sometimes, but certainly not always. People do not have only themselves to blame when they fail to convince people not to vote for bad leaders.

If you're talking about a single incident, then sure.  If you're talking about a political movement, then no.

Please don't bother responding unless you produce a new argument.  Constantly pointing out how your banal repetitions are wrong is becoming both tiring and utterly boring.  

[Dill]

(03-05-2017, 08:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: [url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Freedom-of-press?pid=351442#pid351442][/url]You did Write: "If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame."


You DID NOT write: If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have the strength of your argument to blame.

This distinction is such hair parsing as to be inane and boring by definition.  See what you've been reduced to?

The distinction between people "having themselves" to blame as opposed to "the strength of their argument" is a distinction you made.  After I questioned the wisdom of blaming the victim, you changed the terms of your claim, moving your censure from person to argument. 

All I do above is point that out.   Now, apparently, you do not own the distinction you made, asking what I've been reduced to.  Why did YOU make the change from person to argument, if that is so "inane and boring"?

[Dill]

(03-05-2017, 08:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote [from Dill]: And you said: Given that a large percentage of the population voted for a party other than the NSDAP, and their vote count was actually receding by the time Hitler was appointed (not elected people) I'd say you'd be wrong about that.

You'd be 100% wrong by indisputable fact.
German federal election, July 1932:
NSDAP: 13,745,680 votes / 37.27% of the vote
German federal election, November 1932:
NSDAP: 11,737,395 votes / 33.09% of the vote
Hitler appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg on 01/30/1933.
Facts prove you to be incorrect.

Here you quote me quoting you, then claim I am 100% wrong about some indisputable fact. Your proof is apparently a comparison of votes from the July '32 election with the November '32.
But I have not disputed any vote count; what does posting the vote count "100%" disprove?

I understand you keep making the point that the Nazi vote total went down. (Ignoring the March 5 '33 election in which Nazis regained 74 seats, apparently because that does not fit your thesis.)
I made the point myself.  But that is immaterial if they are still the largest party in the Reichstag, and if they are the largest party it is because others could not dissuade enough Germans to stop voting for them.    

You can post all the "indisputable" facts you want, but if no one has disputed them, then you haven't proved anyone "incorrect."

[Dill]

(03-05-2017, 08:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: LOL, no.  The NSDAP was not going to partner with anyone unwilling to subjugate themselves to their party agenda.  They were incapable of forming a coalition government, largely because their expressed intent was to destroy the system from the inside.  Given that, and their extreme views, no other party was willing to cooperate with them despite their plurality.

Your argument has now entered the inane.  Of course they formed a coalition government after Hitler was backdoored into the Chancellorship, they had no choice.  Additionally, it was part of the naive strategy of von Papen that a coalition would allow him to control and reign in Hitler's, and the NSDAP's, more extreme views.  In short, they thought they could box Hitler in, they couldn't have been more wrong.

The NSDAP was not the only party hoping to "destroy the system from the inside."

You say the Nazis were incapable of forming a coalition government.

When I point out that they DID form a coalition, this reference to fact is suddenly "inane," because "they had no choice."

I'm assuming "they" refers to the DNVP and the Catholic Zentrum.  Of course they had a choice. That is why there was so much debate within the parties.  The Zentrum's decision was settled in part by German Bishops' consultations with the Vatican.  At the end of the day, those opposed were unable to persuade their leaders to refuse the coalition.  To put this in your terms, the opposition could not "articulate their words sufficient to win over people," and so had only themselves to blame. 

Had the DNVP and the Zentrum refused the coalition then Hitler would have been unable to govern. The fact that the parties did have a choice is clear from the concessions wrung from Hitler, such as the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican, signed in July of '33.  

[Dill]

(03-05-2017, 08:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In the long run, they absolutely did.  Support for the NSDAP was on the wain.  Again, their high water mark only encompassed around 1/3 of voters. Hardly earth shattering.  Consider that the Dems are whining about Trump winning the presidency with a far larger share of the vote and then realize how weak your argument is.

Please, you're treating the Weimar government like the US two party system.

33% of the popular vote in Nov. '32 and then 43% in March '33 would not be "earth shattering" in the U.S., but it was decisive in Germany's parliamentary government in 1932-33.

My point is that if Nazis get 43-44% of the vote then they are the primary force in the Reichstag with the power to acquire more power. Von Papen didn't give them 43+% of the popular vote.  Other parties, such as the SPD, were unable to persuade enough Germans to vote for them against the Nazis--and therefore, on your terms, have only themselves to blame for the Nazi rise to power. 

You apparently assume that if the Nazis did not win a majority of the vote, American-style, then my point is somehow nullified because 33 or 43% would not be "earth shattering" in a US election. Winning over "far more people than they lost" is not the criterion when 43% makes your party THE plurality.

Why not simply back away from the claim that people have only themselves to blame for bad leaders rather than attempt these rhetorical projections and somersaults?  Don't say that you really said something else, or that your assertion doesn't apply to Weimar Germany or the Ante-Bellum South, or that election violence somehow vitiates political arguments made long before elections so you are off the hook for victim-blaming. 

Can you respond in a more focused manner? Don't flail about 100% refuting points that have not been made and projecting your own "boring" points on to me etc. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-06-2017, 06:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Can you respond in a more focused manner? 

You mean postwhoring?


You're repeating a lot of the same, tired, arguments and the English language is running out of ways to describe how wrong you are.


I'll merely summarize the major way in which you're wrong that has to do with the thread topic; responding to words with violence is wrong and cannot be justified.  If you believe otherwise then you are a thug who cannot counter an argument with words.  No need to use four separate posts to respond to this, if choose to do so.  One will do.

[Dill]

(03-06-2017, 10:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You mean postwhoring?

You're repeating a lot of the same, tired, arguments and the English language is running out of ways to describe how wrong you are.

I'll merely summarize the major way in which you're wrong that has to do with the thread topic; responding to words with violence is wrong and cannot be justified.  If you believe otherwise then you are a thug who cannot counter an argument with words.  No need to use four separate posts to respond to this, if choose to do so.  One will do.

When you claim that the lost votes in the election of November '32 proves the Nazi party was on the wane, and I respond that they received more votes in March '33, that is not "repeating a tired argument." That is correcting a mistaken premise.  You blow smoke; I dissipate it.


The point of my previous posts is certainly related to the thread topic of press freedom, as an aspect of freedom of speech. You reference a supposed wave of "left wing" violence and assert that If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame.

Contra you, I say it is wrong to blame victims of political violence because their arguments do not persuade voters to turn away from violent, bigoted leaders.

You don't seem to consider that for some arguments, there may be no effective "counter with words," and the end effect of those arguments is harm for some individual or group. There were articulate, public counterarguments to Nazis in Weimar Germany in newspapers, on the radio, even on street corners. Street violence did not prevent their exposure to the bulk of the population. And the counterarguments did not work if 44% of the population voted for Nazis in March of '33, making Hitler the major player in the Reichstag.  

Still a Jew who countered Nazi words in '33 with violence would be a "thug" in your terms, with only himself to blame for Hitler's rise to power. But he would not be a "thug" in my terms.

Which is why I say much depends upon the words, and upon the context in which they are uttered.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2017, 08:14 PM)Dill Wrote: When you claim that the lost votes in the election of November '32 proves the Nazi party was on the wane, and I respond that they received more votes in March '33, that is not "repeating a tired argument." That is correcting a mistaken premise.  You blow smoke; I dissipate it.


The point of my previous posts is certainly related to the thread topic of press freedom, as an aspect of freedom of speech. You reference a supposed wave of "left wing" violence and assert that If your ideas cannot be articulated into words sufficient to win over the people then you only have yourself to blame.

Contra you, I say it is wrong to blame victims of political violence because their arguments do not persuade voters to turn away from violent, bigoted leaders.

You don't seem to consider that for some arguments, there may be no effective "counter with words," and the end effect of those arguments is harm for some individual or group. There were articulate, public counterarguments to Nazis in Weimar Germany in newspapers, on the radio, even on street corners. Street violence did not prevent their exposure to the bulk of the population. And the counterarguments did not work if 44% of the population voted for Nazis in March of '33, making Hitler the major player in the Reichstag.  

Still a Jew who countered Nazi words in '33 with violence would be a "thug" in your terms, with only himself to blame for Hitler's rise to power. But he would not be a "thug" in my terms.

Which is why I say much depends upon the words, and upon the context in which they are uttered.  

I'll reiterate since you seem to be stuck in a loop.


I'll merely summarize the major way in which you're wrong that has to do with the thread topic; responding to words with violence is wrong and cannot be justified.  If you believe otherwise then you are a thug who cannot counter an argument with words.  No need to use four separate posts to respond to this, if choose to do so.  One will do.

In your example the Jewish person was responding to violence with violence. 

The utter lack of faith you have in your own argument is displayed by your failure to address salient points.  I'll reiterate, again.  Hitler was not appointed Chancellor by the people, his party was in decline.  He was foisted upon the German people by the machinations of von Schleicher, von Papen and the acquiescence of a weak Hindenburg.  His ideology was losing, his arguments were being defeated, the counter arguments were working.  He was backdoored into the office by a bitter von Papen.  Kindly stop wasting my time with endless regurgitation that ignores salient points.

[Dill]

(03-07-2017, 08:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In your example the Jewish person was responding to violence with violence. 

The utter lack of faith you have in your own argument is displayed by your failure to address salient points.  I'll reiterate, again.  Hitler was not appointed Chancellor by the people, his party was in decline.  He was foisted upon the German people by the machinations of von Schleicher, von Papen and the acquiescence of a weak Hindenburg.  His ideology was losing, his arguments were being defeated, the counter arguments were working.  He was backdoored into the office by a bitter von Papen.  Kindly stop wasting my time with endless regurgitation that ignores salient points.

Here is one of your "salient points": "his party was in decline." And here is me addressing it. The Nazi party got the majority of the popular vote in March of 33, increasing its representation in the Reichstag, the last free election under Weimar.  Now that is at least the second time I have done that. If you just repeat again that "his party was in decline" without explaining why the NSDAP's vote total increased from November of '32 to March of '33, the last election, then you are the who is "failing to address salient points." 

In my example, a Jewish person would not be a thug if he responded to Nazi words with violence, after counter arguments did not work and Nazi arguments defined him as a non-citizen. Such a person would not have only himself to blame if Nazi arguments led to winning a plurality in the Reichstag. 

Or are you saying that Nazi words themselves were violence--the arguments they made in newspapers and on the radio, and which brought them into political power? Do you refuse to grant that winning a majority in the Reichstag is winning political power?

A simple yes or no question--are you saying a Jew would be a "thug" if he responded to Nazi words with violence, after counter arguments did not work, etc.?  Don't try and spin this as if violence were all Jews had to respond to. It was words, not violence, which gave the Nazis their plurality.

No one was appointed chancellor by "the people" in Weimar Germany.  One of the president's functions was to choose the chancellor, customarily the leader of the party with the largest number of seats--which Hitler was. And a party gets the largest number of seats democratically, by persuading the largest number of people to vote for it, which the Nazis did.

You appear to think that if Hitler were not directly elected by a popular majority, then my argument that Nazi's won their plurality by persuading more people to vote for them than other parties did, is vitiated.  That's why you keep claiming that Schleicher and Papen "backdoored" Hitler's Chancellorship. That's why you think this a "salient point."

But Schleicher and von Papen did not just pluck Hitler from off the streets. If Nazis don't win a plurality--and keep winning it across three elections, Hitler has no power and legitimate claim to the Chancellorship.  For Hitler to be in position to be appointed Chancellor, his party had to win more votes than any other. And they had to win more votes than any other by persuading people to vote for them--by arguments.  Once he had the plurality, Nazis then had to persuade other parties to support them--parties which had the free choice to support or not--and they eventually did.

If you can show that the NSDAP did not have to persuade voters to get its plurality--the plurality which was the legal basis of Hitler's appointment--then you do have a "salient point." But until then, you do not. And claiming Nazi ideology was declining in appeal wouldn't help you, even if true. They persuaded when they needed to.

Your other "salient point," that the elections were marked by violence, is also no point at all unless you can show how incidental violence prevented people from hearing the arguments of the SPD or Zentrum or other parties. Vague references to generalized violence do not secure your point.