Freedom of press.

[Dill]

(03-02-2017, 07:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

That's right, which is why the uber-violent Civil Rights Movement under Doctor Martin Luther King had to be formed.

Nope, big time fail here.  It is permissible to physically defend yourself against violence.  It is not ok, ever, to counter words with violence.  This concept isn't that difficult, why do so many of your ilk not seem to get it?

People of my ilk remember that it was words that pulled people into the Klan and the Nazi party. Then it was words, not violence, which passed discriminatory laws disenfranchising Jews and blacks.

In order for Hitler to be appointed Chancellor, he had to be the head of a party elected to a plurality in the Reichstag. Enough people could not be dissuaded from voting NSDAP to prevent that.  And Hindenberg could not be dissuaded from boosting Hitler to Chancellor, though people certainly tried.  No one but the dissuaders to blame here?

The Civil Rights Movement was Uber-violent?  It certainly seemed so to conservatives at the time. Dr. King's non-violent direct action appalled many, who called for an end to the violence.  

Much depends upon the words people are fighting.