03-03-2017, 12:13 AM
(03-02-2017, 08:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.
No, it was both.
Quote: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?
At it's most popular the NSDAP took in around 37% of the vote, which means that 63% of the voting population did not vote for them. BTW this was, by far, their high water mark. If you're looking for someone to blame, try two people; von Papen and von Schleicher. They subverted the chancellorship, in separate ways, and paved the way for Hitler's ascension, not the minority of voters for the NSDAP.
Quote: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.
I see you're unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm.
Quote:Much depends upon the words people are fighting.
Nothing depends on the words. If you allow for the idea that words are sometimes fair provocation for violence then you're opening up a Pandora's box of who gets to determine what speech is worthy of getting the speaker punched in the mouth. I certainly don't want someone like you or Yvette Felarca making that decision for me or anyone else.
