03-04-2017, 03:21 AM
(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.
