Alienated America

[Dill]

(03-06-2019, 12:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's examine this question a bit.  You're engaging in a semantic argument over the word "strong".  There are numerous possible definitions for strong.  Does this mean physically powerful, mentally resilient, forceful of will, having a moral code of behavior one adheres to religiously or possessing an intense personality?  Luckily, in this example, we have a further set of words to guide us, that being the "creates easy times" follow up.  Now, what possible definitions of "strong" would lend itself to a person who can create "easy times"?  Possibly all of them?  More likely some than others?  Quite demonstrably, Fred, there is no one definition of the word "strong" that one could look at and easily state, "this is the one we're talking about"!

So, we are forced to once again rely on the following words, "creates easy times".  Do you feel that Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini created easy times?  Your argument would lend one to believe this was the case.  If this is true I had no idea you thought so highly of men who murdered millions and nurtured some of the darkest ideology the world has ever seen.  If this is not the case then maybe you need to concede that your knee jerk attempt to paint someone with a bigoted brush has instead seen you inadvertently coating yourself.  If you are so inclined as to admit such I would happily believe the assertion that you do not find Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin to be admirable, or "strong", men.

I eagerly await your reply.

Actually, I like what you are doing here. You point out that, in the abstract, words like "strong" can hold many different (sometimes contrary) meanings. This variation is massively reduced by context, by words and phrases around "strong," as well as its thematic deployment in a larger progression.  In Mein Kampf, "strong" is deployed in passages describing sacrifice of individual life for the nation and willingness to do what is necessary to eliminate threats to racial purity.  Fair to say that contrasts with  "strong" + "good times" and a picture of a factory in operation.

There is still a larger context though, a genealogy of how "strong" has been deployed to describe men and leadership, how it has been selected from among other traits to support authoritarian politics. That it is, in your image, singled out as necessary, is still a bit of a problem. I think that is what Fred noticed. Hitler and Mussolini did not create "easy times."  But many who supported them thought they would. Though if we look at their writings, this was not what they promised. They asked for sacrifice and promised endless testing. Both accepted economic well being as measure of national success, but not as a goal for individuals, or even an end goal for the nation.  Fair to say that "good times" was not really the goal, certainly of Hitler.  (I have no problem thinking of Hitler as "strong." It is just the wrong strong.)