United States Politics Thread 47

[Raphael]

My thoughts on the whole "Who is or isn't Hitler?"-thing are that, first, I have absolutely no problems with comparing* any politician who's actually committing genocide to Hitler, but second, I'd draw the line at using the term for politicians, and, for that matter, regular people interested in politics, who simply are too willing to be friendly with other politicians who do commit genocide.

First point first: Travis argues that what sets Hitler's crimes apart is the industrialization of genocide. My response to that is that there's not that much difference from the perspective of the people getting slaughtered. If you're murdered with a machete, a bullet, or a conquistador's sword, you're as dead as if you're murdered in a gas chamber.

Besides, the Rwandan Genocide, at least, seems to have been quite well-organized, -planned, -prepared, and -executed, right down to the procurement and distribution of the machetes used. Or at least that's the impression I got from watching the movie Hotel Rwanda; of course, it's possible that that movie was historically inaccurate on that point.

Now to the second point: the problem with calling everyone Hitler who's arguably supportive of other people's genocides is that there are simply too many people like that in the world. For instance, exactly those people who are the most solid on consistently opposing all genocides committed by the West and its allies are often the most rotten about genocides committed by the various opponents and enemies of the West. And vice versa. Us-vs-Them thinking is one hell of a drug. And, while we're at it, perhaps the main thing that motivates and is used to justify genocides in the first place.


*Here, I'me using "compared" in the usual colloquial meaning of the word, that is, as in "saying X is like Y", as opposed to the literal meaning. Long ago, in another ZBB discussion, someone wrote that he wouldn't mind being literally compared to Hitler, because he was pretty sure he would come out ahead of Hitler on any human quality except knowledge of German and military strategy, and as for military strategy, he hadn't lost a major war yet.

[Raphael]

Different topic: I've been trying to find a link on this for a while, but couldn't. Perhaps someone else can?

In any case. I saw a report somewhere on social media about a Catholic priest who was taking part in anti-ICE protests had been arrested, and after his release he was interviewed, and he said something like, during the time he was imprisoned, the officers around him didn't dare to do anything untoward in, trying to quote his words from memory, "the sacred presence of Christ", or something like that.

And let's just say that I have very mixed, conflicted, and contradictory feelings about that. On the one hand, in this particular case, this particular priest is right, and supporting what is good, right, and just. On the other hand, the general rule or norm which that priest seemed to be trying to invoke in that interview is a very, very bad rule or norm. The idea that Catholic priests are somehow sacred, or represent "the sacred presence of Christ", and should therefore get preferred treatment, and that it's somehow inherently wrong for the authorities to give them any trouble, has been the source of a lot of evil in the past.

[Travis B.]

My thoughts on the whole "Who is or isn't Hitler?"-thing are that, first, I have absolutely no problems with comparing* any politician who's actually committing genocide to Hitler, but second, I'd draw the line at using the term for politicians, and, for that matter, regular people interested in politics, who simply are too willing to be friendly with other politicians who do commit genocide.

The problem is when you start calling people 'Hitler' due to their positions relative to people who are committing genocide that things get fuzzy. Things get very fuzzy if you call even all politicians who do not openly oppose what Israel has been doing in Gaza 'Hitler', e.g. Harris or Machado.

First point first: Travis argues that what sets Hitler's crimes apart is the industrialization of genocide. My response to that is that there's not that much difference from the perspective of the people getting slaughtered. If you're murdered with a machete, a bullet, or a conquistador's sword, you're as dead as if you're murdered in a gas chamber.

Instead of calling people 'Hitler' when the comparisons with Hitler may not be entirely accurate, why not use a term that is more to the point, such as 'génocidaire'? Of course, the reason why is that there is a certain rhetorical edge to Hitler-comparisons that more accurate descriptors lack that those making the comparisons seek to leverage.

The problem I should note with 'dead is dead' statements is that things get vague very fast, because then things such as deaths in combat, deaths from famines resulting from economic mismanagement, and deaths due to judicial capital punishment after a fair trial become effectively equated with deaths from genocide, which is not very useful. If 'dead is dead', for instance, Winston Churchill should be regarded on the same level as Adolf Hitler, even though the Bengal Famine is probably best regarded as a case of tragic mismanagement rather than deliberate genocide.

Besides, the Rwandan Genocide, at least, seems to have been quite well-organized, -planned, -prepared, and -executed, right down to the procurement and distribution of the machetes used. Or at least that's the impression I got from watching the movie Hotel Rwanda; of course, it's possible that that movie was historically inaccurate on that point.

In that case I don't think that was something that was a liberty taken by the movie; I myself have specifically read about things such as RTLM and the efforts to mass-import machetes into Rwanda.

Deliberate planning itself is not unique to the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide, mind you; e.g. the Armenian Genocide was also very deliberately planned in nature.

Now to the second point: the problem with calling everyone Hitler who's arguably supportive of other people's genocides is that there are simply too many people like that in the world. For instance, exactly those people who are the most solid on consistently opposing all genocides committed by the West and its allies are often the most rotten about genocides committed by the various opponents and enemies of the West. And vice versa. Us-vs-Them thinking is one hell of a drug. And, while we're at it, perhaps the main thing that motivates and is used to justify genocides in the first place.

Things like this are part of why I tend to dislike 'Global North versus Global South' dichotomies and like. Just because you belong roughly to the 'Global North' does not make you any worse (or better) and just because you belong roughly to the 'Global South' does not make you any better (or worse).

[Travis B.]

Different topic: I've been trying to find a link on this for a while, but couldn't. Perhaps someone else can?

In any case. I saw a report somewhere on social media about a Catholic priest who was taking part in anti-ICE protests had been arrested, and after his release he was interviewed, and he said something like, during the time he was imprisoned, the officers around him didn't dare to do anything untoward in, trying to quote his words from memory, "the sacred presence of Christ", or something like that.

And let's just say that I have very mixed, conflicted, and contradictory feelings about that. On the one hand, in this particular case, this particular priest is right, and supporting what is good, right, and just. On the other hand, the general rule or norm which that priest seemed to be trying to invoke in that interview is a very, very bad rule or norm. The idea that Catholic priests are somehow sacred, or represent "the sacred presence of Christ", and should therefore get preferred treatment, and that it's somehow inherently wrong for the authorities to give them any trouble, has been the source of a lot of evil in the past.

I agree with this, and things like this have helped things like the Church abuse scandals to get as bad as they have, since the idea that priests are 'sacred' had allowed things to get just as bad as they did due to putting a damper on effectively punishing those guilty.

[rotting bones]

I feel like the fact malloc is the one who delivered the sick burn should have clued everyone in that this conversation is going nowhere useful.

Oh, it’s just that I long ago gave up on getting anywhere useful with rotting bones, whereas malloc is still worth engaging with.

Genuine thought only takes place at the locations where reasoning violates common sense. If you are using reason to justify common sense, that's sophistry where the conclusion is fixed ahead of time, so I'm only moved by good points. Instead, all you've got against me are "sick burns".

BTW, "I detect Hitler particles" is an ancient Marxist joke originally made in a slightly different form by Trotsky. IIRC he said about the leader of Poland that while he wasn't as bad as Hitler, he acted like there was a particle of Hitler lodged within him. (This is second hand. I've never read Trotsky.)

[Lērisama]

I feel like the fact malloc is the one who delivered the sick burn should have clued everyone in that this conversation is going nowhere useful.

Oh, it’s just that I long ago gave up on getting anywhere useful with rotting bones, whereas malloc is still worth engaging with.

Genuine thought only takes place at the locations where reasoning violates common sense. If you are using reason to justify common sense, that's sophistry where the conclusion is fixed ahead of time, so I'm only moved by good points. Instead, all you've got against me are "sick burns".

And yet you've ignored all the perfectly good points people have made, and only respond to the quips, to say they are lacking as serious statements. This behaviour doesn't tend to make you any friends, or even convince anyone but yourself.

[rotting bones]

There are a very large number of blatantly obvious differences between the two — it’s past midnight here so I shan’t give a full list, but I’m sure that everyone here is fully capable of working them out on their own.

The problem is when you start calling people 'Hitler' due to their positions relative to people who are committing genocide that things get fuzzy. Things get very fuzzy if you call even all politicians who do not openly oppose what Israel has been doing in Gaza 'Hitler', e.g. Harris or Machado.

...

Instead of calling people 'Hitler' when the comparisons with Hitler may not be entirely accurate, why not use a term that is more to the point, such as 'génocidaire'? Of course, the reason why is that there is a certain rhetorical edge to Hitler-comparisons that more accurate descriptors lack that those making the comparisons seek to leverage.

Well, yes. The point is to reproach them for their evil actions by making a true but unflattering comparison, i.e. Harris has supported sending weapons, and Machado supports the genocide. No one thought Trotsky was literally Napoleon.

The point is to ensure that supporting genocide comes with the social cost of inviting comparisons with one of the most evil men of history. That's how it should be.

The problem I should note with 'dead is dead' statements is that things get vague very fast, because then things such as deaths in combat, deaths from famines resulting from economic mismanagement, and deaths due to judicial capital punishment after a fair trial become effectively equated with deaths from genocide, which is not very useful.

Technically, Israel has used high tech methods as well. They have made their genocidal intentions clear many times. I assumed the consequence of industrialization is that a large percentage is killed.

If 'dead is dead', for instance, Winston Churchill should be regarded on the same level as Adolf Hitler, even though the Bengal Famine is probably best regarded as a case of tragic mismanagement rather than deliberate genocide.

It wasn't that tragic for the British, who very much enjoyed apparently having their hands tied. It was punishment for the liberation struggle that had been ongoing for decades by that point.

[rotting bones]

And yet you've ignored all the perfectly good points people have made, and only respond to the quips, to say they are lacking as serious statements. This behaviour doesn't tend to make you any friends, or even convince anyone but yourself.

I have explained my positions in great detail. I just did it again. I've rarely seen humans be moved by that.

[Lērisama]

And yet you've ignored all the perfectly good points people have made, and only respond to the quips, to say they are lacking as serious statements. This behaviour doesn't tend to make you any friends, or even convince anyone but yourself.

I have explained my positions in great detail. I just did it again. I've rarely seen humans be moved by that.

It wasn't the explanation I was faulting. It was the lack of meaningful response to other people's attempts to make conversation about them.

[rotting bones]

It wasn't the explanation I was faulting. It was the lack of meaningful response to other people's attempts to make conversation about them.

What are you referring to? I have addressed every point that has been raised.

[Travis B.]

There are a very large number of blatantly obvious differences between the two — it’s past midnight here so I shan’t give a full list, but I’m sure that everyone here is fully capable of working them out on their own.

The problem is when you start calling people 'Hitler' due to their positions relative to people who are committing genocide that things get fuzzy. Things get very fuzzy if you call even all politicians who do not openly oppose what Israel has been doing in Gaza 'Hitler', e.g. Harris or Machado.

...

Instead of calling people 'Hitler' when the comparisons with Hitler may not be entirely accurate, why not use a term that is more to the point, such as 'génocidaire'? Of course, the reason why is that there is a certain rhetorical edge to Hitler-comparisons that more accurate descriptors lack that those making the comparisons seek to leverage.

Well, yes. The point is to reproach them for their evil actions by making a true but unflattering comparison, i.e. Harris has supported sending weapons, and Machado supports the genocide. No one thought Trotsky was literally Napoleon.

The point is to ensure that supporting genocide comes with the social cost of inviting comparisons with one of the most evil men of history. That's how it should be.

The problem is then you have to justify why they are comparable to one of the most evil men of history, which either makes your comparison seem false or reduces how evil said evil man of history is seen as being.

The problem I should note with 'dead is dead' statements is that things get vague very fast, because then things such as deaths in combat, deaths from famines resulting from economic mismanagement, and deaths due to judicial capital punishment after a fair trial become effectively equated with deaths from genocide, which is not very useful.

Technically, Israel has used high tech methods as well. They have made their genocidal intentions clear many times. I assumed the consequence of industrialization is that a large percentage is killed.

I was not really speaking about Israel here but about other cases such as Rwanda or Cambodia and how those genocides probably should be distinguished from the Holocaust even though 'dead is dead'.

If 'dead is dead', for instance, Winston Churchill should be regarded on the same level as Adolf Hitler, even though the Bengal Famine is probably best regarded as a case of tragic mismanagement rather than deliberate genocide.

It wasn't that tragic for the British, who very much enjoyed apparently having their hands tied. It was punishment for the liberation struggle that had been ongoing for decades by that point.

It is true that Churchill himself did not seem that sad about the Bengal Famine (cf. his comment about why Gandhi hadn't died yet), but at the same time from my reading it appears that the Bengal Famine was not planned out as a deliberate genocide per se (and after all, genocides require a genocidal mens rea).

[zompist]

The problem I should note with 'dead is dead' statements is that things get vague very fast, because then things such as deaths in combat, deaths from famines resulting from economic mismanagement, and deaths due to judicial capital punishment after a fair trial become effectively equated with deaths from genocide, which is not very useful.

Law already has the distinctions you're looking for— e.g. murder vs. involuntary manslaughter vs, negligence.

If 'dead is dead', for instance, Winston Churchill should be regarded on the same level as Adolf Hitler, even though the Bengal Famine is probably best regarded as a case of tragic mismanagement rather than deliberate genocide.

As Amartya Sen has documented, famines in India were routine under British rule, basically nonexistent after independence. And that includes the decades when India was extremely poor and underdeveloped.

When you get to two centuries of famine, with millions of Bengalis killed at both the beginning and end of the Raj, it doesn't look so good for Britain. They let millions die because of extractive policies, enforced underdevelopment, greed, incompetence, and just not caring. It wasn't "deliberate"? It was the result of policy choices made over 200 years.

And if that makes Churchill less of a hero, too bad.

[Travis B.]

The problem I should note with 'dead is dead' statements is that things get vague very fast, because then things such as deaths in combat, deaths from famines resulting from economic mismanagement, and deaths due to judicial capital punishment after a fair trial become effectively equated with deaths from genocide, which is not very useful.

Law already has the distinctions you're looking for— e.g. murder vs. involuntary manslaughter vs, negligence.

If 'dead is dead', for instance, Winston Churchill should be regarded on the same level as Adolf Hitler, even though the Bengal Famine is probably best regarded as a case of tragic mismanagement rather than deliberate genocide.

As Amartya Sen has documented, famines in India were routine under British rule, basically nonexistent after independence. And that includes the decades when India was extremely poor and underdeveloped.

When you get to two centuries of famine, with millions of Bengalis killed at both the beginning and end of the Raj, it doesn't look so good for Britain. They let millions die because of extractive policies, enforced underdevelopment, greed, incompetence, and just not caring. It wasn't "deliberate"? It was the result of policy choices made over 200 years.

And if that makes Churchill less of a hero, too bad.

Oh, the British Raj was certainly responsible for the cycles of famine over its entire duration ─ but it wasn't genocide because it lacked a genocidal mens rea, i.e. a deliberate attempt to destroy or reduce the population of, in whole or in part, an ethnic, ethnoreligious, national, or racial group as such.

Contrast this with the current Gaza genocide, which most certainly has a genocidal mens rea, as the Israeli government has acted in a deliberate manner to destroy the Palestinian population within Gaza as such.

And yes, Churchill was not a good guy ─ but at the same time, one should not ascribe a genocidal mens rea to people who do/did not have one. This is the same reason why I do not consider Mao to be a génocidaire for the Great Leap Foward despite its utterly horrific death toll, because as bad as Mao was, he still did not seek to destroy any particular ethnic/ethnoreligious/national/racial group as such.

[rotting bones]

Oh, the British Raj was certainly responsible for the cycles of famine over its entire duration ─ but it wasn't genocide because it lacked a genocidal mens rea, i.e. a deliberate attempt to destroy or reduce the population of, in whole or in part, an ethnic, ethnoreligious, national, or racial group as such.

Although they were primarily interested in exploiting colonial subjects to increase their wealth, they did want to punish Indians to maintain racial discipline. The British upper class is sinister in very different ways than most people. Don't fall for their fake gentility.

I don't understand the point of drawing all these hyperfine distinctions. If every event that can be distinguished from another deserves a different word, then language would be impossible. In the present situation, what purpose is served by this opposition to drawing comparisons? If you think preserving Hitler's bad reputation takes precedence over doing all we can do delegitimize those calling for genocide today, that devalues Palestinian life.

[bradrn]

Contrast this with the current Gaza genocide, which most certainly has a genocidal mens rea, as the Israeli government has acted in a deliberate manner to destroy the Palestinian population within Gaza as such.

This is false — as shown by many facts, including most recently that they have now stopped the war, because they reached an agreement that allows them to achieve their war goals, which had nothing to do with genocide. If Gaza counts as a genocide then Bengal certainly does too. But then, I’ve had this conversation many times now, and I don’t expect that this round would go any differently, so having said my piece I’ll leave it at that.

[rotting bones]

This is false — as shown by many facts, including most recently that they have now stopped the war, because they reached an agreement that allows them to achieve their war goals, which had nothing to do with genocide. If Gaza counts as a genocide then Bengal certainly does too. But then, I’ve had this conversation many times now, and I don’t expect that this round would go any differently, so having said my piece I’ll leave it at that.

I hope you're right. There have been ceasefires before. This conflict has been going on long before this war started. Before the act of terrorism conducted by Hamas on civilians on Oct 7, Palestinians were saying that because of recent Israeli aggressions, they thought the end was near for them. If you think Israelis have good intentions, consider this poll: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/64 ... ll/3594355#

[keenir]

Harris
[snip]
I don't understand the point of drawing all these hyperfine distinctions. If every event that can be distinguished from another deserves a different word, then language would be impossible. In the present situation, what purpose is served by this opposition to drawing comparisons? If you think preserving Hitler's bad reputation takes precedence over doing all we can do delegitimize those calling for genocide today, that devalues Palestinian life.

Do you see a difference between those "calling for genocide" and those supporting an ally who is themselves engaged in genocide? (and does it matter if the support is because of or despite that genociding? ie, in the US, support of Israel is pretty much automatic among politicians)

Imagine if, during the height of the tension between Iran and Israel not that long ago, President Trump had said "What Israel's doing is bad very wrong" and then essentially said "and I'm going to let Iran have a free hand in stopping Israel. I might help them stop the bad stuff."

Would that've gotten your approval?

[rotting bones]

Do you see a difference between those "calling for genocide" and those supporting an ally who is themselves engaged in genocide? (and does it matter if the support is because of or despite that genociding? ie, in the US, support of Israel is pretty much automatic among politicians)

My standard is to think of what I'd say if it had been Hitler. Let's say Germany had a long term ally. After Hitler came to power, the Nazis publicly boasted of exterminating the Jews. When they needed more bullets, this ally sent Hitler the bullets he needed to commit genocide. Would I say this ally is guilty of genocide? Yes.

I think this is a general principle. If your friend turns out to be a serial killer, handing him the knife makes you guilty.

Imagine if, during the height of the tension between Iran and Israel not that long ago, President Trump had said "What Israel's doing is bad very wrong" and then essentially said "and I'm going to let Iran have a free hand in stopping Israel. I might help them stop the bad stuff."

Would that've gotten your approval?

It depends. Wasn't Israel the aggressor in that war? Are you referring to a situation where Trump affirmed Iran's right to defend itself against aggression, or egged them on to attack Israeli civilians in retaliation?

[zompist]

Oh, the British Raj was certainly responsible for the cycles of famine over its entire duration ─ but it wasn't genocide because it lacked a genocidal mens rea, i.e. a deliberate attempt to destroy or reduce the population of, in whole or in part, an ethnic, ethnoreligious, national, or racial group as such.

Contrast this with the current Gaza genocide, which most certainly has a genocidal mens rea, as the Israeli government has acted in a deliberate manner to destroy the Palestinian population within Gaza as such.

I'll grant you the particular horror of what you're calling a genocidal mens rea, though I'd probably just call it a "deliberate genocide". It's the same difference between a man who murders another in cold blood, and a man who lets an unknown person drown in his pool because there's no railing. Deliberate intent to kill someone harmless is absolutely chiling.

At the same time, insisting on this distinction too much strikes me as letting people off the hook who don't deserve it.

One, it's an excuse, and we can mistrust excuses for actions that lead to millions of deaths. "We just didn't know that radium paint causes disease"— OK, maybe they really didn't. "We just didn't know that famines are preventable"— no, I don't buy that, the Raj was worse than previous and later Indian states; they just didn't care. (Nor is it just racism; they did the same to Ireland.) A policy of enforced underdevelopment is as destructive as a deliberate genocide. The fact that leaders had rationalizations for their policies just makes them worse. A ruling class that's designed to be incompetent doesn't get to use incompetence as an excuse.

Two, it's poor ethics to invent condemnations that apply only to people we dislike. The "it's just policy" form of mass death is the sort that countries like the UK and UK (and many more) are likely to commit.

Mao is an interesting case, because he did accomplish something that no one else had been able to do for China. Then, convinced of his utter superiority, he twice led his country into purely destructive nonsense. It's not helpful to say he's "just like Hitler", sure. But he was like Hitler in his inciting mass death for his personal whims and his conviction of his own genius; he was unlike Hitler in other ways, e.g. in leaving his country far better off than when he started.

[Lērisama]

It wasn't the explanation I was faulting. It was the lack of meaningful response to other people's attempts to make conversation about them.

What are you referring to? I have addressed every point that has been raised.

I was trying to be helpful, and I've clearly failed, so I'm going to stop now. Sorry for wasting you time on the metaärgument.