Don't we call them the police department today?the Hitler Youth,
The point you made was...
Except, the problem is that hippies were not anywhere near wanting to use fascist tactics to get people to agree with them. People who want to use violence against another for their speech, and nothing more is fascist. That puts those people on a very different level than "people who haven't experienced much in life have ideas I don't agree with."
You tell me how hippies and people agreeing with literal fascist tactics are equal in any meaningful way and I will agree that I was wrong.
I'm commenting on this being yet another in a long line of threads and freak outs related to OMG the youth of America have lost their minds. Honestly the subject is pretty immaterial because I wasn't directly commenting on the poll.
As to the specific poll do you think the % is very different if you polled people 40-50?
Then I suppose Trump is not all that bad, as he is just yet another in a long line of Presidents that the people on the other side say is bad for the US and the world.
Unless... its the logic and reasons behind the claims that make Trump different. It could also be true that the logic behind why these people who believe using violence to stop speech are different from hippies.
So which is it?
Again you're making an argument I'm not making. So I'm going to say carry on having debates with the other voices in your head.
Good luck hope you win!
Yep, that is one of the signs of a person you don't want to have unchecked power and probably should never vote someone like that into office.
Not sure what that has to do with murdering people for ideas. Care to explain why the precursors of fascism has anything to do with what I said?
Because fascism always ends in violence even if it starts with speech. The problems in Germany in 1915 are very similar to the problems in america in 2015. We cannot allow this thought to take hold in our population. We know better.
I realize this may be complicated for you, but just breath and think.
cute.
You can fcuk right off.
Nazis and racists are gonna get beat up. And racists and nazis are gonna actually kill people.
Not if you murder them first right tough guy.
The author's commentary on that point:
'These results are notable for several reasons. First, the fraction of students who view the use of violence as acceptable is extremely high. While percentages in the high teens and 20s are “low” relative to what they could be, it’s important to remember that this question is asking about the acceptability of committing violence in order to silence speech. Any number significantly above zero is concerning.'
I think the author's conclusions in the above paragraph are misleading, to say the least.
Let me address two points he made:
"First, the fraction of students who view the use of violence as acceptable is extremely high."
That's a rather nebulous statement without a damned bit of meaning. The fraction is high compared to what?
And the answer the author's provides shows us his stupidity: "Any number significantly above zero is concerning."
That the "proper" percentage is zero, for some unknown reason, suggests he feels the general population is at zero, otherwise why would the author peg "any number above zero" as "concerning" and "extremely high" without believing the general population is actually at zero? Or does he think that college students are somehow magically transcended away from their upbringing, biases, beliefs when they set foot on a college campus?
The only way this poll would be worthwhile is if it had some context, such as contrasting the percentage of the general pop. that found violence was acceptable to stop speech with the numbers found in the smaller subset of college students.
Aand then if it were found the college students had a higher percentage than the general population, then yes, the information is useful.
Otherwise, it's just a data point without context, rendering it damned near meaningless.
Glad no one lost money on this "survey" outside the Charles Koch Foundation, which paid for it.
And I'm glad no non-citizens were included in the poll because, as the author put it:
"The survey was limited to students who indicated that they are U.S. citizens (this is relevant because non-citizens, particularly those who have very recently arrived in the U.S., cannot be expected to have as full an understanding of the First Amendment as U.S. citizens)."
What a moronic putz.
Not if you murder them first right tough guy.
Those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it...
Hitler's vitriolic beer hall speeches began attracting regular audiences. He became adept at using populist themes, including the use of scapegoats, who were blamed for his listeners' economic hardships.[97][98][99] Hitler used personal magnetism and an understanding of crowd psychology to his advantage while engaged in public speaking.[100][101] Historians have noted the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups.[102] Alfons Heck, a former member of the Hitler Youth, later recalled:
'These results are notable for several reasons. First, the fraction of students who view the use of violence as acceptable is extremely high. While percentages in the high teens and 20s are “low” relative to what they could be, it’s important to remember that this question is asking about the acceptability of committing violence in order to silence speech. Any number significantly above zero is concerning.'
I think the author's conclusions in the above paragraph are misleading, to say the least.
Let me address two points he made:
"First, the fraction of students who view the use of violence as acceptable is extremely high."
That's a rather nebulous statement without a damned bit of meaning. The fraction is high compared to what?
And the answer the author's provides shows us his stupidity: "Any number significantly above zero is concerning."
That the "proper" percentage is zero, for some unknown reason, suggests he feels the general population is at zero, otherwise why would the author peg "any number above zero" as "concerning" and "extremely high" without believing the general population is actually at zero? Or does he think that college students are somehow magically transcended away from their upbringing, biases, beliefs when they set foot on a college campus?
The only way this poll would be worthwhile is if it had some context, such as contrasting the percentage of the general pop. that found violence was acceptable to stop speech with the numbers found in the smaller subset of college students.
Aand then if it were found the college students had a higher percentage than the general population, then yes, the information is useful.
Otherwise, it's just a data point without context, rendering it damned near meaningless.
Glad no one lost money on this "survey" outside the Charles Koch Foundation, which paid for it.
And I'm glad no non-citizens were included in the poll because, as the author put it:
"The survey was limited to students who indicated that they are U.S. citizens (this is relevant because non-citizens, particularly those who have very recently arrived in the U.S., cannot be expected to have as full an understanding of the First Amendment as U.S. citizens)."
What a moronic putz.
Well it got the op and another poster freaked the heck out. Amazing how none of the people having a freak out can actually put the poll in context with the general population which could be a meaningful result.
we used to do that to stop them from murdering other people, not because they had bad ideas. History, its a sonbitch.
I'm not sure which side you are trying to argue with this response. Hitler used violence to stop speech he didn't like.
and yet it is overwhelmingly true, through the preponderance of evidence, that Hitler and Nazi ideas are wholly intolerable. There is no "Oh gee, maybe they have a point" to be had with nazis. There is no "let's just let them have their say, because it might make me think."
None.
How the fuck did none of you dildos learn this the first time? Is it just because you weren't there?
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Mayers records that despite "his hostility towards Nazi antisemitism … [it's unfortunate that he made] claims that 'Hitlerism' was a form of Judaism, and that the Jews were partly responsible for race theory."[42] In The Judaism of Hitler Chesterton wrote "Hitlerism is almost entirely of Jewish origin."[42] In A Queer Choice Chesterton maintained that the only possible source of "the Hitlerites" idea of "a Chosen Race" was "from the Jews."[42] In The Crank Chesterton went on to say: "If there is one outstanding quality in Hitlerism it is its Hebraism" and "the new Nordic Man has all the worst faults of the worst Jews: jealousy, greed, the mania of conspiracy, and above all, the belief in a Chosen Race."[42]
and we've come full circle.
conservatives will argue in defense of nazis. not surprised. We need a lot of greatest generationers to climb out of their graves and school you little bitches about the way the world works.
and who is this little Chesterton dillhole and why is he smarter than Karl Popper?
Tolerating the intolerant is exactly how Nazis happened, you dildohead.
again: why the fuck do you refuse to learn the facts of history that you are supposed to learn? Why is this so fucking difficult?