NLRB Withdraws Claims That Tim Cook's Anti-Leak Email Violated Labor Laws

[spyguy10709]

Well, the rise of Nazism in Germany didn’t happen in vacuum without any accompanying causes. By the way, the second most popular and powerful party in Germany at the same time was the Stalinist KPD that was also violent and had their own version of brownshirts beating up political opponents. In times of crisis, it’s the moderates who lose.

The press has been engaged in propaganda and advertising rather than reporting for decades, especially nowadays that everything became so polarized. Even factual reporting is rarely objective, as they narrow down on things that support their narrative.

Just look at how a large part of the media conspired to ignore or downplay very obvious signs of Biden’s mental decline, or how Trump can’t do anything wrong on Fox, or going back remember the impressive mental gymnastics that the media was engaging in trying to explain why it was ok for a Secretary of State (what’s called a Foreign Minister in other countries) to solicit multimillion dollar “donations” from foreign countries she was working with. The same media that - rightfully so - called out Trump for accepting an expensive gift from one of the more notorious “donors”.

Just to clarify, you're suggesting the German man, more precisely an Austrian, was... right? or excused?

Please.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

Just to clarify, you're suggesting the German man, more precisely an Austrian, was... right? or excused?

Please.

Even though this is really an attack masquerading as a question, I will still answer in good faith.

I am suggesting that the rise of extremism in Germany was caused by the combination of economic hardship, infighting between more moderate political parties, and corruption and general ineffectiveness of the government of Weimar Republic. People were unhappy with the situation and did not trust the government (which was very far from being perfect or efficient), the media (every newspaper was little less than a propaganda platform for whatever political or influential group paid their bills) or the established political parties. So they turned to the extremists who offered simple fixes to the complex problems, and simple, easy to understand groups of scapegoats "responsible" for these problems.

The Nazis ended up getting upper hand, but if you study German history, it could end up with the Communists winning that race. Still would have been a race to the bottom.

So when you say "right", what exactly do you mean? Were they right when they pointed their fingers at the real problems of Weimar Republic? Or were they right when they placed the blame and offered their solutions? Because both the Nazis and the Commies used the same objective problems and failings of the Republic to promote their ideologies. Which weren't all that different - they just targeted different groups.

 

[spyguy10709]

So when you say "right", what exactly do you mean?

Yeah, same question. Lot of intellectual defense for the indefensible here. Let's go with justified, which you seem to say... he and they were? Incredible.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

Yeah, same question. Lot of intellectual defense for the indefensible here. Let's go with justified, which you seem to say... he and they were? Incredible.

Healthy societies typically don't lead to Nazis or Commies or other extremist totalitarian groups rising to power. Extremism grows in societies that have real problems. Saying that these problems did exist is not defending the extremists.

You're using the ages old middle school tactic of completely twisting somebody's words for a cheap "gotcha" that fools no one.

 

[spyguy10709]

Healthy societies typically don't lead to Nazis or Commies or other extremist totalitarian groups rising to power. Extremism grows in societies that have real problems. Saying that these problems did exist is not defending the extremists.

You're using the ages old middle school tactic of completely twisting somebody's words for a cheap "gotcha" that fools no one.

There’s no “gotcha” other than I was looking for you to explain your actions and thoughts.

Excusing the rise of the Nazi party as some sort of natural or logical consequence of anything other than bigotry and hatred is a fallacy. It’s really strange to come to Macrumors Dot Com to debate the merits of The Austrian Painter, yet here we are.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

There’s no “gotcha” other than I was looking for you to explain your actions and thoughts.

Excusing the rise of the Nazi party as some sort of natural or logical consequence of anything other than bigotry and hatred is a fallacy. It’s really strange to come to Macrumors Dot Com to debate the merits of The Austrian Painter, yet here we are.

What actions? Are you accusing me of some specific actions? On what factual basis? Do elaborate.

The bigotry was an irrational response to actual, real, major problems.

The rise of Nazism didn’t happen overnight.

They were a marginal group until the Great Depression, which hit Germany especially hard because of a combination of factors, some of them self-inflicted.

They used the very real problems of society, some created and others greatly amplified by the Great Depression, to stir up bigotry by blaming “enemies of the people” for these problems, and promising a solution.

The very same approach was used by the Communists, except that they used a somewhat different (yet overlapping) list of scapegoats to push their agenda and attract followers.

Acknowledging the very real problems that led to the majority of German population becoming susceptible to these hate groups is not the same as excusing these groups.

Since I don’t think that you completely lack reading comprehension, your continuing twisting of my point must be deliberate.