this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
393 points (95.6% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2692 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Palestinians, as well as some left-wing Jews, are being suspended from studies, fired from jobs, or arrested at night — all because of social media posts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They literally targeted Roman Catholics because the feared they wouldn't be loyal to the state.

[–] _cnt0@feddit.de -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's simply not true. They didn't target Catholics, they targeted parts of the Catholic church (the institution) for political opposition. That's a very different thing.

[–] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it isn't. When you go after a Church to limit its voice in society you are attacking the faithful. Targeting the church IS going after Catholics.

[–] _cnt0@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe from a revisionist perspective. ~20% of NSDAP members were Catholic. Keep in mind that the NSDAP was founded in deeply Catholic Bavaria. ~400 Catholic priests from Germany ended up in concentration camps, out of 20.000. It was no attack on the Catholic church, but on individuals within the church who publicly opposed the Nazis. That's political persecution, not religious persecution. Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism.

95% of the German population was either Catholic or Protestant. And so was the NSDAP and their voter base. It tilted more to Protestants, but Catholics were not excluded. The Reichskonkordat benefitted the Protestant and Catholic churches equally.

This is more of a reply to everybody and not just your comment specifically. Where do you people think the antisemitism in 1930s Germany came from? Hitler and the NSDAP came around and turned "everybody" into anti-Semites? No. The Christian antisemitism was already there and the NSDAP tapped into it. Especially, but not limited to, from the Protestant side: Martin Luther was a raging anti-Semite. Pogroms had been taking place all over Europe for hundreds of years before the NSDAP arrived. The NSDAP "only" brought it to the next level. The entire anti-Semite NSDAP movement was deeply rooted in Christianity. If any Christian individual was persecuted by the Nazi regime it was for political opposition, not for their Christianity. If a fringe Christian sect was persecuted by the Nazis, they were persecuted by other flavors of Christianity! That the Nazis (who were by and large Christians) persecuted Christians for being Christians is complete revisionist nonsense!

Remember the past or you are condemned to repeat it!

[–] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact they targeted Catholics. The GOP has gay members yet it is 100% accurate to say the GOP does not believe gay people should have equal rights with straight people, so even though the GOP is targeting gay people they still have gay members.

Catholics being part of the Nazi party doesn't have the significance you think it does.

As n aside why are you calling them anything other than the Nazi party? I get NSDAP was the name they preferred but why grant Nazis respect?

[–] _cnt0@feddit.de -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact they targeted Catholics.

Nonsense.

The GOP has gay members yet it is 100% accurate to say the GOP does not believe gay people should have equal rights with straight people, so even though the GOP is targeting gay people they still have gay members.

Straw man.

Catholics being part of the Nazi party doesn't have the significance you think it does.

Lie: 20% Catholics in the party is significantly more than the one or two alibi open homosexuals in the GOP.

As n aside why are you calling them anything other than the Nazi party? I get NSDAP was the name they preferred but why grant Nazis respect?

Diversion.

All the numbers and historical circumstances I layed out are easily verifiable facts. Your compulsive urge to cling to a false narrative in the presence of irrefutible evidence and attempt to dance around that by picking out fragments of what I said and attempting to ridicule everything by extension is preposterous. And everybody with the reading comprehension of a high schooler should see right through it. I'm out of your bad faith (or ignorant) excuse for a conversation.

[–] Peaty@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You should not list off rhetorical fallacies as a response unless you are certain you understand them. You have been incorrect about both.

The example of the GOP is not a straw man as it is an identical situation to the Nazis in that the targeted group also has members within the group. You don't know what a straw man argument is and you proved it here.

You should probably stop here since you haven't provided any evidence that supports your claims while simultaneously showing a startlingly poor understanding of reasoning.