Activism

[pontalba]

Couldn't Nazis be considered activists on the radical right? So then, banning activism would mean banning all Nazi activity.

Nazis were thugs led by a charismatic madman. Nothing would have stopped them, in fact they were illegal at some point, so banning was a moot point.
The definition of activism granted does not say vigorous action for the betterment of society, but IMO is implied.

And the comparison of well, on this hand we give women the vote, or we'll have 12 million people murdered horribly, was just too much for me.

JMO

 

[novella]

The crimes of the Nazi party were carried out by Germany's military and by paid government servants. Equating those crimes in anyway with activism is like saying every registered Democrat in the US is an antiwar activist. Everyone who silently agreed to stand by and do nothing (as in Nazi Germany) is by definition NOT an activist. Applying this word to the Nazis at all makes no sense to me.

 

[veggiedog]

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
activism - The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.

How do the Nazis not fit into this definition? Whether the definition implies or does not imply a good cause is not really relevant to the stated definition. Many Nazis thought that they were actually doing a good thing for society.

As far as I know, there was no distinct, written international law in place banning the action of the Nazis, as the League of Nations had dissolved. If there had been one, perhaps other nations would have taken a more proactive move to stop them. If there was such a law, then why didn't they?

The Nazis were not always in control of the German government. They gained power over time by gaining support through activism: speeches, demonstrations, propaganda. Had they not gained such power, there would have been no Holocaust, which I agree was carried out by the government.

I am by no means saying that all of the people of Germany who did nothing were activists. They were not Nazis unless they were in support of the Nazis. Just because they remained silent does not mean that they were, indeed, in support of the Nazis. Most of them were not.

I will leave Carrot to explain the analogy between women's suffrage and the Holocaust as I do not understand it myself. And by no means do I believe that activism should be banned, because it has clearly given us many rights and privileges that we cherish.

 

[novella]

Because the activist is an individual who chooses to take those actions. A person compelled by the mandate of a gov't is not an activist, though they may be acting. The soldiers in Iraq are not activists who support the war, they are tools of the gov't.

 

[ylris611203]

Because the activist is an individual who chooses to take those actions. A person compelled by the mandate of a gov't is not an activist, though they may be acting. The soldiers in Iraq are not activists who support the war, they are tools of the gov't.

May be not.

 

[StillILearn]

May be not.

Maybe not what, Chris? More words are needed here, please. So that we can tell what you are meaning to be saying?

 

[Libre]

Hitler absolutely WAS an activist. He started by speaking in beer halls. He was an untra conservative (big surprise). And the downtrodden masses, made even more miserable by their failure in WWI and their terrible economy, listened, as Hitler preached that it was the Jews and Foreigners that were responsible for their problems.
The prevailing government at the time was first annoyed and then terrified by him and his followers, as they grew in number and influence. They tried him for treason, jailed him, tried to silence him, and did everything to make him go away. But Hitler would not go away, the Nazis continued to organize, found ways to gain power, took over seats in the government, and eventually Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg in 1933.

OF COURSE Hitler and the Nazis were activists - as much as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. It's absurd to deny it. To say

Nazis were thugs led by a charismatic madman.

does nothing except substitute one word for another and changes nothing.
Had they succeded - and they very nearly did - who knows but Adolph could be thought of as the George Washington of his time and I would not be alive now because my parents would have been gassed. As many of my wife's aunts and relatives in Poland, but thankfully not her mother who barely escaped as a child.

So, where does that leave this discussion?
It illustrates that not all change is for the better, and not all activists are well meaning. It illustrates it in a stark and horrible way - but that's history.

And that's what women getting the vote has to do with the holocaust. Should we ban activism? OF COURSE NOT! But we must know the difference between the good ones and the bad ones - and the dangerous ones.

 

[SFG75]

I don’t believe that there is anything as a truly altruistic act.

And that is my point exactly. Yes, we have people who are virtual saints, and I would maintain that even the title of saint is enough to taint....just a little bit.......the actions of a person.

It seams to me that what ever religion or system of ethics used and whatever political stance they take every human on the planet thinks that they are doing “the best” for themselves AND for the people around them.

True, an individual who desires to help the poor does so through how they see fit. It's their plan that is implemented, and the argument is framed how they want it.

 

[SFG75]

Somehow the term "ACTIVISTS" connotes a person as liberal (or at least non-conservative), and if mis-guided, at least their hearts are in the right place.
Not always.

Just to give an example of "liberal" activists causijng harm in a different way. Many of the famous suffragists were noted for their support for segregation, eugenics, and anti-semitism. No one is perfect in all of their activists belief, but that is expecting perfection in a person-something which we really shouldn't hold against activists, no matter what their stripe.

 

[Libre]

The only positive thing I can say about (nearly) all activists, is that they stand for something. They are - by definition - involved. At least they are not lulled into a robotic acceptance of the status quo. They put at least a little fear into the ruling class - the rich and powerful, who would run rampant over all of us, unchecked. They do it anyway, but at least the activists give them the feeling that SOMEBODY is looking over their shoulders.
By and large, activism is a good thing for society. The activists provide the spark for debate and growth, even though many of them are actually clueless.
This view may be in direct opposition to my original premise, but that was so long ago I don't remember.

 

[StillILearn]

SFG75 = ... the title of saint is enough to taint

This turn of phrase is very nearly enough to make me forgive you your cigars, SFG.

Libre = This view may be in direct opposition to my original premise, but that was so long ago I don't remember.

Any chance of getting you to restate your original premise, Libre? In different words? If only to get people like me back on track?

 

[Halo]

the title of saint is enough to taint

Are you sure that's not a Morrissey lyric? (If it isn't, it should be.)

 

[StillILearn]

Are you sure that's not a Morrissey lyric? (If it isn't, it should be.)

I don't suppose you'd -- no, I can tell by your face that you wouldn't. .

I'd say more, but you get the general idea.

 

[Libre]

Any chance of getting you to restate your original premise, Libre? In different words? If only to get people like me back on track?

Nah.
Whatever I said was probably bulldinky anyway. At least, that's what novella and shade said. That much I do remember.

 

[StillILearn]

Nah.
Whatever I said was probably bulldinky anyway. At least, that's what novella and shade said. That much I do remember.

Well, it was good, viscous bulldinky. And we all had a grand old time sliding around in it.