OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

What About Hitler?

Entry 2271, on 2023-04-27 at 18:05:54 (Rating 4, Politics)

I recently engaged in a political debate with a friend, which got rather heated, although I was trying to keep to a generally light-hearted tone. It might be characterised as a left versus right disagreement, but I would rather label it as unequivocal versus nuanced, or black and white versus shades of grey.

I'm sure you can guess that it was me who was taking the nuanced view, because I do try to do that as much as possible. While many of my blog posts might be seen as controversial, because they disagree with what is often seen as the prevailing view, I don't think they are extreme, except when I deliberately engage in a rant, which I generally acknowledge as such at some point in the post.

The specific subject for this debate was the character of certain public figures, and whether they can be dismissed due to inherent character flaws. The characters included Donald Trump, local ex-National candidate, Stephen Jack, and (of course it just had to go here) Hitler!

So let's start with the least obnoxious (by any reasonable estimation) of those three: Stephen Jack. He was the candidate for the New Zealand National Party, a basically conservative party, for the Taieri electorate. His "crimes" were these: first, he shared a poem which compared our previous Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, to Hitler, and second he shared a rather crude joke.

Here's a few lines from the poem: "Cindy's showing us her colours; we know why she chose red. She started out a communist and lately this has spread" and "Just as Hitler had the SS, our prime minister's on the job. She's given up on the police and bought the Mongrel Mob."

However bad you might think Ardern was (and I think there is a case to say she was one of our worst leaders ever) no one seriously believes she was as bad as Hitler. This is clearly a rhetorical point to emphasise her tyrannical tendencies, and it seems like perfectly fair political commentary to me.

And the second was also a less than serious video which he shared three years ago. It included the joke: "I like my COVID like I like my women. 19. And easy to spread."

OK, it's not the most tasteful or sophisticated joke I've ever heard, but is this really so bad? And it wasn't even him who originally posted it, that was a farmer, the type of person Jack might be most interested in representing.

Jack resigned after these incidents were publicised in the media, and the implication was that, if he hadn't done that, he would have been fired. The National Party leader appears to be taking a very cautious approach to issues of political correctness, so it's no surprise that he might have wanted to be seen to be taking this seriously.

So in this debate my opponent was fully supportive of the need for him to resign, but I said that, while I agree that neither incident indicated a high degree of political sophistication or awareness, they were both incredibly trivial, and that sort of humour is commonly shared amongst people on social media with no real bad intent to the targets of the jokes.

As I said, many people would share those jokes and quite enjoy the humour in them, so why would someone who also has those opinions not be suitable as a representative of them in government? My opponent might not share their taste in humour, but that doesn't mean they were harmful to any real extent.

But no, she was determined that there was no place for those views, and the people who promote them, in modern society or in positions of leadership, were irredeemable scum. She saw the whole thing in a very absolutist way, with no room for compromise.

Compare this with my view of Marama Davidson, a Green politician with far more potentially harmful views which I discussed in a previous post (tiled "Just Admit You're Wrong" from 2023-04-04). I simply wanted her to admit she was factually wrong. I though she was racist, misandrist, and bigoted, but I still didn't demand she resign or be cancelled, because, while I disagree with almost everything she stands for, I still think people with those views should be allowed representation.

This is what I mean by having a nuanced view or "shades of grey" rather than a black and white, absolutist view. That view is close to tyranny, and that is why comparisons between Hitler and Ardern (another tyrannical absolutist) are fair. Again, I'm not saying Ardern represents anywhere near the level of evil of Hitler, but she does represent that to some extent.

And what about Donald Trump? Again, my opponent had a completely black and white view of him, and refused to entertain any possibility that he might have any positive personality traits, or even that any of his actions of policies might be anything but abhorrent.

My view was that I understood why his personality might make him a difficult person to like, or even tolerate, for some people, but he does have significant support in the US, and some of his actions while president were quite successful.

My opponent claimed that neither he, nor his supporters, deserved representation in government, because they were (to borrow a phrase) "deplorable". Again, an extreme view, but one compared with many other people who have similar political views to her, including some academics I would consider quite intelligent.

After my entreaty to have a more nuanced view, and that no one is purely bad (or purely good) she, rather inevitably given Godwin's Law, asked "what about Hitler?"

Of course, I was half expecting this, and I was prepared for the question. I said, "sure, Hitler had some terrible personality attributes, and he did some good things too". Needless to say she was stunned by this and demanded clarification.

So I listed the following positives about Hitler: he was dedicated to building the autobahn which created thousands of jobs; he passed anti-smoking campaigns, saving many lives; he passed animal rights and protection laws; he offered financial assistance to families; he banned human zoos; he passed ecological laws to beautify the country and protect animal habitats, and might be seen as an environmentalist; he introduced recycling and anti-litter laws; he thought of the VW Beetle, which was the people's car; he passed paid vacation laws for workers, and provided free healthcare and insurance to all German families; he taxed bigger businesses and promoted smaller businesses; and he was responsible for German families having homes with electricity and running water.

Many of these are exactly what our previous leftist leader, Ardern, would fully approve of, and my opponent is a great admirer of Ardern. Looking at this, you would say Hitler was a great leader. Of course none of this balances the evil of World War 2 or the Holocaust, but is shows he wasn't *pure* evil. Again, nuance!

I think the difference between her and me is that I hate to be brainwashed, especially by the corrupt and incompetent mainstream media, although (again, here's the nuance) they do also provide a useful service to some degree, as long as you account for their bias.

With many people it's just like there is a trigger. Mention Trump and they immediately think "orange man bad". Ask them why and they'll start mindlessly repeating catchphrases from the mainstream media like "insurrection" or "anti-democratic". Even if you think he was responsible for January 6, and if you think it was an insurrection (it wasn't) there are *still* positive things about Trump you should acknowledge.

Would I support or vote for Stephen Jack? Probably not, in most circumstances, because I'm not a conservative, and have never voted for National. What about Trump? Well, that would depend on the alternatives, but I would honestly consider him instead of Biden. And Hitler? Well, the Hitler question is so much rhetorical rather than genuine that I don't think there is a good answer to that, but based on what we know now, of course I wouldn't.

There's always nuance, and I wish people would acknowledge that. And I wish they would think for themselves instead of sourcing what they think are their opinions from the media.

Comment 1 (7428) by Anonymous on 2023-05-01 at 15:07:46:

Using Hitler to make your argument is a cheap shot, and you know it!

Comment 2 (7429) by OJB on 2023-05-01 at 15:46:01:

Read the post a bit more carefully. It wasn't me who brought up the topic, it was my opponent. I admit, I was glad that she did, because it was a trap and I had the answer I gave above ready. Whether that was a "cheap shot" or not is debatable, but if it was, it was one initiated by her and which I just responded to.

Comment 3 (7432) by Anonymous on 2023-05-04 at 12:40:20:

Sign. Hitler again huh? I really really really do wish people would stop invoking him, you included (you did after all see it appropriate to mention him in this post, even though your opponent first introduced him into the argument. By your admission, you were waiting [possibly hoping?] for it to happen).

A real problem with statements like "Hitler had some terrible personality attributes, and he did some good things too" is that it's hard to imagine a "good thing" that is similar in scale to the "bad things".

You're trying to suggest that the good and bad are in some sort of balance. He was overwhelmingly a bad person, and possible had some small, positive qualities. Sure, he may have been nice to his friends - so what?

Comment 4 (7433) by OJB on 2023-05-04 at 13:39:35:

The point was to choose the one person in history who is commonly thought to be the most evil person ever, and show that, even at that extreme, he wasn't all bad. It could have been Putin, Trump, or another person commonly seen as a "villain". If I can show the "most evil" person had many positive aspects to his life, then it's hard to deny that the same argument can't be applied to everyone.

I agree that invoking Hitler in this way is, in some ways, a trope which is best avoided, which is why I didn't start that part of the debate, but what was I supposed to do? My comment was "everyone has good and bad points"; my opponent said "what about Hitler?"; was I suppose to say "everyone except him". That would weaken my argument, I think.

And, if you look at his good actions I listed above, they go far beyond "being nice to his friends".

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.