Hot Take: Nazis were not evil for their time.

I said the Holocaust was wrong and evil. I said the Nazis believed what they did was bettering humanity based on bad science

 

Most people do but are afraid of cancel culture. I guess now it’s evil to try to empathize with historical villains.

 

And everyone else on this thread has said that your second premise is utter bullshit.

 

Yeah that’s justifying murder. It was wrong in its own time based on scientific understanding then too. There’s a reason I brought up the US. They knew straight up genocide was evil. Because it wouldn’t work. So you are defending the Holocaust by saying “they thought what they were doing was right because the science said so”.

 

The US sterilized blacks and dropped atomic bombs on civilian cities. All the actors in WW2 were villains. There were toxic ideas and pseudo science that led to the horrors of WW2

 

Yup. And Are you trying to whataboutism your own thread?

 

Well. Where you will upset the right is that to truly practice eugenics you also have to encourage pre natal screening etc etc etc and of course allow for and even encourage abortion of those foetuses that are not “perfect”

 

Two wrongs do not make a right and we are supposed to be waking up to what IS right and moving forward not backward

 

What gets me is that the SAME poster started a thread on how we “should save rape babies”

 

No??? You might want to review your posts then

 

Lmao, keep moving goal posts. We should use Allies as a slur to discredit people. But alas nazi is the epitome of evil thinking according to the left with no moral complexity.

 

You DO realise that if they are for eugenics then they will be FOR abortion don’t you - and in fact they would even be for forced abortion or euthanasia of babies that do not meet the “ideal”

 

I am against nazism. I am against abortion. I do not feel brainwashed masses are evil for doing either.

 

Sooooo now you are “against Nazis” having started a thread how they “had some good ideas”. Pity the truth of Eurgenics is that it carries a terrible terrible price - and who is to say who should die and who should live?


Under Eugenics TV personality Alex Brooker would not have been allowed to live - neither would Australian Comedian Adam Hills who was born without a right foot

Who decides who is “worthy” of life?

 

I never said the Nazis had good ideas, stop putting words in my mouth.

 

They were just 'misguided,' right? Damn you, science!

 

Thread title

Hot Take: Nazis were not evil for their time.

 

Anyone trying to exterminate entire races if people what ever there lame justification may be or what ever time frame they existed or what ever race they wanted to exterminate is evil. Or evil has no definition. The fact that there were a lot of evil bastards about at the time makes it no less evil.

 

The truth is the best disinfectant for falsehoods. People exist out there irrespective of whether we let them speak, I am of the view that we're better off engaging and exposing them to arguments contrary to their bubble.

I've talked to fascist apologists, I've talked to hard-line communists who are arguing for my immediate summary execution in the discussion. I feel I have gotten something out of even these discussions.

At the very least, know thy enemy.

 

The hottest of hot takes.

 

Killing on a large scale was always condemned. Nazis tried to hide their crimes - they knew what they did was inexcusable.

 

History is written by the victor. Keep telling yourself that.

 

Aquarius', in my opinion, has cogently made the point that within academia, public health agencies, and polite society, genocide lite was the western zeitgeist in the first half of the 20th century. Nazi's, Progressives, and eugenicists all spoke the same language, they accepted as axiomatic "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

“It is better for all the world if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…
Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” ~Oliver Wendell Holmes

Discussions about the need for social engineering to correct the hereditary flaws within the lesser segments of society were the norm. The elite and the political class in America and the West crafted policies and laws to remove the hereditary defects from society. The "feeble-minded" as defined in the early 20th included promiscuous women, and women pregnant out of wedlock thousands were institutionalized and sterilized.

Forced and coerced sterilization, American sterilization, became law. Its intent is genocidal. The only difference between Progressive sterilization programs through the 1960s and the Nazi's "final solution" was the timeline. The Nazis were just impatient Progressives.

So, Aquarius has a point. It was accepted science, in our political discourse, and in the talk of polite society.

Cheers,

Labour

 

Perhaps it depends on what name you give selective breeding.
Eugenics carries a shade of manipulation which results in negative outcomes, and is avoided as a term for its connections with its use by Nazis.

Selective breeding has indeed been practised long before someone codified it.
(Mendel)
https://knowgenetics.org/mendelian-genetics/

By 1890 something, animal breeders were using mendelian genetics but there hadn't been enough selective breeding by then to produce the negative results so often seen later.
Today we know enough to avoid certain crosses and are far better informed about what genes, chromosomes and alleles do.
Unfortunately those who bred dogs still ignore the warnings and are producing animals to some agreed preferences (canine breed clubs) and are producing dogs which cannot breathe, reproduce naturally, have joint or organ difficulties and are impossibly tiny (teacup dogs).

Science doesn't disprove eugenics. But society does BECAUSE of better science.

The eugenics that supported the Nazi principle of ethnic cleansing was crude and directed towards a certain end. Other countries didn't steer their research toward that end. Nor did they carry out that research in the same despicable manner.

Like any tool, it can be used for positive or negative results. That is why governments have passed laws to make certain research and practice illegal.

The OP, I am afraid, doesn't make sense.

 

The only acceptable reason to apply eugenics is the elimination of genetic defects.