| |
| ▲ | lukan 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Mein Kampf was published 1924 and distributed broadly. There was not much hidden, the goal of making a big war in the east to conquer new land for the Aryans was there in big letters in the open. His views towards jews likewise. So they knew. Maybe largely did not wanted to know. And they did celebrate the victories of the german army as their own. They only stopped celebrating after the victories stopped happening and it was more and more clear that the war will be lost. | | |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes. Also, Project 2025 was openly published. Anybody could read it. They aren't hiding the goals. People just don't want to bother with it. | | |
| ▲ | lif 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | PNAC (Project for the New American Century) published an interesting 'report' in 2000 | |
| ▲ | watwut 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, they dont mind it or agree with it. They prioritise harm to who they perceive ennemies and projwct 2025 delivers that. | |
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | chillingeffect 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In their defense, there is an inexhaustable supply of "take over w my ideology material." This is a confluence of many conditions. Some long-focused efforts, some architecting and annealing of interests, some individual greed, some long-lasting effects of trauma, and some massive ignorance. One of the only good points is that the American people are stubbornly allergic to authoritarianism. Yes there are exceptions, but mainly carved out by people trading it for self-interest. Many good surprises like Tucker Carlson's opposition to squashing free speech and the Republican's long-lasting distaste for pedophilia are still out there. The post above pointing out how we're diff to Nazism is on point. There have been many more authoritarian plays since then. Americans remain conveniently ignorant of them. Also we're being economically crushed and everyone feels it. Although racism is a powerful tool by this movement, it's actually centered around impoverishing everyone and the dizzying egos of its leaders. | | |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I like a lot of what you are saying. But sadly I think it is an older view. Maybe this was true in 80's before social media. "American people are stubbornly allergic to authoritarianism" Literally 40%+ of Americans have voted for Authoritarianism. It's viewed as being 'tough'. | | |
| ▲ | exoverito 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is no anti-authoritarian party. Are lockdowns not authoritarian? Do mandates to take an experimental vaccine not violate bodily autonomy? How quickly everyone forgets the widescale censorship and lawfare. Snowden had to flee the country and Chelsea Manning was imprisoned during the Obama presidency. On a more pragmatic level, take the one-party state of California, and the absurd burden of its regulations. These largely prevent the construction of anything new, as seen in the infamous high speed rail project, and the restricted supply of new housing, pricing many young people out of ever owning a home. Perhaps you don't think regulations are authoritarian, yet they're enforced with the power of the state, which wields the monopoly on violence. | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One side wants to impose restrictions to avoid loss of life and breakdown of the hospitals. The other wants some people to not exist anymore and are building camps to accomplish that. Shut the fuck up about both sides being the same. | | |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | And make one side rich. One side: hey lets try to save people. Other side: hey, how can I make rich people more rich at my own expense. Totally equal. |
| |
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "one-party state of California" Or Texas. Lets not forget if we are calling both sides the same. There are states with one party. Alabama? Mississippi? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tobias3 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You had to take him seriously but not literally. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nah, better not literally: " Each
animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the
titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the
field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc." (from Mein Kampf, Chapter 11) But if no one would have taken him serious, there would not have been a problem.
But people did take him serious, they seriously believed he was some kind of messias send from god to save his troubled great country. |
|
| |
| ▲ | BDPW 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What I took away from the book was that all these people were very eager to say variants of 'das haben wir nicht gewusst' when at the same time they also describe how the jews were systematically removed from their society and every part of civil society was taken over by the nazi's. I would add to your statement that almost everyone should read it. It's unnerving to read how 'normal' all these people were in some way and how 'easily' it all happened because the population generally disliked jews. | |
| ▲ | victorbjorklund 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No shit they claim to not have known. No one would say "oh yea I knew they were killing children but i didnt care"? | |
| ▲ | watwut 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Based on history books I read (mostly from Richard Evans), they knew. Nazi violence and concentration camps were public knowledge, because the regime needed to generate the fear. Germans prior war were in fact scared a lot. This particular book is a out what nazi sympatizants and nazi themselves were saying after the war. It is what it is, but there was real motivation to not have own culpability in destruction of Germany in the open. (Which is what they have seen as tradegy, not the holocaust itself all that much) |
|
| |
| ▲ | nathan_compton 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Hitler did well by the Germans" is a weird way to describe taking over a state by violence and propaganda and then leading it into a humiliating military defeat and committing some of the most morally repugnant acts in recent history in its name, but ok, I guess. | |
| ▲ | metalman 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And only from reading Chinese history and how the Chinese inteligencia see's it can you get the full wieght that what to them is an inevitable and unstopable cycle. They go so far as to describe the stages and symptoms of each stage, along with specific societal conditions that we continue to replicate with a mechanical precision they gave the name "The turning of the dynastic wheel"
The chinese with there long history, and pragmatic introspection have codified things like this in there pictographic written language, where the symbol for disaster is derived from combining the two symbols for danger, and oportunity. | | |
| ▲ | ethical_source 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are they wrong though? On our side, people like Spengler also model societies as pseudo-organisms with lives that go through birth, adolescence, adulthood, senescence, and death. There's a lot of merit to viewing history as cyclic and decay inevitable even if the details change from iteration to iteration. Similar conditions produce similar outputs. Perhaps the linkage isn't quite as direct and repeatable as the Chinese think, but they have a point. | |
| ▲ | HK-NC 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have a chinese friend who said something similar to this, she believes much of the culture in the modern west is influenced by some shady chinese government attempt at controlling the speed at which said wheel turns, through Tiktok and stuff. While Id normally dismiss her as a nut, we do have rioting in the street arguing over a miniscule group of people wearing clothes dsigned for the opposite sex. | | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We also had rioting in the street over this in Berlin, 1933-05-06 (four days before the famous bonfire). Occam's Razor says that shady Chinese government intervention is not needed. | |
| ▲ | pessimizer 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On biological males in women's sports I think more people can agree on this. But you're handwaving away the fact that conservative political parties are using trans existence as a wedge issue. | | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They're using trans people's participation in sports (once uncontroversial) as a wedge to drive in the larger wedge of trans existence. They can do this because, intuitively, many people think there's an advantage to be had. If there were such advantages, then we'd have to consider the thorny topic of what constitutes an "unfair" advantage, and whether the social implications of excluding a marginalised population outweigh the (perhaps disproportionate) impact of yada yada. But we don't have to consider any of this, because scientific research suggests trans women do not have such advantages over cis women: medical transition does not lead to a body configuration optimised for sports. Quoth, for instance, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.04.004: > This study highlights substantial ventilatory inefficiencies in transgender women, likely associated with gender-affirming hormone therapy This whole moral panic is an artificially-constructed wedge issue: they found something persuasive, and (by presenting trans people as something dangerous and new) side-stepped the need for evidence of harm, and positioned their reactionary bans as conservative. I think, when arguing about this topic, more attention needs to be paid to the fact that feminising hormone therapy (as a treatment for trans women) is older than insulin (as a treatment for diabetics). Any harmful consequences of trans existence (resp. participation in sports, etc) already happened, and nobody alive noticed. | | |
| ▲ | drankl 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | World Athletics, which considered this very carefully and with the input of numerous experts in the field, disagrees with you on the question of male physiological advantage in female sports: https://worldathletics.org/news/press-releases/sry-gene-test... | | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And FIDE "disagrees with me on the question of male physiological advantage" in… chess. https://doc.fide.com/docs/DOC/2FC2023/CM2_2023_45.pdf There's clearly more to this "ban trans people from sports" phenomenon than dispassionate assessment of the evidence. dang has asked you to stop commenting like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108551. If you're explaining your position, I'd consider that fine (though dang might not), but throwing out claims that are easy to state and hard to rebut (without stooping to the "fight rhetoric with rhetoric" level) does not encourage thoughtful discussion. | | |
| ▲ | drankl 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The reason for a separate women's category in FIDE's chess competitions is different to athletic sports - it was introduced to encourage female participation in what was an overwhelmingly male-dominated field. As an example, here's what women in chess have to deal with: https://www.fide.com/fides-statement-on-sexist-remarks/ That statement makes the point that FIDE are well aware this is a problem, and is one they're trying to solve: "FIDE not only strives to increase women’s representation in professional sports and official positions but also to change the perception of chess as purely a men’s world. Our community has to be a place where women feel safe and respected. Therefore, any action that carries disrespect, sexism or physical, verbal or emotional assault is unacceptable." Now, some people might argue that if a male competitor claims to have a woman identity, whatever that is, then that player should be permitted to compete alongside women. Given their aim of increasing female participation in chess, FIDE have been somewhat more skeptical of this argument, as you can see in the policy you linked. > but throwing out claims that are easy to state and hard to rebut (without stooping to the "fight rhetoric with rhetoric" level) does not encourage thoughtful discussion. I made a comment about the perspective of World Athletics on this, and linked to their statement as evidence. Why would you feel the need to rebut this? Instead of considering it thoughtfully. | | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Retroactively stripping the titles from trans men (§4.1) does not "encourage female participation", no matter how you slice it. > if a male competitor claims to have a woman identity, whatever that is And I understand that from this perspective, the things you're saying might make internal sense; but if you were more familiar with the social pressures on trans people, you'd realise that they aren't well-modelled as cis members of their AGAB, for the purposes of inclusivity measures. Your perspective isn't a valid worldview.¹ This FIDE initiative makes no sense, if its intent is as stated. > Why would you feel the need to rebut this? For the same reason you felt the need to bring it up, I assume. The arguments you've made to defend the FIDE decisions don't hold up, and you haven't explained why you believe the World Athletics decisions hold up, so there is nothing for me to rebut. Placing the burden of rebuttal on the opponent, when you make many comments in a short space of time, is known as the "Gish gallop": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop. If you want to enter something into discussion, you put in the work to do so. I'm not here to participate in no-rules debate club. (The main reason I'm engaging here is that I'm trying to practice de-escalation strategies.) > Instead of considering it thoughtfully. I have half a literature review devoted to this perspective. What I haven't done is written an essay with numerous citations in response to your one sentence and a link. Meanwhile, your "whatever that is" remark suggests you haven't thoughtfully considered the perspective of trans people before. So: you first. (If this is because you haven't had access to a trans person's perspective, let me know. I don't collect such articles, but I've probably got a link lying around somewhere.) --- ¹: There are similar world-views which I strongly disagree with, but which nonetheless are valid, in the particular sense that I just called yours invalid. I sometimes learn things from talking to such people, so I make an effort to be friendly to them, even if they're not friendly to me. | | |
| ▲ | drankl 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Retroactively stripping the titles from trans men (§4.1) does not "encourage female participation", no matter how you slice it. Section 4.1 is the logical outcome of FIDE categories being split into Open, where both men and women can compete, and Women, where only women can compete. If a female player changes her chess-gender to man, then it no longer makes any sense for her to hold titles from the Women category such as Woman Grandmaster. She is choosing to exclude herself from a restricted category and the titles that only exist in that category. I actually don't agree with this policy overall but given that they've decided to let men register as women and women register as men, I'm glad they at least included some restrictions in Section 3 to prevent the men from competing in the Women's category. > if you were more familiar with the social pressures on trans people, you'd realise that they aren't well-modelled as cis members of their AGAB, for the purposes of inclusivity measures. Your perspective isn't a valid worldview. I think we just have different worldviews. This article by Susan Polgar, a trailblazer in women's chess and who has been a role model for female chess players worldwide, makes the case for why separate tournaments for women and girls are needed: https://web.archive.org/web/20250306124806/https://chessdail... She describes the challenges she faced as a young girl and then as a woman in this male-dominated field, how she had to deal with sexism, social stigma, unwanted sexual advances and threats to her physical safety - all because she is female and wanted to play chess. With that in mind, the question is, how would including male players (who call themselves women) in these tournaments benefit women and girls? I don't see how it would. The ask seems to be driven from these males requesting to be included, rather than female players requesting these males' inclusion. > you haven't explained why you believe the World Athletics decisions hold up I've read their policy and from my understanding the restrictions they've put onto eligibility in the female competition are both evidence-based and prioritise fairness for female athletes (rather than inclusion of male athletes). That's why I personally welcome them. It's actually quite nuanced when you look at the details, for example, athletes with CAIS are eligible even though from a strictly technical perspective they are 46,XY males. The reason they are eligible is because, being entirely sensitive to androgens, their bodies developed an external female phenotype with no testosterone-driven advantage over 46,XX female athletes. Whereas the policy excludes male athletes who have DSDs like 5-ARD, even if they have female documentation (e.g. Caster Semenya), because of the male physiological advantage and how unfair this is to female competitors. > Meanwhile, your "whatever that is" remark suggests you haven't thoughtfully considered the perspective of trans people before. I have actually, in many discussions with trans-identitied people both in real life and online, in reading articles and books, and in reading forums where they talk to each other. It's mostly why I ended up rejecting the idea that woman and man are merely identities to be claimed. Personally I find that notion quite sexist. | | |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > then it no longer makes any sense Don't all the reasons you gave for having the separate category still apply? Why does it no longer make any sense? > With that in mind, the question is, how would including male players (who call themselves women) This is where a gap in your understanding lies: the childhood experience of a closeted trans woman is not the same as the childhood experience of a cis man. If you can't resolve this gap yourself, my offer to find resources for you remains open. Given that understanding, you could make the minimum viable alteration to your worldview, and it would then satisfy the "valid" criterion I mentioned earlier – but I don't think that's the intellectually-honest result of starting where you are now, and gaining the additional understanding. (There are people with similar opinions to you who do have the understanding you lack, but they've reached those opinions from a very different direction.) > I've read their policy and […] Thank you for explaining your position. World Athletics C3.5A contains many inaccuracies and inconsistencies, including but not limited to: • Eligibility rule 3.5.2(a) unconditionally allows SRY-positive XX-males to compete in the women's category, but C3.5A§3.3 allows them to be excluded by the Medical Manager. Which is it? • Buccal smears can show false positives for SRY in the case of chimerism. The regulations have no provision for this. • Blood tests can show false negatives for SRY in the case of bone marrow transplants. The regulations have no provision for this. • C3.5A§6.1.1.2 requires certain athletes to medically suppress their testosterone levels, even if their testosterone levels are within the typical range for endosex cis women. More suppression may be required than is stated in the regulations, since blood test results can be variable: the regulations contain no provisions to account for that. • [further remark about C3.5A§6.1 cut because I struggled with unit conversions, and wasn't 100% sure about it] • Eligibility rule 3.5.2(b) corresponds better to the available evidence than the motivation given in eligibility rule 3.5.2(c), but they are not consistent with each other. (Arbitrary rules are usually considered bad.) To me, the 2025 regulations appear hamfisted, not nuanced – and I suspect that most people with more than a cursory understanding of human biology would share this view. The 2025 rules do not deserve the praise you have given them. The regulation defines the terms "biological males" and "biological females" as referring to genotype. This is an arbitrary use of terminology: there are many ways one could draw the "biological" distinction, many of which would be more useful for sports. "Genotypical males" and "genotypical females" would have been clearer terminology (although they would still have needed the definition). Considering that "biological female" is a dogwhistle among anti-trans bigots, and considering the issues I've pointed out after a cursory skim, I suspect that many of these issues are deliberate. The inconsistency in the final bullet point is quite reminiscent of the claptrap J.K. Rowling says. Additionally, in the link you gave: > World Athletics never has and never would impose any obligation to undergo surgery. Imposing rules that create the conditions out of which such an obligation arises is imposing such obligations. The purpose of a system is what it does. I can buy that historically this was unintentional, but everyone knows about the risk, now. You can't just say "oh we don't impose an obligation" and expect that to absolve you: they need positive protection of the rights of intersex athletes, to prevent a repeat of the non-consensual maiming incidents. I'll leave you with a passage from https://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-...: > I would also like to relate a two-part epiphany that I had after my transition. In 2005, nine months after starting HRT, I was running 12% slower than I had run with male T levels; women run 10-12% slower than men over a wide range of distances. In 2006 I met another trans woman runner and the she had the same experience. I later discovered that, if aging is factored in, this 10-12% loss of speed is standard among trans women endurance athletes. The realization that one can take a male distance runner, make that runner hormonally female, and wind up with a female distance runner of the same relative capability was life changing for me. > I have actually, You're not demonstrating understanding of the topic. P.S.: I'll note that not even the 2025 World Athletics regulations are misgendering the hypothetical athletes – but you are. You're being exceptionally rude to these hypothetical people. I do hope you don't treat real people this way. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Once again, the minor concern and discussion of trans participation in sports is a wedge issue used largely by conservatives to rile up people and keep them from voting for liberal parties (in the US). This is undeniable IMO. Perhaps it is a liberal failure to discuss the sports issue more, since doing so would disarm the disingenuousness of the "I only care about sports" excuse of conservatives. | | |
| ▲ | drankl 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is being used as a wedge issue by conservatives in the US, but I feel that liberal politicians made a rod for their own backs on this one. An unforced error that their opponents were happy to take advantage of. This article has an interesting viewpoint, from the perspective of a feminist liberal who had been trying to warn Democrats about this for years: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/dignity/vol10/iss2/8/ |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | drankl 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Depends where you are in the world. In the UK, most of the opposition to sex being replaced by "gender identity" in law was organised by feminists, not conservatives. In fact it was the UK's Conservative political party, under Theresa May's government, who were pushing reforms to the law to make it much easier for people to change their "legal sex". | |
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | throw0101c 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It is western propaganda. Germans were simply supportive of Hitler and, for the most part, Hitler did well by the Germans. It's not like they had much of a choice after ~1933: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 And Adam Tooze, who wrote an entire book examining Nazi economic policy, would disagree on the 'doing well by' part: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction | |
| ▲ | Dumblydorr 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hitler didn’t do well by the people. Real wages declined throughout Nazi reign. Their lands were destroyed. They were responsible for allowing genocide. Source: Rise and Fall of the Third Reich The article shows how he lulled them step by step and diverted them from knowing this was worse than before. Sound familiar USA? | | |
| ▲ | csomar 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | They just lost the war. Had they won the war(s), their fortunes would have been different. We can hate the guy but he was not going to conquer Europe with the Germans and then sit at it empty. | | |
| ▲ | Dumblydorr 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, not just. There were pre-war downsides and hardships for the people. read the book above, it’s clear the common German had a worse life before the war came, to say nothing of being drafted, being killed, losing a family member, or being incinerated. | |
| ▲ | throw0101c 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > They just lost the war. Had they won the war(s), their fortunes would have been different. "Just". LOL. Is that all? They lost the war in part because of bad economic policy: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wages_of_Destruction The UK was out producing Germany in planes and many other sectors—and that was before the US even got involved. | |
| ▲ | fzeroracer 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | One of the reasons they specifically lost the war was because Hitler was such a fuck up that he was decimating the German economy. When you look at how the war was progressing, the only outcome for the Nazis at the time was either defeat or collapse. Combined with the endemic usage of Pervitin and other drugs at this time both to fuel soldiers and keep the citizens relatively placated they were burning up everything both at the frontline and at home. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bingo: the story of WW2 is that the Germans started with an effective army, and the Nazis ran it into the ground. The saddest thing is subsequent decades of bizarre interpretations of this result because people got too excited about some effective German industry that they took Hitlers various wonder weapon attempts as planned engineering projects rather than engineers trying to put form to a mad man's rantings. Hitler loved the idea of super heavy tanks, so the Germans kept trying to build them even though they were unreliable, ineffective and vulnerable. Meanwhile the Sherman got a reputation for breaking down a lot...mostly because it kept surviving and being fixed in the field and continuing to provide effective armor support, whereas German tanks just died. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | foldr 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Hitler did well by the Germans This could only possibly be true if, like the Nazis, you exclude Jews, Gypsies, gays, disabled people, women who value their sexual and reproductive freedom, etc. etc. from the category ‘German’. And even then it’s still not true, as others in the thread have pointed out. It’s disturbingly frequently that I see this weird nudge nudge wink wink kinda-sorta Nazi apologism from high karma accounts here. I’m willing to believe that there aren’t fundamentally bad intentions behind it and that it stems mainly from some kind of reflexive contrarianism, but boy is it weird and disturbing. | |
| ▲ | thrance 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Hitler did well by the Germans. That's an insanely stupid claim. Jews were systematically stigmatized and eventually sent to extermination camps. What we now call LGBT people and political opponents got the same treatment. Syndicalists too: one of the first thing Hitler did was make unions illegal. And even the "aryans" that supported him, saw their work hours get longer and longer and the pay smaller and smaller. And let's not speak of the millions dying in a pointless war that ruined Europe. |
|
