Ganhi sugar story4/11/2023 So in some respects Hitler Ate Sugar is a Justified Trope because he and his fellow Nazis invoked Culture Justifies Anything as a key part of their platform, and Nazi Germany is a historically relevant example on the dangers of such policies and its appeals. ![]() Nazi Germany focused on cultural policy to an equal and at times greater extent than economics and good governance. One reason this trope exists was that for a long time during The '30s, Hitler was seen as a neutral statesman and some of his policies were appealing to people because he framed himself and the Nazis as Moral Guardians and espoused various "good-on-paper" sounding ideas like personal hygiene, cleanliness, animal rights, sexual restraint, heteronormality, battling the "excesses" of Weimar Germany and so on. Someone intimidated by this "argument" may invoke No True Scotsman as a "rebuttal". This is also one of the reasons why we often loath to admit that a person who we generally always disagree with may actually be right for once. And incidentally also the very same argument that the few remaining Hitler supporters in Germany love to use. So they slaughtered tens of millions of people, but managed to improve internal stability and security for the few who happened to survive. note Oh, and if you ask the outright fanboys, you are bound to hear the argument that the Mongol leaders were good lawmakers within their realm. So why were their mass slaughterings less evil than those of Hitler and Stalin? The answer is apparently: because they simply weren't Hitler or Stalin. Crazy and blood-thirsty, yes, but even when these attributes are applied to them, it's often actually with hints of admiration. And while the Mongol leaders aren't often depicted as noble generals like, say, Alexander or Julius Caesar commonly are, they aren't often shown to be outright evil either. For instance, the Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan and his successors were actually far more brutal than even the Nazis ( slaughtering virtually every human being in cities that hadn't immediately surrendered was common practice of the Mongol army, basically to set an example for the cities that were next in line). Still, in some cases it seems that even things like mass murder and genocide are, indeed, generally seen as less evil if they were not committed by Hitler et al. It would be like:īob: Really? What was I thinking? I can't believe I was going to do something the Nazis did. A thing being bad stands on its own as bad. We think those people are bad because they committed mass murder. We don't think mass murder is bad because Hitler, Stalin, or other bad people did them. Hitler did those things, but that doesn't make them bad. You know, things like sitting on a chair, wearing clothes, eating, taking a walk, and breathing. So, he supposedly would only do/like/own things that are as evil as him. After all, Hitler has gained the reputation for being the very embodiment of darkest evil, who oozed " pure liquid malevolence" right out of his pores. This is a concept called the Association Fallacy (or the more well-known term "Guilty by Association"), which often overlaps with Godwin's Law due to how often Adolf Hitler is used ( also known as Reductio ad Hitlerum) note In grammatically correct Latin, this would actually be ad Hitler em, because "Hitler" is presumably a 3rd declension noun. ![]() Therefore, people claim a thing is bad because bad people associate with it. Whatever the reason, bad people magically will only associate with things that are bad. ![]() Either that, or bad people are repulsed by anything that isn't at least as evil as they are. The premise seems to be that bad people must have a way to tell if something is evil. A logical fallacy, specifically a sub-type of Association Fallacy, that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself, taking things to absurd levels.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |