Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThorDansLaCroix t1_j25iugv wrote

Reply to comment by SanctusSalieri in How the concept: Banality of evil developed by Hanna Arendt can be applied to AI Ethics in order to understand the unintentional behaviour of machines that are intelligent but not conscious. by AndreasRaaskov

I read most works of Hannah Arendt and know very well the Banality of Evil concept and how she developed its thinking.

The nazist defence I mentioned is called the Eichmanm Trial. I suggest you to look for this title written by Hannah Arendt. Or Eichmann in Jerusalem.

10

SanctusSalieri t1_j25j4ad wrote

Nothing you are going through is at all similar to Nazi death camps, it's extremely insensitive to suggest it is. Have some perspective.

Edit: just saw your edit. Yeah. I've read Eichmann in Jerusalem. That's the whole premise of this discussion.

5

ThorDansLaCroix t1_j25jrba wrote

I never compared what I am experiencing with Nazist death camps.

8

SanctusSalieri t1_j25kxnw wrote

Your comment is actually still public, so it's bold to contradict what you just wrote.

−14

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j25uxd5 wrote

The English isn’t great but I suspect the point they are trying to make is the problems are same even though the degree is obviously much less. As in the Nazi regime is a hyperbolical manifestation of the same basic problems humans have always and still do have

8

SanctusSalieri t1_j25wlu3 wrote

I don't think the Nazis were "normal stuff but more" or even an extreme version of stable "human nature" or something. They were a particular and brutal regime born out of peculiar historical circumstances.

2

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j25zs2v wrote

I think the only think that was peculiar about the historical circumstances was “modern” technology and our sudden exponential capacity for atrocity in what was otherwise a pretty typical war with a dictator who “inspired” people in a bad place. Furthermore I don’t think there’s anything stable about human nature, I think much like the point of the post and the idea of the banality of evil, the only really stable thing is the social systems that control us

3

SanctusSalieri t1_j26505i wrote

The immediate context of the end of WWI, longstanding German and European traditions of antisemitism, the rise of an attempt to explain individual human prospects through genetics (and control populations through eugenics), Romanticism, the invention of nationalism through folkloric identification with an imagined past, pro-natalism for a select population (directly related to eugenics) and a corresponding ideology of Lebensraum, a dissatisfaction with Weimar democracy and a willingness to put faith in an outsider dictator... there are a lot of things going on with Nazism.

0

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26amkh wrote

I don’t see how any of those are particularly unique fads as far as humanity goes, again we aren’t a stable bunch. It is definitely a modern evolutionary of pretty old supremacist ideas, but supremacy is nothing new and all those are just excuses for it that nazis used to their advantage. Any new idea is still just viewed through the same limited lens any one of us short lived predictable assholes can see it through

3

SanctusSalieri t1_j26d65v wrote

Well, historians get to decide these things and having been one, they would all disagree.

0

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26hvzb wrote

What makes these extremist views exceptional compared to all the other extreme xenophobic desperate supremacist ideas through all of history, to the point where they couldn’t even be considered much worse but similar but apparently completely unique compared to everything we’ve done naturally up until that point

2

SanctusSalieri t1_j26izz4 wrote

Historians tend to historicize. That means first treating particular events using an empirical method and understanding them on their own merits. Then synthesizing explanations, comparative studies, and so on. They do this because it's the best way to do history. Generally they would avoid the morally loaded and aggrieved tone you're taking. Saying something is peculiar and particular doesn't preclude comparison, and it is not anjudgment of gravity, seriousness, or worthiness of study.

1

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26kt1d wrote

I don’t see how I’m posing a moral question, and I definitely don’t think I’m asking even a particularly hard or loaded question. You said these events are set apart from history, I asked how because they seem at least on the surface quite typical if very extreme, you said historians decide what’s extreme (which is a non answer and an ad hominem response to be clear), and again I asked the same and your response was to tell me exactly how historians go about categorizing events. If you understand how they go about this and the synthesized explanations and comparative studies that have went into the topic then it shouldn’t be that hard to give me at the least an ELI5 about what exactly separates these things from the other seemingly similar events in history. You said these events are unique and I’m literally just asking why

3

SanctusSalieri t1_j26lv0f wrote

I said the exact opposite of "set apart from history." I offered some of the particular historical conditions that allow us to understand the events. By generalizing between situations as diverse as Nazi Germany and 21st Century Europe or America you misunderstand both -- and misunderstanding the present is quite serious because we might want to do something to change it.

1

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26mtoy wrote

You didn’t say they were particular you said they were peculiar. As in unique. As in OPs argument (or at least my interpretation of their poor English) was invalid because these events you listed shared nothing in common with current or past events. That’s the problem here I made a pretty general statement and you denied it wholely.

You clearly have a deeper understanding of secular history than the both of us but you aren’t exactly sharing that wisdom if you just name a bunch of ideas and movements related to the period without even slightly pointing out why they unique and not just generational permutations of typical trends which is what I said and what I understand OP to be saying.

I said why are those different and you’ve essentially said “just trust me bro”

Edit: to be fair you also said they were particular but that wasn’t what I took issue with

2

SanctusSalieri t1_j26o2r9 wrote

I explained that history as a profession emphasizes uniqueness due to it being an empirical discipline, and generational permutations of typical trends isn't a thing they do. That's not the same as incommensurability. It's fortunate that history has contingency and particularity, if we like the idea that things could be different than they are. But we don't focus on particularity because it's comforting, but because it's informative.

0

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26puq9 wrote

Are we in a disciplinary setting here? I can somewhat appreciate why history as a discipline would operate under such conditions because like you said it’s informative, but again it’s seems you’ve applied a pretty narrow group language to a general discussion and used it as an absolute rule.

My point being that fact that history as a study and discipline won’t bother drawing correlation between “typical trends” doesn’t mean there are none, it just means they aren’t worth secular study. Furthermore if you are going to state as fact that there is nothing the same between past acts and modern, and especially when it’s given such a wide berth saying they are “similar but one is clearly more extreme/heinous”, simply stating that historians don’t bother quantifying such a thing isn’t really an argument for it’s not existing

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j26qpbl wrote

I specifically said you can compare, but the comparison made obfuscated both points of reference rather than illuminating anything. I became a historian because I'm convinced it's methodology is the correct one for precisely these kinds of questions.

1

AStealthyPerson t1_j25ye8t wrote

I didn't see the words "death camp" in their description of how disabled people are treated in today's society anywhere. They said that our society is "Nazist" when it comes to dealing with disabled folks, which is largely correct. This user took a great deal of time to explain how they have been denied access to help by authorities in dealing with personal acts of terrorism committed by their neighbors against them. They may not have extrapolated on the situation much, and I'm sure there's more too it than what we know, but it sounds very in line with Nazi attitudes towards racist/antisemitic/homophobic/ableist "vigilantes" during the Nazi regime. Germany just had a failed right wing coup, same as the US, and it's not hard to see how there could be reactionary people in real positions of power who prevent aide and comfort from being provided to the "otherized" of society (especially at the local level). We are a society with deeply embedded hierarchies, and as economic prospects continue to worsen, these folks in charge of said hierarchies are more likely to become reactionary than progressive.

5

SanctusSalieri t1_j265agu wrote

Eichmann literally organized transportation to death camps. I am not ad libbing death camps, it is the context of the discussion and the most notable feature of Nazi Germany.

5

monsantobreath t1_j26ij3q wrote

>and the most notable feature of Nazi Germany.

And that's worst thing about our perception of Nazism. As if unless you're engineering such industrial murder there's no right to discuss its qualities as they are found outside the third Reich.

So much happened before the final solution.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j26imzh wrote

Imagine not understanding what "most notable" means.

1

monsantobreath t1_j26u65x wrote

Most notable doesn't mean when it's mentioned that this is what's being referenced.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j26zok7 wrote

I said "most notable," and you thought that meant "there's no right to discuss its [other] qualities." So you misinterpreted the phrase quite seriously.

1

monsantobreath t1_j279pwv wrote

Why would you bring death camps in at all then? I feel like you're back peddling and trying to not act like you are.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j27du3i wrote

Because death camps are the most notable feature of the Nazi regime.

1

monsantobreath t1_j298mr4 wrote

This is circular. You had a bad take and that's that.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j29dyp4 wrote

Yeah, you asked the same question and the answer has not changed. What do you expect? There's no bad take in saying that death camps are relevant to any discussion of Eichmann and the most notable feature of the Nazi regime. I genuinely don't understand what your issue is, your entire behavior here is inscrutable.

1

monsantobreath t1_j2fm2mz wrote

It's actually not a good take to suggest that in discussing Nazism you can invalidate someone's comparison by saying "but there are no death caps".

It's ridiculous really. It reduces such a broad systemic evil into a single point and makes drawing any parallels impossible because it's not 1941 in eastern Europe.

1

sammarsmce t1_j288kpp wrote

Any instance of fascism is fascism. Don’t start with the “some people have it worse” I really don’t like you and you need to leave them alone.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j291t1q wrote

Present day Germany is not fascist. Words have meaning and if you don't know what fascism is there are books that could help you. Calling present day Germany fascist misconstrues history and the present and makes us less informed than we would be by having a proper analysis of what is going on.

1

cassidymcgurk t1_j25temb wrote

He said it was like living in nazi germany, which i suspect a lot of us feel, wherever we are

0

SanctusSalieri t1_j25ucp3 wrote

I don't feel that at all... then again I have degrees in history so I have had occasion to think about this a little more maybe.

4