Quote from the movie 1408:

> Some smartass spoke about the banality of evil. If that's true, then we're in the seventh circle of Hell.

>It does have its charms.

Human: Hey computer!

Computer: What?

Human: Using perfect logic please give us world peace!

Computer: Your wish is my command

Computer: kills all humans

No, capitalism simply is the private ownership of capital. But since some people will turn capital into more capital and others won't, you get the gaps between rich and poor. It doesn't require anyone to get poorer.

[deleted]

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

Isn’t that the whole story model of the Witcher? Omg you to have to choose but don’t worry either choice will result in some horrible outcome. See! Hahaha we got you!

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.

How familiar are you with The Witcher source material? Because the article’s author missed a lot.

[removed]

No worries friend. We have nothing to debate about. Have a good day!

I was not saying that we live in a Nazist system or Nazist like sistem today. I said that the way people trusted authorities rule of order over people welbing that allowed Nazist atrocities to happen and being accepted by many, is similar to how people see others suffering today ans trying to justify it because of laws or authorities decisions.

Many of the people who accepted the slavement of people (working at no nazist family houses and farms) and kidnapping of minorities during Nazist regime were not Nazist supporters but just "good citizens" (following the authorities rules to better self benefit from its system even if it means sacrificing minorities).

Or to put it shorter, it is like what Deleuze and Guattari wrote on Anti-Oedipus, that we all have a little fascist inside us that we must be very careful to not let it out.

It is my way to say that we all have a potencial of abusive relashionship with others that we must not take advantage of by convincing ourselves that we have a good reason to take such advantage by saying to ourselves that is not our fault but just how things are.

Yes, well, if everyone will have more tomorrow that sounds like socialism, not capitalism. Capitalism is "I will have more tomorrow and you will have less".

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.

I have read the book. The person I'm replying to very specifically said Nazism is banal, which is what I took issue with.

"When we look at society today, people didn't change. It is exactly as it was at the time of Nazist regime."

They are saying Nazism's qualities are humdrum, quotidian, unsurprising, and perpetual rather than specific and historically circumscribed.

I'm always shocked when people with poor reading comprehension so confidently accuse others of misunderstanding.

[removed]

Good thing science isn't the sole arbiter of what can be said to exist. Consciousness is perfectly coherent if you're not a radical physicalist.

We obviously would. Even if all resources were evenly divided, the leader who says "We can all have more tomorrow" is going to be more popular than one saying "This is all you'll ever have, so you'd better learn to like it."

I realize now I wrote that comment as a response for someone else and accidentally posted it to you. There isn't a single thing you said I disagree with even though I started with "I think its more that..." which implies I took a different take than you. Not the case. My bad.

The person you're responding to is not saying Nazism is banal. Eichmann in Jerusalem is about the mental gymnastics certain high-ranking Nazis went through to dress up genocide as bureaucratic humdrum. Arendt basically argues that Eichmann was very stupid, failed upward into a position of power, and managed to convince himself he was just doing his job.

Have you read the book, or just this comment thread?

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

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.

We don't put those kinds of people in charge of society like we do under capitalism.

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

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.

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