Another Hitler comparison, since there have been many recently...

Garthy

fretmeister said:

The Daily Mail still has the freedom. Lego have just stopped supporting it.

They haven't tried to interfere with editorial decisions, just won't give them money.

Very different.

Then by default they are trying to influence the free press. I absolutely loath the Daily Mail, I think it is an appalling paper that relies on outraging the reader so they will share its stories on social media, in essence it is trolling its own readership.

However this is the thin end of the wedge, no news medium should have to think "what will the advertisers think" when they go live.

Sporky

Garthy said:

However this is the thin end of the wedge, no news medium should have to think "what will the advertisers think" when they go live.

So Lego should have to advertise everywhere, and may not make any decisions about where to spend their money?

Drew_TNBD

Sporky said:

Garthy said:

However this is the thin end of the wedge, no news medium should have to think "what will the advertisers think" when they go live.

So Lego should have to advertise everywhere, and may not make any decisions about where to spend their money?

But did Lego make the decision about where they spend their money, or where they GET their money? I'd say the later. If you've got a sizable portion of your income base protesting at a decision you made, it makes smart business sense (regardless of ethics or morality) to fix the problem and retain the income.

Same reason computer games companies pull features or character costumes, models, and poses... because the prissy complainers are the ones giving them money. As soon as they're not the ones giving them money... they generally get ignored.

Mary Whitehouse was largely ineffectual because she wasn't a customer.

Sporky

Drew_TNBD said:

But did Lego make the decision about where they spend their money, or where they GET their money?

That is a most interesting question.

holnrew

It's a business decision for Lego, not a political one.

Garthy

Sporky said:

Garthy said:

However this is the thin end of the wedge, no news medium should have to think "what will the advertisers think" when they go live.

So Lego should have to advertise everywhere, and may not make any decisions about where to spend their money?

That wasn't what I said, was it.

Sporky

Garthy said:

Sporky said:

Garthy said:

However this is the thin end of the wedge, no news medium should have to think "what will the advertisers think" when they go live.

So Lego should have to advertise everywhere, and may not make any decisions about where to spend their money?

That wasn't what I said, was it.

So what were you suggesting for Lego?

You seemed to be suggesting that the press should be able to print anything, and the advertisers should bankroll that without question. Did I misunderstand?

quarky

Sporky said:

quarky said:

I guess so. I mean, they called themselves socialists (and not just in party name), they were against Anglo-saxon capitalism and the free market, they were authoritarian, they were strong proponents of state control rather than liberal individualism, etc.

So Arsenal FC have a massive stash of weapons?

LOL.

Not on the pitch they don't. Stash of tools perhaps.

If you read what I said, I said "not just in party name". The party was formed as a left-wing party. Hitler actually liked a lot of the party's ideals, which is why he decided to join. Hitler, Goebbels, all described themselves as socialists and furthering the socialists cause. They spoke strongly against capitalism.

Look at some of the 25 points of the party:

* We demand the nationalisation of all associated industries.
* We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
* We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
* We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
* The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbürgerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
* The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
* We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press.

Etc.

But actions speak louder than words right. So here are some actions, all socialist in nature:
* Massive public spending on infrastructure, including the autobarns
* Significant takeover of private companies, into public ownership
* Incerase in influence and control of remaining private companies through tax and regulations
* Change to the labour market to centrally set and control wages through an employee organisation, which also provided social security, holidays, etc. For small businesses, worker councils to set wages.

But, if you ignore what they Nazi's said, and what they did. Yes, you could pretend they were not socialists.

Your other arguments are about authoritarianism vs liberalism, not about left vs right. There is a rather important difference.

Authoritarianism goes hand in hand with socialism in practice. It has to, the whole point is state ownership, state control, state authority. Unless you want to claim that you can have socialism without the state (anarchy could be an example of that I guess), which I accept on paper, but not in practice. If you are talking about social democracy, fine, but that is nice capitalism, really.

Sporky

quarky said:

Authoritarianism goes hand in hand with socialism in practice

Have you never heard of fascism?

Not everything that's red is a fire engine.

quarky

Sporky said:

quarky said:

Authoritarianism goes hand in hand with socialism in practice

Have you never heard of fascism?

Not everything that's red is a fire engine.

Sure. As applied, fascism was all about the state. Mussolini didn't care about race like Hitler did, and didn't persecute the Jews for example, in anything like the way Hitler did. Nationalist Socialism took elements from socialism as well as nationalism. As I wrote above, it was socialism based around race rather than class.

And as per your "fire engine," not everything "bad" or "evil" is to the right of the spectrum.

Sporky

Nor did I suggest it was.

But it's a bit sad when people use the Nazis, who murdered millions, to try to discredit all socialists on semantic grounds.

The defining thing about the Nazi party wasn't whether they were a bit one way or t'other of centre. It was the genocide.

quarky

Sporky said:

Nor did I suggest it was.

But it's a bit sad when people use the Nazis, who murdered millions, to try to discredit all socialists on semantic grounds.

The defining thing about the Nazi party wasn't whether they were a bit one way or t'other of centre. It was the genocide.

Where have you been the past few years? The last few UK elections? Brexit? The US elections? Hitler is rolled out much more often to discredit the right (or anyone who disagrees with the left). That is the sad thing.

Socialists who are reasonable people, are really nice capitalists in my experience. They want the benefits of capitalism, but with controls like welfare, redistribution of wealth, etc., which are all good things. That is where many European countries get it right.

Dyed-in-the-wool socialists though, we have seen where that leads, time and time again. Or is there actually a successful economy that is actually publically owned/controlled/run, rather than run along capitalist lines? Even China found much more success once they start down the private route (although they still have a lot of state control).

Dyed-in-the-wool capitalists are much more likely to murder the economy, rather than each other.

Sporky

quarky said:

Where have you been the past few years? The last few UK elections? Brexit? The US elections? Hitler is rolled out much more often to discredit the right (or anyone who disagrees with the left). That is the sad thing.

That is also a sad thing.

It doesn't make it OK to fling Nazi and Hitler comparisons around in the other - or any - direction, unless we're actually talking about genocidal maniacs.

Just as I've said it's not on to call Brexiters racist or thickos, and it's not on to call Remainers smug or whiners. All the name-calling is pathetic and childish, and serves only to widen divisions and preclude understanding of opposing viewpoints.

My view is that it is authoritarianism that's the problem. I happen to also be left wing (at least according to the Political Compass). It irks me when people post ignorant or deliberately misleading statements about the left just as it does when they do so about the right. I'd rather libertarianism than either socialism or fascism.

holnrew

So does this mean Jeremy Corbyn is the one who's Hitler?

quarky

Sporky said:

That is also a sad thing.

It doesn't make it OK to fling Nazi and Hitler comparisons around in the other - or any - direction, unless we're actually talking about genocidal maniacs.

Just as I've said it's not on to call Brexiters racist or thickos, and it's not on to call Remainers smug or whiners. All the name-calling is pathetic and childish, and serves only to widen divisions and preclude understanding of opposing viewpoints.

My view is that it is authoritarianism that's the problem. I happen to also be left wing (at least according to the Political Compass). It irks me when people post ignorant or deliberately misleading statements about the left just as it does when they do so about the right. I'd rather libertarianism than either socialism or fascism.

Don't disagree with that at all, and all great points. I don't think any politician in the Western world is comparable to Hitler, the thread was really a slightly satirical comment on the current comparisons going on recently. Perhaps not satirical enough, or with too much of a realistic element (the fact that people *are* trying to bully Lego into not supporting the DM because of something they put in print).

Sambostar

holnrew said:

So does this mean Jeremy Corbyn is the one who's Hitler?

No, he was never in the forces nor ever had any work experience.