Hitler in the 21st century

You should know better than that. You've started a classic don't-think-about-elephants scenario. You can't put elephants or Hitler or homosexuality in the title of the topic and then expect people to ignore them. Hitler relied on an audience that was used to obeying orders without question. I don't think they were "conditioned to accept ideological causes" at all. They were just given government sanction to do what they were quite willing to do anyway. The most obvious "non-parallel" is the fact that the German people were willing to accept the suspension of their constitution.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, it's nothing like a similar situation. Over here, "the government is always wrong", is the usual first reaction. In 1920's Germany, the idea that the government could be wrong would never have occurred to the vast majority of people. The Kaiser (who would have been welcomed back at any time) was the All-Father, the God-substitute who could never be questioned. On the contrary, people over here usually have a knee-jerk reaction against "politically correct" causes. Environmental causes, for example, are tolerated only if they aren't perceived to go against the "public good". So you contradict yourself. We haven't had those years of conditioning. That depends on who you define as "us". "We" are not the ones incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, "they" are. Now, that's not a distinction that I approve of, but the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans have not had their rights infringed in a significant way (and I'm not an American, by the way).The erosion of rights for marginal groups is a danger signal, but there is no reason to suppose that that erosion will go in the direction of Nazi Germany. Trivializing the issue by Godwinizing it doesn't help.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So, if you're right, Labour will never be voted out? Don't confuse democratic/parliamentary government with majority government. But we don't have the generations (centuries) of conditioning that the German people had. You're asserting that people are slaves to propaganda, based on what? The government hasn't changed in a few years? There aren't mass protests about a speed bump?(If there's a dangerous trend here, it's the trend of people like you to disrespect their fellow voters. Why do you assume that they vote for speed bumps because of propaganda? Why not give them credit for making an intelligent decision?) Um... they can't do that. You need to get a grip on reality. No, that's really not what the Germans were thinking in the 1930's. They were thinking, "Thank God we don't have to vote any more." I am at least one thing on that list. If they come for me, you might have a case.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The German people didn't "lose" any freedoms - they willingly, gladly discarded them. The British people fail to massively protest every speed bump.You haven't shown how the two situations are even slightly similar. You haven't shown any constant "chipping away" - you've shown maybe two chips. And the "trend" you're worried about seems to go all the way back to the 90's? Read your history. The Nazis had nothing to do with conditioning the German people. They took advantage of a people that had never graduated from feudalism.Britain has a parliamentary system a thousand years old and a democracy developing for four hundred years. Germany had a democracy reaching back to 1919. On the contrary, Hitler had access to newspapers and radio, the only media available. Today, the Internet alone makes news sources so diffuse that no politician could have anywhere near the media stranglehold that Hitler had. You haven't demonstrated that any of those "causes" are bad for the people who accept them. You've only demonstrated that you don't like them. That may be an alarming extension of police powers, but it's still strictly limited, isn't it? And you took a long time to bring it up, didn't you?See, if you had talked about that issue initially instead of getting hysterical about a speed bump, people might take you seriously.There is no relationship between Nazi Germany and speed bumps. There is no relationship between suspension of habeas corpus and speed bumps.Don't cry "Speed bump!" when you mean "Wolf!"Edited by Ringo, : Spellwng.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

When the Prime Minister disbands Parliament and assumes dictatorial powers, if nobody protests, ask me again. How does that relate to Nazi Germany? How is that a "loss" of civil liberties? When did the "right to remain silent" ever mean an inalienable right to withhold evidence? As far as I know, that isn't true. The only change in recent times is that in a he-said/she-said situation, she doesn't have to prove she wasn't "asking for it". A "safe speed for the condtions" means that you should drive slower than the posted limit when the conditions are bad. It has never been a carte blanche for making up your own rules. You really need to learn to stop saying "you" - meaning me - when you mean "me" - meaning you. I - meaning me - am only on camera when I go to WalMart. Now, if you're comparing WalMart to Nazi Germany.... When did police ever compartmentalize their information? Those courses are designed to show you how you are putting others in harm's way. My mother was killed by a driver who was going 30 mph when he should have been going 20 mph.Hopefully, the course he was sent on "brainwashed" him into thinking about the consequences of his actions, so he won't kill anybody else. Freedom from speedbumps is not a "small liberty".If you have a point to make about civil liberties, you need to get your act together. Drop the silly comparisons to Nazi Germany and drop the demonizing of speedbumps.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

And when that happens in Britain, you'll have a parallel - not before. You've been claiming that the British people are discarding their freedom in a similar way. You haven't demonstrated anything of the kind. Get serious. How many people do you think were in concentration camps for "glorifying" Jews? The vast majority were there for who they were, not for anything they said. But how is that a loss of freedom? You never had the freedom to opt out of DNA databases. DNA databases represent a change in technology that makes it easier to identify you. They don't represent a voluntary relinquishment of freedom. As far as I know, the obligation to give a driver's name is for your benefit - otherwise you'd be responsible for the offense committed by your car. I don't see how the right to avoid self-incrimination includes the right to take the rap for somebody else.And there are lots of ways for the police to "produce" evidence that you don't seem to be worried about. They can get a warrant to search your house, your car, your workplace, your gym locker.... First, you haven't shown any "loss" of freedom yet. You've shown lack of freedom in a few areas.Second, I'm not belittling loss of freedoms. I'm belittling your utterly ludicrous comparison of modern-day Britain with Nazi Germany. I notice how you ignore the evidence against your position. Allow me to repeat: My mother was killed by somebody who thought he was travelling at a "reasonable speed", who thought he was presenting no "risk" to anyone. I wish to God somebody had been watching him and impeding him.Now tell me again how not wanting my loved ones to be killed by "reasonable", "risk-free" half-wits makes me just like a German Nazi.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're talking woulda-shoulda-coulda. Fact, is, it ain't that way and it never was. It has never been left up to the individual driver to decide what that speed it. It has always been legislated. No change, no loss. You're ignoring the people who have no common sense and who are incapable of analytical thinking - or at least who have poor judgement of their own driving abilities. Those people are the reason we have traffic legislation.Do we restrict the rights of the poor drivers by not allowing them to drive, or do we restrict the rights of all drivers equally? No, that's not the whole point, or any part of it. The point is that some/many drivers are not aware of the consequences of their actions. The courses are designed to make people aware, though they can't force people to be aware. The effectiveness of the course is not the issue - the need for the course is. If it works, it works. My my, how poetic.Once again, the signs are not designed for blind obedience. They designed to make you think that maybe somebody knows something you don't know. Maybe there's a blind curve coming up that you didn't anticipate. Maybe there's a school crossing ahead. And the majority of traffic accidents are caused by those people. Traffic laws do have a deterrent effect on bad driving behaviour. Yes, they should. Everybody operating heavy machinery should constantly be aware of their responsibility. Awareness by guilt and shame is better than no awareness at all. Doesn't work that way though, does it? If people do protest a speed bump en masse, it's how many protesters there are that gets attention, not whether or not a few of them have a poor driving history. If anything, the speeders watching the news would be sympathetic to the protesting speeders. That's just the point. All we've seen from you is wild-eyed speculation about what's next. Again, those drivers are not capable of identifying themselves. That's why we have traffic laws.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Nonsense.Every concession of the individual to society is not fascism.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No. It @#$%ing well isn't.Hitler disbanded the Reichstag. Has the British Parliament been disbanded?Hitler assumed dictatorial powers. Has the British Prime Minister assumed dictatorial powers?A few setbacks in civil liberties do not in any way, shape or form resemble the events in Germany. That "conditioning" is just your unsupported opinion. I'm saying that the vast, vast, vast majority would never have had such a thought cross their minds, so it's useless to speculate. Once again, the centuries-old habit of never questioning authority in no way resembles today's situation in Britain. Says you. Even if that was true, it doesn't support your fantasy of impending dictatorship. You have established no correlation between the "what" and the "why". We have only your word that the speed is "too slow" and that it is accepted because of "conditioning". You were free to refuse a DNA sample before anybody ever asked for a DNA sample? You were free from video cameras before there were any video cameras. What freedom did you lose?I've been trying to get you to focus on the serious problems, like suspension of habeas corpus, but you keep trivializing them with your nonsense about speed limits and comparisons to Hitler. Stopping distance. Yes.But we don't set our traffic laws to prevent every accident. Y'know why? Because we don't go by the principle that any sacrifice is justifiable if it saves one life. We go by the principle that our elected representatives can achieve the best compromise between traffic flow and safety.As long as we have those elected representatives, you have no case to rest.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No. I'm brushing off comparisons to Nazi Germany on the grounds that they're utterly ludicrous.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Right, until the next election. When we stop having elections, you might have a case.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I already told you I'll be in the concentration camp before you will. When I stop posting here, be afraid. I also warned you about crying "Wolf!" If you cry "Wolf!" every time you see an ant, people won't believe you when/if the real wolf comes.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The obvious difference is that all motorists are treated equally."Harassment" implies of somebody, by somebody. In the case of traffic regulations, it's the community deciding what's good for the community. No discrimination, no harassment.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The trouble is, you haven't shown that any of that is true.You haven't shown that the traffic regulations are unjustified for safety reasons. You haven't shown that the public has been tricked/coerced into accepting them. You haven't shown actions by a minority against the majority.You haven't shown harassment. You haven't shown self-righteousness on anybody's part but your own.All you've shown is your own contempt for the democratic process.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No. The effectiveness if the regulations is irrelevant. Whether or not there has been any effect on road casualties, you haven't shown that anybody was fooled, propagandized, etc. into accepting those regulations. "Real-life cases" are irrelevant. You could probably find real-life cases of people who vote the way the Martians tell them to vote. That doesn't indicate that the overall vote is effected by individual "real-life cases". Irrelevant. I could say that I expect the sun to rise tomorrow if I watch Big Brother tonight. Whaddya know, watching Big Brother causes the sun to rise.Show cause and effect. As you detailed yourself, there certainly is a consultation process. The public failing to inform itself doesn't constitute a propaganda campaign on the part of the government.(You see a lot more consultation over traffic regualtions than about most issues.) Things have worked here in a similar way for a long, long time - say, since the 1920s. That's hardly a crisis situation or even a minor revelation. In the election of the councillors and in the consultations.Edited by Ringo, : Added second "in" to last line for clarity.Edited by Ringo, : Spellings.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC