...or just granting you a Godwin point for comparing the Revolution with Hitler.
...
Edit : oh, I find it very… surprising that on LW someone can quote Philippe De Villiers, who is a representative of our extreme right, a fundamentalist Catholic and openly racist and homophobe. Sure, even Hitler is sometimes right, but quoting an extreme-right politician who viscerally oppose the French Revolution because the French Revolution broke the power the Catholic Church had on the government, and stripped the priests from the powers they had over daily life. What a reference on a community dedicated to refining the art of human rationality.
I’ve edited my comment several times, yet I remain quite unsure as to what I should say.
I defend kilobug here; It’s not as bad as it looks. Each unnecessary Hitler reference is fractionally as bad as the previous, as Godwin’s law is about the subject arising in the first place.
What’s more, Vladmir_M referenced Hitler in an argument that something bad wouldn’t be repeated until Hitler. That’s not hypothetical, that references a terrible thing in the technically true rhetorical construct of “X is/was the worst thing since/until Y” where Y is/was worse than X, possibly by orders of magnitude, but the brain associates X and Y as similar regardless, in a way that is inappropriate.
kilobug only mentioned Hitler as a most extreme example of bad character, but it was clearly hypothetical. It’s a cheap rhetorical move, maybe, but I think it’s worse to say something is the “worst thing since.until Hitler”, even if true, if that thing is orders of magnitude less bad (for several reasons), since it’s not taking a hypothetical extreme case.
I think Hitler’s killing program was much worse than Revolutionary France’s for several reasons. First, quantitatively, hundreds of times as many innocents were killed. Second, France’s was a case of willingness to convict nine innocents lest a guilty person go free, while a significant part of Germany’s was gratuitous—this is a qualitative difference.
The news media love to use the “since” construction to inflame things and exaggerate importance, i.e. “This is the worst economic slowdown since the Great Depression” may mean “This economic slowdown is slightly worse than the one in the 1970′s that you remember and have in your mind as a close comparable and that by all rights we should be comparing it to, also we either forgot 1937 or include it as part of the ‘Great Depression’”.
That’s a fair point. I shouldn’t have used the Nazi comparison due to its rhetorical effects that always obscure and sidetrack the concrete issue at hand.
When I wrote that, I had in mind specifically the history of Western Europe, and what a typical inhabitant of a Western European country would have seen through the centuries. If you plot the severity of atrocities that a random Western European would have had the chance to witness in his local region of residence after the Peace of Westphalia (1648), using any reasonable measure of their severity, there would definitely be sharp peaks around the time of the revolutionary/Napoleonic wars and WW2, with other peaks such as the Franco-Prussian War and even WW1 significantly lower.
But yes, I do plead guilty to rhetoric that, even if not strictly inaccurate, goes too far into the Dark Arts territory.
But yes, I do plead guilty to rhetoric that, even if not strictly inaccurate, goes too far into the Dark Arts territory.
I don’t find it rhetorical, I find it factual. If we avoid stating certain facts in order to avoid offending certain sensibilities, then we are committing an error of omission. As I see it, in this case you were not pulled from the brink of Dark Arts. Rather, you were pulled from the brink of political incorrectness. Which is not the same thing at all.
When any group is being sufficiently totalitarian in the name of lofty ideals, I support comparisons to other totalitarian groups, which may include the Nazis and the Soviets (among others). I believe that such comparisons can help us learn from history. Of course, the subject of such comparisons will always be both quantitatively and qualitatively different, but the Nazis and the Soviets provide intersubjective references points for certain political ideas gone wrong.
Of course, it could be more rhetorically pragmatic to swallow these analogies even when accurate depending on the audience.
Upvoted since I definitely agree that comparing anything to Hitler or Nazis causes fairly consistent and predictable problems in the rationality of responses.
I think kilobug goes too far in supporting the French Revolution—I think it’s good that France no longer has even a symbolic monarch, but I agree with Vladimir that kilobug glosses over the loss of human life and freedoms that occurred during the revolution. Saying things like this without backing them up with a lot of evidence (which probably doesn’t exist given the absolutes used to qualify the statement), sounds overly idealistic(emphasis mine):
There is no ethnic conflict that was started inspired by the French Revolution. The French Revolution was the first to proclaim absolute equality of people, whatever their race, nationality, religion (or lack of religion) was. That’s what it abolished slavery, for example.
I think kilobug goes too far in supporting the French Revolution—I think it’s good that France no longer has even a symbolic monarch,
I live in Canada, which still has a symbolic monarch. What precise advantage, in your opinion, does France enjoy over Canada because it no longer has one? Or do you think that there is some difference that makes the lack of a monarch beneficial only for the French?
I think I should emphasize that I don’t think anything horrible should be done to any current symbolic monarch, and I do not approve of what happened to the full monarchs during the French Revolution. However, symbolic monarchs are very expensive politicians to maintain, and whether or not they gain their position is an accident of birth. They may not have absolute power like a full monarch would have, and therefore I disapprove of them less than I would a full monarch (since their role is quite different), but I still disapprove.
I should note that I disapprove of full monarchs because I disapprove of so few people holding such great power in society. I disapprove of symbolic monarchs because I don’t feel any one politician should occupy a position where they are automatically made so important over others.
For those symbolic monarchs today who perform in their current roles admirably, I feel it would be better to simply drop the title and change it to something more reflective of their political duties, drop the inheritance of the role, and change the income from the state to something more in line with what other politicians receive. The lifelong nature of the role can be kept if this still better fulfills some function of the new, but similar, role.
To answer your two questions, there’s not much of a practical advantage, but I simply prefer the lack of a symbolic monarch because I dislike monarchy. I don’t think this would make the lack of a symbolic monarch only beneficial to the French. However, I do think this is mostly a cultural and/or individual preference
a person may have.
Supporting Notes
Compare the price of an example symbolic monarchy vs an example president. While its true that a symbolic monarch probably isn’t going to strain the finances of a relatively rich country, I must also consider the price of an example prime minister of the same country as for the symbolic monarch and I have to disagree that they should be worth so much less than the symbolic monarch (this is irrespective of who the monarch is or how many separate countries share the monarch between them, and more about how I rate the value of the respective positions, since the individuals come and go).
symbolic monarchs are very expensive politicians to maintain
You link to a web page that says: “Latest figures show the cost of supporting the Royal Family has gone up to nearly £37m a year.” That’s a drop in the bucket. The American Congress is much more expensive to maintain. I refer not to their salaries but to what they cost the US. For example, when Congress passes a law that requires that a hundred billion dollars be spent on something that does more harm than good, then the Congress has cost us a hundred billion dollars. In comparison to that, the damage done to the country’s purse by the Royal Family is pocket money.
...I do not approve of...I disapprove of …I disapprove of …I disapprove of …I disapprove of … I feel it would be better...I simply prefer...
Much of your reply is devoted to stating your preferences, which tells us only about you (you are signaling your political allegiances). However, the question that was asked was not about your preferences. It was “what precise advantage, in your opinion, does France enjoy...” and “do you think that there is some difference that makes the lack of a monarch beneficial only for the French...” Your preferences and your political allegiances are not quite the same thing as what advantages and benefits a population enjoys.
I view a question about my opinion as a question about my preferences. In fact, I don’t think there’s any way a person can answer that question without referencing their preferences. Of course, I did try to go into more detail about what specific preferences were involved and reference facts when applicable, but I’m not really sure what benefits or advantages other people would enjoy, excepting those who agree with me. This is why I didn’t reference that particular preference.
I’m not really sure why you think the comparison to the laws congress passes is applicable. As far as I understand, a symbolic monarchy doesn’t pass laws. Are you saying that people who pass laws should be eliminated because they can make awful choices? The consequences of people’s choices is entirely dependent on how much power they have. Also, I was only commenting about the inequality of their pay, not so much that it is a burden on their society (as I stated in my previous post). Once again, this is a personal preference.
What precise advantage, in your opinion, does France enjoy over Canada because it no longer has [a monarch]?
Obviously there are tons of confounding variables here that make the net benefit hard to measure, but clearly the main advantage is the ability of the population to elect the head of state.
(Also, Canada has the additional disadvantage of sharing its monarch with other countries; the reasons why this is problematic at least in theory should go without saying.)
I don’t think this would be the right place to enter a general discussion of these issues, but I must note that your response reflects beliefs that are, in my opinion, far below the standards of intellectual scrutiny that are supposed to be observed on LW. In particular, you seem to be assuming that, by any reasonable standards, democratic election of the head of state is clearly a good thing, while personal unions between countries are clearly bad. You also treat these claims as obvious.
To me it seems that both these claims are easily falsified by real-world evidence, and even setting aside that stronger rebuttal that would take some effort to justify, there is certainly no rational reason to treat them as self-evident.
your response reflects beliefs that are, in my opinion, far below the standards of intelectual scrutiny that are supposed to be observed on LW.
I don’t think that’s fair. We all have a great many beliefs inherited from general culture, more than we have the opportunity to scrutinize (especially without specific prompting). Even if my standards of intellectual scrutiny are very high, some of my beliefs are bound to be false; if you want to judge whether I’m meeting the LW standards of intellectual scrutiny, you should observe how I update in the face of new evidence or contrary argument, not necessarily the content of my starting beliefs themselves.
In particular, you seem to be assuming that, by any reasonable standards, democratic election of the head of state is clearly a good thing,
Only ceteris paribus, however; and I was careful not to claim that democratic election is necessarily a good thing on net in any specific case (such as that of the countries mentioned), but only a desideratum to be weighed against whatever disadvantages it may involve in a particular context.
while personal unions between countries are clearly bad
“Clearly present certain problems” would be a better paraphrase.
To me it seems that both these claims are easily falsified by real-world evidence,
If you interpreted them in the unreasonably strong senses that I have disclaimed above, I can see why you might think so. However, when understood in the sense I intended, I think my claims are perfectly true and hardly worthy of controversy.
and even setting aside that stronger claim that would take some effort to justify, there is certainly no rational reason to treat your beliefs as self-evident.
Again, I would by no means claim it is self-evident that France’s governmental structure is superior to Canada’s on the whole; only that France’s has at least some desirable features that Canada’s lacks.
OK, pardon if I have interpreted your claims too uncharitably, or if I sounded too personally critical. I didn’t mean to pick on you as having low intellectual standards or anything like that—I merely wanted to point out that your reply sounded like a cached thought of a sort that, in a different context, would likely raise a red flag for many people here, possibly including you, thus potentially indicating some widespread biases reflected in failure to notice the cached thoughts in this particular case.
When you say that “clearly the main advantage is the ability of the population to elect the head of state,” this can mean, to the best of my interpretation, either that this ability is somehow valuable in itself (so that this value should be counted as a positive term separately from its practical consequences), or that it self-evidently has advantageous implications. Do you think this interpretation is incorrect or uncharitable? I certainly find neither the former nor the latter possible meaning as “hardly worthy of controversy.”
Your subsequent comments indicate that you had in mind the former meaning, i.e. that popular election of the head of state is somehow desirable and valuable in itself, which however may need to be weighted against its possible bad practical implications. But as I said, I definitely don’t see how this claim is self-evident. How exactly would you justify it?
As for the issue of personal union (i.e. sharing the head of state with other countries), you characterized it as an “additional disadvantage,” thus implying (again to the best of my interpretation) that it is indeed, on the net, a disadvantage. But I don’t see how this could possibly be self-evident either—off-hand, I can easily produce a bunch of reasons why it could plausibly have both disadvantages and advantages. (As an off-hand example of an advantage, as a Canadian, you can still get some degree of British consular protection.) Which of these prevail of course depends both on empirical questions and how we choose to weight individual concerns. But again, I really don’t see how such an assertion could be “hardly worth of controversy.”
OK, pardon if I have interpreted your claims too uncharitably. I didn’t mean to pick on you as having low intellectual standards or anything like that—I merely wanted to point out that your reply sounded like a cached thought that
What’s more, Vladmir_M referenced Hitler in an argument that something bad wouldn’t be repeated until Hitler. That’s not hypothetical, that references a terrible thing in the technically true rhetorical construct of “X is/was the worst thing since/until Y” where Y is/was worse than X, possibly by orders of magnitude, but the brain associates X and Y as similar regardless, in a way that is inappropriate.
Every totalitarian terror state has been consciously inspired by the French Revolution and Red Terror—Marx invokes the red terror as a good idea, though perhaps not carried out with sufficient thoroughness.
While “X was the worst thing until Y” can inappropriately associate X and Y, there are in this case many connections and similarities between X and Y.
Critics of the French Revolution foresaw twentieth century totalitarianism in its actions and ideology:
Joseph de Maistre foretold:
The people are told by their masters:
You believe that you don’t want this law, but we assure you that you do. If you dare reject it we shall shoot you down in order to punish you for not wanting what you do want.
and then they do so
Since reference to Hitler automatically provokes irrationality, I would have said, and come to think of it I did say, that the French revolution prefigured the totalitarian terror regimes of the twentieth century.
“Every totalitarian terror state has been consciously inspired by the French Revolution and Red Terror”
Every democratic and freedom-loving state has also been inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
Also everything good and everything bad in the Western World since the Rise of the Roman Empire, has been influenced from the Roman Empire. This includes the czars of Russia being called “Czars” (from Caesar), and the Senate of the United States being called a “Senate”.
Saying that a world-smashing thing helps inspire subsequent things, both bad and good, isn’t a testament to its badness—it’s a testament to its importance.
the totalitarian terror regimes of the twentieth century.
That’s the phrase you use to avoid provoking the irrationality that comes from referencing Hitler?
France’s was a case of willingness to convict nine innocents lest a guilty person go free, while a significant part of Germany’s was gratuitous—this is a qualitative difference.
While “X was the worst thing until Y” can inappropriately associate X and Y, there are in this case many connections and similarities between X and Y.
People are well trained to go instant frothing at the mouth crazy at such words as “Hitler”, “Nazi”, and “fascist”. Four legs good, two legs bad.
But such words as “totalitarian” and “terror” instead provoke the anti anti communist reflex and the anti Islamophobia reflex, where with great sophistication, calmness, maturity and civility they assure us that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Downvoted: If you know these words provoke irrational responses, then that’s all the more reason that you shouldn’t have used them. We’re a forum that seeks to promote rationality, not irrationality.
...
I’ve edited my comment several times, yet I remain quite unsure as to what I should say.
I defend kilobug here; It’s not as bad as it looks. Each unnecessary Hitler reference is fractionally as bad as the previous, as Godwin’s law is about the subject arising in the first place.
What’s more, Vladmir_M referenced Hitler in an argument that something bad wouldn’t be repeated until Hitler. That’s not hypothetical, that references a terrible thing in the technically true rhetorical construct of “X is/was the worst thing since/until Y” where Y is/was worse than X, possibly by orders of magnitude, but the brain associates X and Y as similar regardless, in a way that is inappropriate.
kilobug only mentioned Hitler as a most extreme example of bad character, but it was clearly hypothetical. It’s a cheap rhetorical move, maybe, but I think it’s worse to say something is the “worst thing since.until Hitler”, even if true, if that thing is orders of magnitude less bad (for several reasons), since it’s not taking a hypothetical extreme case.
I think Hitler’s killing program was much worse than Revolutionary France’s for several reasons. First, quantitatively, hundreds of times as many innocents were killed. Second, France’s was a case of willingness to convict nine innocents lest a guilty person go free, while a significant part of Germany’s was gratuitous—this is a qualitative difference.
The news media love to use the “since” construction to inflame things and exaggerate importance, i.e. “This is the worst economic slowdown since the Great Depression” may mean “This economic slowdown is slightly worse than the one in the 1970′s that you remember and have in your mind as a close comparable and that by all rights we should be comparing it to, also we either forgot 1937 or include it as part of the ‘Great Depression’”.
That’s a fair point. I shouldn’t have used the Nazi comparison due to its rhetorical effects that always obscure and sidetrack the concrete issue at hand.
When I wrote that, I had in mind specifically the history of Western Europe, and what a typical inhabitant of a Western European country would have seen through the centuries. If you plot the severity of atrocities that a random Western European would have had the chance to witness in his local region of residence after the Peace of Westphalia (1648), using any reasonable measure of their severity, there would definitely be sharp peaks around the time of the revolutionary/Napoleonic wars and WW2, with other peaks such as the Franco-Prussian War and even WW1 significantly lower.
But yes, I do plead guilty to rhetoric that, even if not strictly inaccurate, goes too far into the Dark Arts territory.
I don’t find it rhetorical, I find it factual. If we avoid stating certain facts in order to avoid offending certain sensibilities, then we are committing an error of omission. As I see it, in this case you were not pulled from the brink of Dark Arts. Rather, you were pulled from the brink of political incorrectness. Which is not the same thing at all.
When any group is being sufficiently totalitarian in the name of lofty ideals, I support comparisons to other totalitarian groups, which may include the Nazis and the Soviets (among others). I believe that such comparisons can help us learn from history. Of course, the subject of such comparisons will always be both quantitatively and qualitatively different, but the Nazis and the Soviets provide intersubjective references points for certain political ideas gone wrong.
Of course, it could be more rhetorically pragmatic to swallow these analogies even when accurate depending on the audience.
Upvoted since I definitely agree that comparing anything to Hitler or Nazis causes fairly consistent and predictable problems in the rationality of responses.
I think kilobug goes too far in supporting the French Revolution—I think it’s good that France no longer has even a symbolic monarch, but I agree with Vladimir that kilobug glosses over the loss of human life and freedoms that occurred during the revolution. Saying things like this without backing them up with a lot of evidence (which probably doesn’t exist given the absolutes used to qualify the statement), sounds overly idealistic(emphasis mine):
I live in Canada, which still has a symbolic monarch. What precise advantage, in your opinion, does France enjoy over Canada because it no longer has one? Or do you think that there is some difference that makes the lack of a monarch beneficial only for the French?
I think I should emphasize that I don’t think anything horrible should be done to any current symbolic monarch, and I do not approve of what happened to the full monarchs during the French Revolution. However, symbolic monarchs are very expensive politicians to maintain, and whether or not they gain their position is an accident of birth. They may not have absolute power like a full monarch would have, and therefore I disapprove of them less than I would a full monarch (since their role is quite different), but I still disapprove.
I should note that I disapprove of full monarchs because I disapprove of so few people holding such great power in society. I disapprove of symbolic monarchs because I don’t feel any one politician should occupy a position where they are automatically made so important over others.
For those symbolic monarchs today who perform in their current roles admirably, I feel it would be better to simply drop the title and change it to something more reflective of their political duties, drop the inheritance of the role, and change the income from the state to something more in line with what other politicians receive. The lifelong nature of the role can be kept if this still better fulfills some function of the new, but similar, role.
To answer your two questions, there’s not much of a practical advantage, but I simply prefer the lack of a symbolic monarch because I dislike monarchy. I don’t think this would make the lack of a symbolic monarch only beneficial to the French. However, I do think this is mostly a cultural and/or individual preference a person may have.
Supporting Notes
Compare the price of an example symbolic monarchy vs an example president. While its true that a symbolic monarch probably isn’t going to strain the finances of a relatively rich country, I must also consider the price of an example prime minister of the same country as for the symbolic monarch and I have to disagree that they should be worth so much less than the symbolic monarch (this is irrespective of who the monarch is or how many separate countries share the monarch between them, and more about how I rate the value of the respective positions, since the individuals come and go).
You link to a web page that says: “Latest figures show the cost of supporting the Royal Family has gone up to nearly £37m a year.” That’s a drop in the bucket. The American Congress is much more expensive to maintain. I refer not to their salaries but to what they cost the US. For example, when Congress passes a law that requires that a hundred billion dollars be spent on something that does more harm than good, then the Congress has cost us a hundred billion dollars. In comparison to that, the damage done to the country’s purse by the Royal Family is pocket money.
Much of your reply is devoted to stating your preferences, which tells us only about you (you are signaling your political allegiances). However, the question that was asked was not about your preferences. It was “what precise advantage, in your opinion, does France enjoy...” and “do you think that there is some difference that makes the lack of a monarch beneficial only for the French...” Your preferences and your political allegiances are not quite the same thing as what advantages and benefits a population enjoys.
I view a question about my opinion as a question about my preferences. In fact, I don’t think there’s any way a person can answer that question without referencing their preferences. Of course, I did try to go into more detail about what specific preferences were involved and reference facts when applicable, but I’m not really sure what benefits or advantages other people would enjoy, excepting those who agree with me. This is why I didn’t reference that particular preference.
I’m not really sure why you think the comparison to the laws congress passes is applicable. As far as I understand, a symbolic monarchy doesn’t pass laws. Are you saying that people who pass laws should be eliminated because they can make awful choices? The consequences of people’s choices is entirely dependent on how much power they have. Also, I was only commenting about the inequality of their pay, not so much that it is a burden on their society (as I stated in my previous post). Once again, this is a personal preference.
Obviously there are tons of confounding variables here that make the net benefit hard to measure, but clearly the main advantage is the ability of the population to elect the head of state.
(Also, Canada has the additional disadvantage of sharing its monarch with other countries; the reasons why this is problematic at least in theory should go without saying.)
I don’t think this would be the right place to enter a general discussion of these issues, but I must note that your response reflects beliefs that are, in my opinion, far below the standards of intellectual scrutiny that are supposed to be observed on LW. In particular, you seem to be assuming that, by any reasonable standards, democratic election of the head of state is clearly a good thing, while personal unions between countries are clearly bad. You also treat these claims as obvious.
To me it seems that both these claims are easily falsified by real-world evidence, and even setting aside that stronger rebuttal that would take some effort to justify, there is certainly no rational reason to treat them as self-evident.
I don’t think that’s fair. We all have a great many beliefs inherited from general culture, more than we have the opportunity to scrutinize (especially without specific prompting). Even if my standards of intellectual scrutiny are very high, some of my beliefs are bound to be false; if you want to judge whether I’m meeting the LW standards of intellectual scrutiny, you should observe how I update in the face of new evidence or contrary argument, not necessarily the content of my starting beliefs themselves.
Only ceteris paribus, however; and I was careful not to claim that democratic election is necessarily a good thing on net in any specific case (such as that of the countries mentioned), but only a desideratum to be weighed against whatever disadvantages it may involve in a particular context.
“Clearly present certain problems” would be a better paraphrase.
If you interpreted them in the unreasonably strong senses that I have disclaimed above, I can see why you might think so. However, when understood in the sense I intended, I think my claims are perfectly true and hardly worthy of controversy.
Again, I would by no means claim it is self-evident that France’s governmental structure is superior to Canada’s on the whole; only that France’s has at least some desirable features that Canada’s lacks.
OK, pardon if I have interpreted your claims too uncharitably, or if I sounded too personally critical. I didn’t mean to pick on you as having low intellectual standards or anything like that—I merely wanted to point out that your reply sounded like a cached thought of a sort that, in a different context, would likely raise a red flag for many people here, possibly including you, thus potentially indicating some widespread biases reflected in failure to notice the cached thoughts in this particular case.
When you say that “clearly the main advantage is the ability of the population to elect the head of state,” this can mean, to the best of my interpretation, either that this ability is somehow valuable in itself (so that this value should be counted as a positive term separately from its practical consequences), or that it self-evidently has advantageous implications. Do you think this interpretation is incorrect or uncharitable? I certainly find neither the former nor the latter possible meaning as “hardly worthy of controversy.”
Your subsequent comments indicate that you had in mind the former meaning, i.e. that popular election of the head of state is somehow desirable and valuable in itself, which however may need to be weighted against its possible bad practical implications. But as I said, I definitely don’t see how this claim is self-evident. How exactly would you justify it?
As for the issue of personal union (i.e. sharing the head of state with other countries), you characterized it as an “additional disadvantage,” thus implying (again to the best of my interpretation) that it is indeed, on the net, a disadvantage. But I don’t see how this could possibly be self-evident either—off-hand, I can easily produce a bunch of reasons why it could plausibly have both disadvantages and advantages. (As an off-hand example of an advantage, as a Canadian, you can still get some degree of British consular protection.) Which of these prevail of course depends both on empirical questions and how we choose to weight individual concerns. But again, I really don’t see how such an assertion could be “hardly worth of controversy.”
OK, pardon if I have interpreted your claims too uncharitably. I didn’t mean to pick on you as having low intellectual standards or anything like that—I merely wanted to point out that your reply sounded like a cached thought that
Hmm...
Every totalitarian terror state has been consciously inspired by the French Revolution and Red Terror—Marx invokes the red terror as a good idea, though perhaps not carried out with sufficient thoroughness.
While “X was the worst thing until Y” can inappropriately associate X and Y, there are in this case many connections and similarities between X and Y.
Critics of the French Revolution foresaw twentieth century totalitarianism in its actions and ideology:
Joseph de Maistre foretold:
Since reference to Hitler automatically provokes irrationality, I would have said, and come to think of it I did say, that the French revolution prefigured the totalitarian terror regimes of the twentieth century.
Every democratic and freedom-loving state has also been inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
Also everything good and everything bad in the Western World since the Rise of the Roman Empire, has been influenced from the Roman Empire. This includes the czars of Russia being called “Czars” (from Caesar), and the Senate of the United States being called a “Senate”.
Saying that a world-smashing thing helps inspire subsequent things, both bad and good, isn’t a testament to its badness—it’s a testament to its importance.
That’s the phrase you use to avoid provoking the irrationality that comes from referencing Hitler?
People are well trained to go instant frothing at the mouth crazy at such words as “Hitler”, “Nazi”, and “fascist”. Four legs good, two legs bad.
But such words as “totalitarian” and “terror” instead provoke the anti anti communist reflex and the anti Islamophobia reflex, where with great sophistication, calmness, maturity and civility they assure us that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Downvoted: If you know these words provoke irrational responses, then that’s all the more reason that you shouldn’t have used them. We’re a forum that seeks to promote rationality, not irrationality.
Haha, actually that didn’t even occur to me.