GOP speaking instructions: open mouth, insert foot.

[sunnyside]

So, blaming the victims is OK so long as you couch it in the guise of historical talking points? Good to know.

...you know what, this is actually a thing that comes up with some regularity. So in all seriousness, how could a non-Jew articulate the point in such a way that it wouldn't be offensive?

Perhaps if one only used attributed quotes from something like http://jpfo.org/ ?


Huh, they actually have an article on this incident
http://www.stolinsky.com/wordpress/inde ... illusions/

[Mikey]

So in all seriousness, how could a non-Jew articulate the point in such a way that it wouldn't be offensive?

Simple: do NOT talk about how the Jews (while ignoring the other ethnic groups involved) are at fault for "letting" the Holocaust proceed. If there's no decent way to discuss the matter without sounding like an asshole, chances are because there's decent material to discuss except for being an asshole. I.e., if I have to spell it out further - if you can't figure out how a non-Jew (or Jew, AFAIC) can't articulate the point without it being offensive, then there's no valid point to be articulated.

[McAvoy]

Generally I hate it when Nazi and the Jewish Genocide is brought up as a comparison for anything really. Animal rights activists (not counting PeTA who are just attention where's for money) compare eating meat as worse than the Jewish Genocide. They have compared the animal shows like the Nazi breeding programs to have the perfect specimen.

Also I honestly do not see how an armed population of Jewish would make it any more different. Maybe more difficult to be sure. But really, this pro gun thing is a very recent thing.

This whole Ted Nugent like act towards guns is new and doesn't represent how the world was before WW2.

[Mikey]

The key point isn't even the fact that he's moronically wrong. It's the fact that civilized people don't blame rapes on the shortness of a woman's skirt.

[McAvoy]

The key point isn't even the fact that he's moronically wrong. It's the fact that civilized people don't blame rapes on the shortness of a woman's skirt.

Ironically, alot of Republican politicians do.

[sunnyside]

The key point isn't even the fact that he's moronically wrong. It's the fact that civilized people don't blame rapes on the shortness of a woman's skirt.

No, but that does bring us back to the topic at hand in that one might want to point out that if she'd had a gun there may well have been not only one less rapist and victim out there, but she might also have saved future victims of the same perpetrator.

At least in that case one could attempt to focus on statistics or success space. I suppose in the case of people and nations one could point towards Switzerland being able to be neutral or something.

But there's perhaps less rhetorical punch there as it's easier to wave off successful defense as somehow unnecessary, and people tend to just ignore statistics they don't like. Specific tales of impending horrors that people have been prevented from being able to do anything about except await in terror or make a futile attempt to escape stick in the mind.

But apparently that's touchy.

[Mikey]

The point isn't that she might have prevented the rape had she been armed; the point is that it's disgusting and churlish to say that she had a responsibility to prevent the rape by being armed.

[IanKennedy]

The point isn't that she might have prevented the rape had she been armed; the point is that it's disgusting and churlish to say that she had a responsibility to prevent the rape by being armed.

I can agree with that.

[sunnyside]

The point isn't that she might have prevented the rape had she been armed; the point is that it's disgusting and churlish to say that she had a responsibility to prevent the rape by being armed.

I can agree with that.

...Ok, but that's obviously not what I was trying to say. There isn't even a particular "she" this is a hypothetical brought up explicitly for discussing how one can broach such topics.

Tough obviously I should take this as a warning to be careful not to give the impression of such an implication. Perhaps the focus should be on the idea that people stripped her of her right (or, if the state currently has concealed carry, are attempting to strip her of her right) to be able to carry a defensive weapon if she'd want to?

I wonder if this is an broader issue when dealing with negative consequences. Remember those movies and after school specials where somebody has unprotected sex and then pregrancy, STDs, and death ensue? I wonder if you just can't do that anymore.

[Mikey]

I think the idea is more that broaching the topic of "she" (i.e., the Jews of 1930's central Europe) being legitimately able to carry a defensive weapons is halfway to saying that she should have done so in order to defend herself from rape; and therefore, is tantamount to saying that rape is simply an extant fact of life, and the responsibility falls on her to prevent it. That's what's disgusting, and in Carson's commentary amounts to saying that we should look at reasons why the Jews* failed to defend themselves rather than looking at the fact that the world should take steps to stop genocide. When you say, "She could have prevented that assault if she had a gun," you may simply mean that (which fact is completely tangential to the fact of the assault.) She, however, hears that her assailant has just been absolved from responsibility for his crime against her because she didn't take the step of arming herself.

*I am not Ben Carson; and while I use the term "the Jews" as a simple shorthand to approximate his comments, I am fully and painfully aware that the Jews were far from the only victims of the Holocaust.

[IanKennedy]

It's also along the lines of the concept that if "she" hadn't worn "that skirt" then she wouldn't have been raped. As if it's her fault for not doing this to prevent the rape.

As for "her" having a gun, she could equally had one and had it taken off her because she had little competency with it and then she ends up raped and shot. Having a gun in no way ensures that you will be able to defend yourself.

[Graham Kennedy]

Putting aside the fact that it's an incredibly dickish thing to say... does anybody actually think that if the Jews had had a bunch of rifles and pistols, the holocaust wouldn't have happened?

[Mikey]

Putting aside the fact that it's an incredibly dickish thing to say... does anybody actually think that if the Jews had had a bunch of rifles and pistols, the holocaust wouldn't have happened?

Apparently, Ben Carson believes there's a chance that this is exactly the outcome that would have resulted. The thought occurs to me that the Nazi party had the manpower and mechanism to do things like strip Jews of their real assetts, liquid assetts, occupied properties, even force the Jews in the capital parish of another country to vacate their hometowns and live in ghettoes... how exactly was this guerilla force of well-armed Maccabbees supposed to maintain its armories?

[Graham Kennedy]

Anybody here, I meant.

You can have a successful insurgency - look at Iraq - but tht shit pretty much depends on a couple of important factors. Like having a sizeable chunk of the population on your side, and having the ability to blend in and hide amongst that population when your oppressors come looking. I know there were Germans who didn't hate Jews, but the large majority seemed to support the Nazis on that front, or at least to be willing to go along with them. Not to mention the fact that the Nazis would paint any armed resistance in terms of "Look, we were right all along, they're killing Germans openly now! The enemy within, just like we always said!"

And whilst there were Jews who pretended to be non-Jewish, doing the Anne Frank routine on five million people just isn't going to work.

Not to mention modern insurgents really thrive on the mercy of their enemies. Fact is that the unwillingness of the western militaries to "be the bad guys" gives the insurgents a lot of leeway to do their thing. Does anybody really think the Nazis would have that kind of restraint?

No, the idea of a massive army of Jews with civilian weapons up against one of the most powerful and well armed armies in the world doesn't seem like a realistic proposition to me.

[Mikey]

Not to mention that such an insurgency was attempted - in a demographic terrain comrpising a sanguine population of the oppressed and with the active support of the local nationality - and was so utterly useless as to become a synonym in history for "brave but worthless."

*EDIT* OK, I think I've come up with a way to describe to Sunny and others why Carson's commentary is offensive without just saying, "Because it is." Let's replace the subjective part - i.e., the "if they were armed" - with another plausible and situationally appropriate "then" statement in Carson's "if/then" scenario:

"If the Jews had just [renounced their religion and fell in step with the Nazis,] then the Holocaust might have been prevented."

I will trust that I don't need to explain the offensiveness of that statement?