Big Apple Dreaming

I'm not a friend there, nor do I care to be. However, I had crafted the following response before finding out it was not a public forum;

...nor does it pose a credible threat to Wicca.

Just because Wicca is not currently targeted does not mean this movement is not a threat to Wicca or any other religion. Their actions are already having an impact on a number of facets of life, in ways which may take decades to undo. To ignore them or discount them as 'powerless' is to invite them to undermine your defenses without lifting a hand to stop them.

No, it's not possible they will gain control of the government. They're yet another noisy fringe group with extremist views - they are lots on both sides (left & right).

This is an excellent example of what the word marginalize actually means. To marginalize something is to relegate it to a marginal position. This does not mean that the relegation is accurate or appropriate, only that it was done. Conservatives and extremists rely on just such marginalization to remain under the radar until they have enough power to ignore any opposition.

"This is straight factual reporting, much of it "in their own words"."
- means it's not factual reporting, it's their own (or the other side's) propaganda.

Actually, what is being reported in the linked articles is the position being taken by these groups. Therefore, reporting what their own propagande says is, in fact, factual reporting. "This is what these people believe, and this quote from them shows that I am not just interpreting this poorly."

To say that simply because a group has not been reported on by another group means they are powerless or ineffective is an incredibly poor use of logic.
To say that because another group has no data more recent than four years ago, that the group in question poses no credible threat is also incredibly poor logic.

Your remarks about Bush seem more inline with the type of arguments made by the very neo-cons who support him.
There is no dichotomy between being a member of Skull and Bones, being a neo-con and a dominionist. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the ideals of each. Nor has anyone here or in the articles postulated that he is a 'tool' of all these organizations. You ridicule it without providing any points in support of your 'argument', which is no argument at all.

If you want evidence of the nation's move towards the religious right, try reading some news other than Fox, look at international news agencies which aren't controlled by the right and try being a little less blindly accepting. There's plenty of evidence that both the government itself, and the nation in general are moving towards a christian extremist position.

Do I think we'll be stoning people to death anytime soon? No. Do I think dismissing these people as inconsequential is both foolish and dangerous? Absolutely.

From:

Is it ostrich syndrome, or annoyance with an activist poster who puts up the same message in multiple LJ-comms? Had the post originated from someone who regularly posts in a community and has gained the respect of the readers, then perhaps it's acceptable, but I don't think that's the case here.

Perhaps what is necessary is a community for Wiccan activitism, so that people who want to become active in the political arena could do so.

From:

I don't think the ostrich syndrome comment refers to people who thought this was not the appropriate venue, but those who felt that the information presented was of no consequence to the Wiccan community at large.

If one can only gain respect by posting serious comments, and one can only post serious comments if one has respect, it becomes difficult for new blood to contribute anything to a community. (The alternative, of course, is to gain respect by posting frivolous posts, which I would hope you would see as a silly theory.)
Perhaps the community should weigh posts on the merit of their content, not on how well liked and respected the poster is?

Finally, Godwin's Law does not apply when the reference is legitimate. Believe me, NOLA is well aware of the issues included in and surrounding Godwin's Law.

From:

The notion that the original post is paranoid claptrap can be logically argued. There is a lot of room for disagreement on this issue.

The second paragraph of your comment makes no sense in this context.

I stand by my assertion that Godwin's Law applies here, because this is by far not the same sort of situation as 1930s Germany. I refer you to Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich as a good resource on that subject.

And if

nolawitch wants take that issue up with me, I'm sure I'll hear about it from her directly. :-)

From:

As I noted in my aborted reply to woolysw, the degree of concern which the original post should warrant is variable. I agree that there is room for disagreement as to how dangerous the movement is, and that there is an element of paranoia. However, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. I'm comfortable with a position somewhere in between yours and his(hers?).

The second para makes perfect sense. You weren't debating his post on its own merits, but on the merits of his reputation or lack thereof alone.

You stated that

"Had the post originated from someone who regularly posts in a community and has gained the respect of the readers, then perhaps it's acceptable, but I don't think that's the case here."

The implication is that posting regularly automatically makes ones posts at least worthy of consideration, whereas the reverse is also true; That unfamiliarity makes posts not worthy of consideration.

With that sort of logic, how is a new poster to gain that respect? Certainly not by making a long series of frivolous posts of no intellectual value. On the other hand, should they be dismissed merely because they are new? I think not.

We can disagree on whether or not 1930's Germany was a time of extremists gradually coming to power in government. I'm not interested in debating the point. You've already stated your disbelief that any of this is real or dangerous.
I doubt any sort of proof of the nation's move towards christian extremism is going to sway you.

From:

thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com

I doubt any sort of proof of the nation's move towards christian extremism is going to sway you.

Heh. Short of legislation being passed that strips Wicca (and other non-Christian religions) of its religious status.

Maybe the difference is living (or having lived) in some seriously red places (I hear Kansas is trying to ban the teaching of evolution again), but the re-christianizing of the government is a very plausible threat to me. Hopefully, others will see it as well before it's too late.

From:

A new poster can gain respect initially by participating in a group without being a 900-pound gorilla. Extreme cross-posting is not good manners, particularly when they are posting about issues that can generate honest debate.

We can disagree on whether or not 1930's Germany was a time of extremists gradually coming to power in government. I'm not interested in debating the point.

That's hit-and-run posting. You only defend the statements that suit you. My point is that 1930s Germany has little resemblence to the United States in 2005, hence Godwin's Law is applicable here.

You've already stated your disbelief that any of this is real or dangerous. I doubt any sort of proof of the nation's move towards christian extremism is going to sway you.

OK, now this is just so much bullshit. Where did I state such disbelief? I didn't take a stand on the original post from

wiccan, other than to state that I don't buy the 1930s Germany analogy. I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth that I didn't speak/write.

From:

I'm in agreement on the issue of extreme cross posting. I misread. Your original statement does indeed include the comment about multiple lj communities. I was responding to the second half of that paragraph, which by itself deserved the remarks I made. I apologize for running off half-cocked.

The disagreement is essential to the exception in Godwin's Law. Since you cite Godwin's Law, you either don't think extremists were gaining power in 30's Germany, or you don't believe this situation is similar.

The second quote you italicize refers to this quote by you;

"The notion that the original post is paranoid claptrap can be logically argued."

which I take to mean that the original poster is full of it (in your opinion) and no such rise of extremists is taking place.

In that context, you would not see this situation as similar to the situation in Germany, and thus a proper invocation of Godwin's Law.

Have I miscontrued your comment?

You reference a work on the history of Nazi Germany which leaves me in some doubt as to whether or not you disbelieve both, or only one of the premises. While my phrasing could have been better, I wanted to ensure that my reasons for claiming an exception to Godwin's Law were clear.

Finally, the point I didn't want to debate was, in fact, the Godwin's Law point. I'd stated that NOLA was intimately familiar with it, knowing as I do that she's spent a great deal of time on another board where Godwin's Law has been extensively discussed. You were absolutely right that she can defend herself.

I did not want to get into a discussion of the minutia concerning the differences between 30's Germany and the political climate of today. It was clear to me that you didn't see the similarities, or perhaps you felt that the Nazi movement was not relative in some way. I've already spent more time than I care to elsewhere talking about the scarier aspects of our current government, and the resemblances to some of the occurrences in Germany, not to mention dystopian fiction.

However, I don't run from discussions. Not unless they are not bearing any fruit at all.

From:

In that context, you would not see this situation as similar to the situation in Germany, and thus a proper invocation of Godwin's Law.

Have I miscontrued your comment?

No, that is correct. But it's more than just this context. There are very few times when a comparison to Nazi Germany is valid. This is not one of them. There are some scary things going on in this country, yes, indeed. There is a need to make sure that the civil rights and liberties of all are protected. Use of overreaching rhetorical devices such as comparisons to the Nazis marginalizes the discussion. We've had rises in extremism in this country since WW2, and they've been beaten back. This extremist push can be beaten back as well, but not with overreaching rhetoric.

I would prefer to see a serious discussion of Pagan/Wiccan activism rather than wringing of hands and Christian-bashing, hence the second paragraph of my original comment here.

From:

However, I still think the similarities are close. Note we're referring to pre-Nazi Germany, not Nazi Germany. Das Sturm was spouting propaganda about the Jews, but they weren't being taken extremely seriously yet, apart from some beatings and the general attitude towards Jews. (The really serious actions would take place in the mid-30's if I recall, although you are surely better informed on these points than I.) The SS hadn't yet been formed, the war and the pogroms were distant visions of a select few, and the Solution hadn't been discussed yet.

We've already passed some of the milestones on the way to the Evil you claim we're marginalizing. I don't think we're overreaching, and I believe we're in much greater danger than you apparently do.

However, these are simply opinions on both our parts, so I think we've probably reached an impasse. We agree on the various facts of the nation's danger points. We simply disagree on the interpretation of them.

While I'm sure a discussion of Pagan/Wiccan activism might be beneficial to that community, I'm afraid I wouldn't have a lot to offer, as I am not a part of that particular demographic. My concerns are broader in base, and I would likely find myself feeling restricted in that sort of discussion. On the other hand, if you do begin a community for discussing activism, I'll at least drop by now and then. If I get an invite. :)

From:

oh, you'd gladly get an invite. I'm a big believer in not re-inventing the wheel, however, so I'm looking around to see if there's anything out there that fills the bill. If not, then perhaps we'll have to form that community!

From:

A couple points:
1) Godwin's Law as I've seen it invoked was largely used to wed out threads where the comparison to Hitler or the Nazi's was completely out of line or a vilification without any basis in fact. Several of the policies of the current administration have analogs in 1930's Germany and several of the key build-ups to a political situation where one man or one nationalistic ideal could carry such emotional power and invoke such fear are present in our society today.

2) This is not a Usenet group :-)

3) I notice you didn't post your personal position and its basis in fact, logic, or opinion for anyone to snub.

I saw you link to the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and appreciate it. I'll have to peruse that at length however.

Some of the analogs:
Homeland security
Centralized Intelligence
Gun Control
One Right Way. Here it's the Religious Right
The stated aims of the party in question being distinctly different from their actions.
Ignoring the current form ofgovernment and guiding laws / documents in favor of new policies. Changing / passing of new legislature with the sole intent of prohibiting rights to subclasses of society.
Patriotism / Nationalism over Rational thought
Dissent is Unpatriotic
Classification of those who disagree with you as less human (this has been happening for quite some time here and abroad) Dirty Terrorist Bastards is a terribly broad term, isn't it?

"They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist; They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist; They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader; They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me."

From:

clarification of 3)
I was referring to the original invocation o f Godwin's law in a location that is friend locked where I could not reply.

From:

1) Several of the policies of the current administration have analogs in 1930's Germany and several of the key build-ups to a political situation where one man or one nationalistic ideal could carry such emotional power and invoke such fear are present in our society today.

What is happening in this country is nothing compared to 1930s Germany. Suggesting a comparison is still an huge overreach.

2) This is not a Usenet group :-)

This is what the USENET has become, since it became a porn distribution system. :-)

3) I notice you didn't post your personal position and its basis in fact, logic, or opinion for anyone to snub.

That's right, which is why I took offense to someone telling me what my opinion is. :-)

From:

M: What is happening in this country is nothing compared to 1930s Germany. Suggesting a comparison is still an huge overreach.

P: That's called foreshadowing and learning from our past. While I agree that we pale in comparison to 1930's Germany, some of the precursors are in place and it's a scary enough observation to make people sit up and take note. The idea is to wake up and see that some of these policies may not hit our radar individually but the general policy trend of late is towards more centralized control, less tolerance, and less individual privacy and freedom. The surest way to end up where we don't want to go is to pay no attention to the warning signs. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

M: This is what the USENET has become, since it became a porn distribution system. :-)
P: Point on LJ as the Usenet of the 00's but with a new venue comes new trends, new modes of accepted behavior, and merely citing the old Godwin Saw without clear and concise reasoning is not always acceptable

P: 3) I notice you didn't post your personal position and its basis in fact, logic, or opinion for anyone to snub.

M: That's right, which is why I took offense to someone telling me what my opinion is. :-)

P: I didn't mean that was a good thing, and as I postyed in a reply to the post you replied to I was referring to your behavior in the original thread whichis friends locked. Personally, your blanket posting of Godwin's Law left a bad taste in my mouth and an urge to shout you down from my soapbox. Had you posted there any of what you posted here, your argunment may have had more weight.

Not that you're right, because this is a subject of sublty and seeing trends, for which your tactic of proclaiming that we're not EXACTLY like 1930's Germany is simply not suited. You're letting the magnitude of the evils of 1930's Germany blind you to the shift in policies which some fear could lead us down that same path.

From:

That's called foreshadowing and learning from our past.

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with overreaching rhetoric.

Point on LJ as the Usenet of the 00's but with a new venue comes new trends, new modes of accepted behavior, and merely citing the old Godwin Saw without clear and concise reasoning is not always acceptable

That's right, which is why I posted the reference, to provide clarity.

Personally, your blanket posting of Godwin's Law left a bad taste in my mouth and an urge to shout you down from my soapbox.

Given that you're not even a member of the community where the thread originated, I think I'll be able to cope with your urges without losing too much sleep. I'm not seeking your approval here or in

wiccan.

From:

Regardless of my membership in a community, does the logic make sense?

In spite of my approval or lack thereof, can you see the sense in what I'm saying, even if it's orders of magnitude away from that serious yet?

Really, it's not about my membership in Wiccan, nor my approval. I saw something you posted, it rang hollow, and I made efforts to further clarify some points. What you choose to make of it is, of course, up to you.

Personally, I think Godwin's Law is too often overused and is an easy cop out. Granted, there are places where it makes a lot of sense as most of the useful debate in a thread may have gone to the wayside once Nazi's or Hitler are mentioned but I don't think that this specific instance is one of them.

From:

krikkert.livejournal.com

"A lie can run across the world before the truth has got its boots on."

From:

nin-wife.livejournal.com

I was going to post a response, but found out it was a friends only group.

Geez, with friends like that, you don't really need enemies do you NOLA?

For some reason that thread reminded me a quote I read in high school. I don't know who authored it though, but here is a version I found that fits more with today's problems.

When they came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;

When they came for the Muslims,
I did not speak out
because I was not a Muslim.

When they came to detain immigrants indefinitely
solely upon the certification of the Attorney General,
I did not speak out
because I was not an immigrant.

When they came to eavesdrop on suspects
consulting with their attorneys,
I did not speak out
because I was not a suspect.

When they came to prosecute non-citizens
before secret military commissions,
I did not speak out
because I was not a non-citizen.

When they came to enter homes and offices
for unannounced "sneak and peek" searches,
I did not speak out
because I had nothing to hide.

When they came to reinstate Cointelpro and resume the infiltration
and surveillance of domestic religious and political groups,
I did not speak out
because I had stopped participating in any groups.

When they came for gays
I did not speak out
because I was not gay

When they came for anyone who objected to government policy
because it aided the terrorists and gave ammunition to America's enemies,
I did not speak out
because...... I did not speak out.

When they came for me....... there was no one left to speak out.

From:

thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com

was written by Pastor Martin Niemoller and was about fascist Germany.

From:

This will teach me to read ALL the comments before adding mine :-) The "Who will speak for me" quiote seemed so apt and I'm glad I wasn't the only one :-)

From:

auric-merciless.livejournal.com

I thought that was Twisted Sister?

I don't recall the Who ever doing that song. :(

From:

ms-issicran.livejournal.com

If she's listening to The Who's version of We're Not Gonna Take It, it's from the rock opera Tommy. Twisted Sister also did a song with the same name, I can hear both in my head, each individual and good in their own day. Time being the difference here, Tommy was popular in the early seventies, TS didn't become a popular group for another decade. Sorry if I dated anyone, shameless in doing so to myself.

From:

nolawitch.livejournal.com

*gasp* We're only supposed to know about music from our own eras? Nobody told me. Does that mean I have to give up my Pearl Jam, Limp Bizkit and Godsmack CDs? Do I also have to pretend I don't know about Bill Haley and the Comets and Buddy Holly and the Crickets?

From:

"We're not gonna take it
Never did and never will.
We're not gonna take it.
We forsake you
Gonna rape you
Let's for get you better still..."

From "Tommy"

not that the Twisted Sister tune was bad--I always thought the video was a hoot :-)

From:

auric-merciless.livejournal.com

Sad thing is - I own that album. On vinyl. I just never thought of that song since the other one pretty much took over the title - in my mind anyway. I have a buncha good vinyl albums - can't even play them anymore, but I have them!

From: