Maybe you haven’t been convinced by a good enough argument. Maybe you just don’t want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe the chaos is the objective, but what are you knowingly on the wrong side of?
In my case: I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode. If developers want to tailor a specific experience, they don’t have to dilute it with easier or harder modes that aren’t actually interesting and/or anything more than poorly done numbers adjustments. BUT I also know that for the people that need and want them, it helps a LOT. But I can’t really accept making the game worse so that some people get to play it. They wouldn’t actually be playing the same game after all…
I am always on the right side of any discussion. Otherwise I wouldn’t be on that side.
I have been bashed for saying sth similar in response to “you think your opinions are better than other people’s opinions”. Duh, yeah? Otherwise I would hold the other opinion.
A lot of people seem to feel this way. Don’t let it become a tautology, however. It’s your opinion because you think it’s correct, NOT it’s correct because it’s your opinion. For example, plenty of folks justify homophobia because gay people make them feel icky and never examine whether or not their intuition is actually correct. You still have a responsibility to examine your conclusions on a topic and readjust as necessary!
It’s your opinion because you think it’s correct, NOT it’s correct because it’s your opinion.
Exactly this.
Same! I have 100% certainty in any topic that I happen to be on, and if i’m not 100% certain then I immediately excuse myself and hold my hands to ears screaming “lalala I have no opinion!” because it would be ignorant of me to even debate a topic I am not a complete expert on, said no one ever.
Come on. Discussions aren’t binary. There are bits of that side you agree with, and bits of the other side you agree with and that weird eclectic mix puts you on uncertain spectrum that mostly leans to one side but oscillates in the middle at times, and that’s completely okay because it’s how you update your priors by being corrected by others whilst understanding that a lot of well informed stances are balancing on a few struts
I’m glad you are like that, but dometimes people want to be convinced of the opposite side but haven’t been able to, yet.
Yep. I don’t argue for things I don’t believe are the side I should be on. Sometimes I make tongue-in-cheek arguments (think A Modest Proposal) but that’s not in a discussion. I don’t get into arguments as a sport or to make people angry, so why ever be on a side I think is ‘wrong’?
Asking (paraphrasing) “hey what are you wrong about but unwilling to admit?” and then sticking a (metaphorical) “I think Nickleback is a pretty good band” opinion in the middle of it feels like a harder challenge than the designers of AskLemmy were intending
I mean, nickelback is a pretty good band.
Maybe even the best metal band ever
Iron Maiden? Goldfinger? Led Zeppelin? So many better metal bands, come on!!
Definitely. Hate on me if you want but I’m about to drop some truth about why Nickelback is literally the most metal band to ever shred this mortal plane.
First off Chad Kroeger’s voice is basically what would happen if you took Bruce Dickinson’s pipes and injected them with pure Canadian maple syrup and gravel. Have you even heard “How You Remind Me”? That’s basically “Number of the Beast” but with better hair.
And how about their crushing riffs? Led Zeppelin? Really? While Robert Plant was singing about hobbits or whatever, Chad and the boys were out there crafting absolute face melters like “Photograph”, which is basically “Stairway to Heaven” if it was actually good.
More evidence that proves Nickelback is the GOAT:
- Been on the US Hot 100 unlike Iron Maiden
- Their music videos have better production value than Goldfinger’s entire career
- Chad Kroeger’s hair is scientifically proven to be more metal than any other musician’s hair, especially Robert Plant’s.
I know this is controversial, but someone had to say it. The fact is this is what peak metal performance looks like, deal with it.
Lead has a higher atomic number than nickel, making it more metal.
Ah, so you admit they’re above Iron Maiden at least.
You got me there. Nickelback is more metal than Iron Maiden.
I thought about it a bit when making this post and I felt like not giving an example would make people come with crazy political opinions which would probably be a bad time. Maybe it still wasn’t the best approach, admittedly.
Maybe giving the example in a separate top-level comment would have worked better. Interesting discussion either way, though.
That is why askreddit banned “I’ll start”, half the comments were replies to the OP instead of sharing their own experiences.
Said like someone who never wanted to be a rock star
That’s not how I operate. If I know I’m on the wrong side, I change sides.
I’ll answer your question!
Pretty sure I’m on the wrong side of vegetarianism. I love animals, I think they’re worthy of love and consideration from us. I know becoming a vegetarian or vegan would reduce harm to animals, and I’m pretty sure it’s the morally correct thing to do. It’s also hard, it’s alienating, and I know every time I’ve attempted it in the past it’s triggered disordered eating.
My current stance is that society should embrace vegetarianism. If the government were to make a law granting animals status that protected them from being killed for food, I’d support that as a moral good. However, I’m not willing to be fully vegetarian in a carnivorous society, there are too many drawbacks. I know this is hypocritical and kinda intellectually pathetic of me but there it is :(
Your position is about a thousand times better than the denial-ism of most meat-eaters. “Eating meat is morally dubious, but I am making this bad trade off” is better than the usual “Shut up meat is tasty and like they don’t feel pain and if they did it’s only for a moment and it’s longer they deserve it for being lower on the food chain. And the environmental impacts are just made up but even if they were real they’re not a big deal, and if they were then it’s not like it’ll affect me, and if it did well fuck you.”
That is, some people who eat meat refuse to acknowledge that there’s any drawbacks or moral pitfalls. I guess that’s too hard on the self image. Cowards, really.
I try to minimize how much meat I eat. It’s a baby step. It’s hard when like work does an outing and there’s no vegetarian options. I don’t want to make a big stink about it every time. But I’m not going to pretend that eating meat is morally the high ground or good for the environment.
Sometimes people are like “Well I just enjoy a hamburger” as if that’s any sort of justification. Maybe I just enjoy punching cowards in the throat, but we can’t always do what we want, now can we.
It really depends on where you live. Being in BC we have so many Vegan and Vegetarian places that finding food outside of the home is easy. Visiting Calgary AB though, good luck.
Calgarian here. Can confirm.
I went to an event in Alberta, at lunch break I looked at the restaurants in the events center. My vegetarian option was French fries. The rest was hamburger, beef on a bun, beef soup, beef kebabs etc
Alberta wishes it were part of the US.
My mother does wildlife rescues, birds are mostly, then goes home and cooks a roast chicken.
She knows it’s hypocritical. Cognitive dissonance is weird.
Also, it’s not so alienating. I attend dinners with my family, and I’ll eat roast vegies, and bring a side-dish for myself. Over time a few of my friends became vegan (I didn’t convince them to) and it’s exciting to share recipes.
If nothing else, reduce your meat intake over time.
As with most changes people make, the more drastic, the more unlikely it is to stick.
When I became vegan I was a slut for KFC burgers, and I “failed” a few times, but I just kept reminding myself it’s not good for anyone, and mustered up the will power to drive past, and eat at home instead.
I’ve definitely reduced my intake, I just can’t apply the principle in a strict way. And the “alienating“ comment is just my own experience, I’m glad you didn’t have that issue! This isn’t intended to dissuade anyone from trying to be vegetarian, like I said I think I’m on the wrong side of this. It just personally has been difficult to fully align my moral principles and my actions on this matter.
You’re not alone in not living up to your principles, virtually nobody can.
I once tried to vet all the products I was buying to make sure I wasn’t contributing to slave labour, or deforestation, or animal exploitation, and it was exhausting.
It was good to identify brands which were absolute villains, and I still avoid them like the plague, but the amount of willpower it takes to travel to multiple stores and pick only the lesser of evils is something I’m not capable of right now.
I make gradual improvements, which is sustainable.
I am dead-set on repairing what I can, and hate spending money on new things.
I’m all in on lab grown protein
I definitely commiserate with this. This is almost certainly the biggest moral quandary in my life. I think in my lifetime there will be a tipping point where vegetarianism will be a large enough minority to make it personally viable for me, but for the moment I reduce consumption where I can. Breakfast sausage will be the hardest thing to give up for me - but I continuously try meat alternatives in hopes of finding something I like.
Good example. I also feel like vegetarianism is probably correct, but I still haven’t gone that way.
I’m in the same boat. My girlfriend is pescatarian, mostly because she thinks animals are too cute to eat. She loves pigs and thinks they are adorable.
I agree that vegetarianism is more sustainable and humane, but I also really like carnitas burritos. I eat way more seafood now and, though she says she doesn’t care, I try to avoid “farm animal” meat when we go out.
I’ve definitely reduced my meat consumption and I will probably continue to do so, but I’m not ready to cut it out yet. I had prime rib for Thanksgiving and it was amazing. Apologies and thanks to the cow.
As a Gen Xer, I would agree. When we had games, you had to figure it out. From there, it just got harder and harder until you died. No pretty graphics, no saves, no easy mode.
Now get offa muh lawn!
E: words are hard
The right way to comment on this post is not to answer OPs question, but rather offer your take on their take.
I did all the things at once!
Imo, games shouldn’t have an easy or a hard mode. They should progress from easy to hard. Think super mario world.
I generally agree, but I will say, it’s damn hard to get back into games like this after time passes.
The most extreme example would be Super Mario Maker, where some custom levels need game knowledge from a wide array of the various games, so if you don’t know that in SM2 you can pickup snowballs, you might get stuck for a while.
A normal example would be like Vanquish, where if you take a break near the end of the game the sheer level of technical necessity the game requires can make it very difficult to get back into it.
But those are extreme examples. Another example would be something like Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros., where everyone has their sort of muscle memory with these games. I played Melee competitively and I came back to the game and it was like riding a bike, or a Souls game, while hard, is just one boss at a time and the game itself doesn’t have too much technical growth.
That human rights really matter in the coming upheaval. The doomsday glacier is probably insurmountable for civ to overcome and that level of change in sea level within a decade to century and a half is going to change everything. Most of the worlds cities are not viable. From what I have seen, the long estimates are all biased and unreliable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yEj9JVRhjA
On the bright side, speculative long term land investments might yield a large sum of money. Shallow keel ferry and airboat operators stand to make a fortune.
Well, this thread was entertaining until I read this comment
Not mad though, this is what people should be talking about
Sorry depression is rather strong ATM. Basic needs not getting met hurts.
I’m not sure how the impending climatic doomsday is going to make human rights unimportant?
If we’re 3 meals away from chaos, or 9 meals away from anarchy, human rights won’t be unimportant, but would you place them above your own survival or feeding your children?
It’s the subtext for so many doomsday/zombie movies. When it really comes to the crunch, what wouldn’t you do ?
It is an abstraction, an anecdote really. When ordinary people are collectively in dire straights, there is little time or voice for those on the edges that become collateral damage. It is like the military when an army is being pursued in the field by another superior force–the wounded and baggage train support that are unable to fight are left behind. The ethics of the primary force are only circumstantially applicable. No one cares about the disabled or outliers when the attorneys judge and jurists are in crisis mode. While those examples are poor in their applicable timelines and the medium scale big picture. If one abstracts another few layers higher, at the decades to more centuries and even lifespans of civilizations perspective views, the overall stresses and strain on a civilization alter the landscape of the philosophical and morality. Civil rights struggles had little meaning or traction during a world war. Martial law is a mechanism that extinguishes all civil rights in a single mechanism.
I’m not taking sides to making excuses for the behavior of others. It is just my intuition and curiosity allowed to roam freely in the good and the bad without distinction in an attempt to think without bias.
When someone tells me of an unprecedented population displacing event, I see the refugee crisis and disproportionate effects on the poor and disadvantaged. The larger the scope of the poor people problem the larger will be the numbers of people on the edges that fall through the cracks. The experience is empirical from someone that has fallen through the cracks.
I think the logic is essentially right wingers keep winning elections. Their supporters tend to argue first and foremost it’s a win against “woke” while the money/interests behind it tend to be “let’s burn this planet down and get ALL the oil.” If the Left conceded on say trans issues or whatever, maybe we’d win, whixh would undoubtedly benefit the billions who may die because of climate change issues.
(Unsure if this would work or if it’d just split the left etc myself but I think that’s the logic.)
An analogy a friend made while making this argument was that the Civil War was essential for Black emancipation etc and we can all agree it was a good thing. BUT, especially in those days, if abolitionists had also demanded trans recognition or whatever, maybe fewer states would’ve joined the Union or maybe the movement would’ve never gotten off the ground and there’s a possible future wherein Black people might still be slaves because, even with the best intentions, we didn’t pick our battles.
It’s a utilitarian answer to a Sophie’s choice.
Wow, this should be downvoted more.
conceded on say trans issues or whatever
What if we conceded on your rights or whatever?
Plus the idea that trans rights lost Democrats the election is ridiculous. There were zero trans speakers in the DNC, and Harris did cater to transphobes by saying she will go with state laws.
So the question remains, who else are you willing to throw under the bus because you think that their rights are too edgy?
Go-slowism leads to do-nothingism - Malcolm X
Utilitarian is not what you think it is. Your comment just shows a complete lack of empathy for people living in the same social space as you.
I think people who think that the rights of any group’s rights is “too much” to appease and appeal to a society of oppressors are complicit to the oppression.
Plus the idea that trans rights lost Democrats the election is ridiculous. There were zero trans speakers in the DNC, and Harris did cater to transphobes by saying she will go with state laws.
You think republicans were watching the DNC or are listening to Harris on trans rights?
There is a reason that one of the ads the trump campaign ran most heavily was about trans issues and casting Harris as too liberal on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BXYjoAzq0&ab_channel=TheJimHeathChannel (it’s a horrific ad, so uhh, trigger warning but you can see what they’re doing.)
How many conservatives do you know socially and how many of them didn’t say this was a victory against woke?
so the question remains, who else are you willing to throw under the bus because you think that their rights are too edgy?
I mean, I just answered the logic of the question. I’m not sure what the answer is, nor am I confident abandoning part of the Dem coalition works as we’d split the progressive vote which is death in a 2 party system.
BUT. If the Far Right keeps winning elections, which they generally seem to do by killing the Left on culture issues (this keeps playing out across the world) this will doom billions of the poorest on Earth.
I’d ask you a similar question. Forget trans rights, say the abolitionists had included gay rights but back in the 1800s. Unless you have a wild perspective of history, it’s pretty safe to assume they wouldn’t have won nearly as much popular support as they did. So, how much longer would you have allowed slavery in order to be morally right but unable to help either slaves or homosexuals?
Do I wish the world were better? Absolutely! But, we live in the world that is, not the world we wish it was.
Finally, this is exactly what utilitarianism is. Utilitarianism is trying to promote the maximum good for the maximum number of people. The chief criticisms are generally around situations much like this, where the philosophy implies you are willing to inflict unfair suffering on a small number of people to maximize the collective gain of everyone else (technically including the small number.) What do you think Utilitarianism is?
this keeps playing out across the world
Sorry, I won’t cater to the anti-woke majority. They are shaped by decades of well-funded fascist propaganda and complicit media and social media outlets.
This is how “woke” was even introduced in our vocabulary in the first place.
These efforts were never matched in breadth and throughput by those on the anti-anti-woke side. Saying that Democrats should cater more to the anti-woke lynching mob does not cut it. It is the quintessence of the ratchet effect. It only leads to greater success rate of said propaganda efforts.
So to translate your argument, the fascist propaganda apparatus indeed has shaped an anti-woke majority, but leftists should not yield to them under no conditions: it will only normalize bigotry. Plus they already did lower the tones on trans issues. It did not win them the elections. Biden did take on the bigots with pro-trans policies and he had won, on the other hand.
So what leg does your argument even stand on except sharing some of the bigotry? We should push the narrative more and more towards equality, not conceding that absolute equality is utopian. The more you annoy the bigots the better.
The Democrats never addressed the propaganda apparatus that brought us to this. And now we should focus more on organizing rather than retrospectively catering to transphobes and racists to win elections. That is why I think your argument is despicable and comes from a position of privilege. If it was your rights/survival on the line and not someone else’s you wouldn’t be suggesting political trade-offs.
Right enough, you are doing this right now: Because your life is at threat now, you say “shiiit we should have sacrificed the trans pawn to win the political chess after all”. Guess what, this is the dog-eat-dog mentality that fascism instills in people, having its way already.
The answer is solidarity and organizing, not trade-offs.
So, again, I’ll ask a fairly simple question.
Say the abolitionists had included gay rights but back in the 1800s. Unless you have a wild perspective of history, it’s pretty safe to assume they wouldn’t have won nearly as much popular support as they did. So, how much longer would you have allowed slavery in order to be morally right but unable to help either slaves or homosexuals?
Edit: Becaude its not just trans folks at risk, it is the billions of poor people who will die from climate catastrophes. They don’t have our privilege of knowing that even if the climate goes bad, we’ll be basically okay.
We have two vulnerable groups to protect, one is much larger than the other, by orders of magnitude.
Actually people had much less of a beef with homosexuality before the 50’s and the pink scare. Lord Byron was like, an open bisexual. Victorians has nipple rings as a fad.
Also abolitionists and suffragettes and the like weren’t exactly wildly popular.
Your hypothetical scenario is not only uninformed, but also a false equivalence. We don’t live in those time periods, we can focus on more than one thing at a time, and you’re also fixing blame on the movement to make things better rather than on the people who are actively making things worse. You should be blaming the rich for making global warming worse, not the people who are fighting against it and losing because they are daring to say trans people shouldn’t be a problem.
I already said no. We have a totally different mind model here. You think that there is a static majority with crystalized opinions, a conservative inertia that we have to adapt to. I believe that the revolutionary powers compete with fascist propaganda to win over the majority, who is bound to different material interests.
When this deceptively mild approach of appeasing the majority used, it legitimizes that the fascists are somehow in the right to a degree.
That is what I cannot stand about centrists. I am an anarchist, there is no middle ground between me and, well, a number of things that are utterly unacceptable. There is no middle ground to nazism, and corporatism, for example. By upholding these standards, I am dragging society towards absolute equality.
With your appeasement approach, you legitimize fascists, which is called the ratchet effect. Without revolutionary powers dragging people leftwards, centrist appeasement pushes the mainstream rightward.
Having said that, the proposed example is completely out of historical context, and is wrong on so many levels. I can’t go into all the details right now, but the very idea of “throwing homosexuals in the mix” is preposterous given the historical context.
Let me direct you to the fact that the British Empire paid reparations to slave owners, but even to this day if you try to mention Reparations to the Caribbean and African nations you will be met with vile harassment from hordes of nazi trolls. So I cannot educate you in Marxist political economy right now, but you comparing abolitionism to gay rights is comparing apples and oranges, and the equivalence is unwarranted.
Only under the concurrent prism of anti-wokeism these are deemed comparable, from the viewpoint of being “not cisgender heteronormative germanic/anglo/saxon Christian male”. So you would not be bringing this even remotely up if you were not ever so slightly affected by anti-woke propaganda yourself.
deleted by creator
There isn’t really a “right” side to that one. If developers want to disappoint some potential customers and leave money on the table by not creating an easy mode, that’s their prerogative.
Maybe? I feel like the developers have the prerogative to decide to include it or not, but with the way the discourse has gone it certainly feels like I’m in the wrong here.
Point 1: If adding an easy mode legitimately degrades the “hard core” game, that’s one thing. But unless you were on the development team, how would you know if it had?
Point 2: I don’t think it’s wrong, but I do think it’s… let’s say unskillful in the Buddhist sense. Not immoral so much as clumsy.
People who self-identify as gamers and tie their sense of pride/self-worth to their gaming prowess are cringe. It’s cringey to not want there to be easy modes when nobody’s forcing you to play them.
Opinions change, but sometimes the discussion doesn’t come up a second time. There are more than a few positions I’ve taken that I’ve since changed my mind about, one of which is certifications. While not necessarily a requirement in IT, having one would be immensely helpful right now, and so would having any kind of degree. Not only would it assist with a job search, but I’ve also been looking into moving to another country, and these things are almost always listed as something they look for during approval.
I’ve also been on the wrong side of whether or not to change career paths.
I’m trying to get back into gaming, and one of the things I appreciate most is a true, authentic experience that the developer intended, not something that was trimmed down or made easier for the sake of bringing in the most money or using other gimmicks to increase player count. I used to think it was best to include an easy mode, but after experiencing it, I can see it’s really not the same game, like you said. This was a relatively recent realization, too, one that I didn’t know I was on the wrong side of until I saw it firsthand.
Distro choice is another issue. I didn’t want to admit that I’ve fallen behind on that one, but I’m trying to get into some of the gaming-specific distros now after seeing what’s available.
I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection, and these are just a few of the things I’ve realized I was wrong about. It’s not that I needed to be convinced of anything; I just couldn’t admit it for whatever reason. I’m trying to work on a lot of things right now.
I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode.
That’s a valid stance. It’s ok to make art which is not intended for everyone, or even the majority.
However, if you’re charging people money for it and they are surprised by the difficulty and can’t enjoy it as a result, I think that could be a potential ethical issue. But if you make it clear it’s a difficult, challenging game, then I see no problem.
Good point on the ethics issue. Youngsters these days don’t know what hard games really are. Games used to be diabolically hard, design holdovers from when quarter-munching games moved to home consoles and every game you paid full price for was essentially a gamble on whether or not it was going to be good or even playable, but finishable was almost not a consideration back then because it was pretty rare to actually ckear a game from start to end.
These days to think it’s important and walk a line between challenging and entertaining not just for the sake of capturing a larger market share of players, but also to avoid bad publicity from having a game be too difficult to o complete.
It’s hard for me to know whether or not I’m on the wrong side of an argument. When people turn into bastards and brigade on me whenever I make an opinion on things. It’s hard to tell sometimes because, maybe their asshole-ness just validates what I expressed and I’ actually in the right. Who knows.
Veganism. I don’t have any problems with most vegans. Most go through a phase of trying to convert you, but the ones I know and associate with have come out the other side. We all know that these positions would make the world a better place. I don’t think I have the will to do it. Might be wrong though.
As a Vegan, I can honestly say some Vegans are the worst. LOL. And I have found through the online rave review of products that Vegans are liars too. :)
When my wife brings a product home that had great reviews by Vegans, I’m like ah crap, this is going to be shite.
My old man yelling at cloud rant :
-
i hate vegan products that try to position themselves as the vegan replacement to a non vegan product. They have their own qualities, and it hurts the product that it is compared to the meat alternative. If someone wants to eat chicken, no amount of marketing and spices will make it taste like chicken and will always be inferior to their meat counterparts for the meat eater.
-
Vegan recipes on internet are 95% terrible. They try to put 100 flavors in one meal. Take whatever recipe your normally eat with meat and simply replace the protein for a vegan protein of your choice (pvt, tofu, bean curds, etc). Grill your tofu to your heart content, make that bean curd extra delicious by dunking it in soy sauce and eat with vegetables and rice or make a simple rice and bean with a side of fresh avocado.
-
There are so many good vegan products with fucking terrible marketing. Meat eaters will not change their habits because you green wash your marketing. Go balls to the wall with that shit.
Pretty good rant.
If anyone likes pumpkin pie for thanksgiving, but doesn’t want to use milk/eggs…this recipe turns out amazing, and family didn’t notice it was Vegan. https://www.noracooks.com/vegan-pumpkin-pie/
-
I disagree on this point. It’s convenient for a vegan, vegetarian or just someone who is trying to eat less meat to be able to make a substitution in a recipe. Tempeh is a great protein, but you have to know how to prepare it and what dishes it will work best in, whereas vegan “chicken” or plant based “beef” can be easily substituted 1:1 in recipes. As you get more comfortable, you can start substituting things like ground tofu, lentils or seitan, but having the culinary shorthand is helpful for lots of people.
-
I’ve had the opposite experience. Most of the vegan recipes I’ve found online use clever plant based substitutions that aren’t processed meat alternatives. A good exercise is to take your favorite dish and Google “vegan [that dish]” and see what ingredients are in those recipes. Many of the recipes you find will likely have whole food ingredients!
-
I don’t think vegan food brands are trying to change hearts and minds necessarily. I think they’re just providing easily substitutable alternatives for people who have already decided to eat fewer animal products.
This is why I prefaced my comment with the old man bit. There is a lot of exaggeration in my comment.
My experiences has been that meat substitutes marketed as such are usually chuck full of spices, ultra-processed and just taste bad on their own. 95% of the recipes I make with meat, I often replace with a vegan alternative protein.
I do think that vegan brands try to appeal to a lot of meat eater and lean hard on the green/healthy marketing, but it has been played out and abused by marketing and doesn’t mean much anymore. Just market the products on their own merits.
There is so much good vegan food out there, but it’s often branded as the X alternative. IMO, it hurts the product because it pidgeon hole it in that comparison.
But your points are entirely valid, and my point are really just an uneducated opinion without backing data. I just know that I avoid vegan products marketed as meat alternative to X because they taste terrible 99% of the time.
-
-
I don’t know if I’m on the wrong side necessarily, but it’s something I’ll get flamed for, especially here on Lemmy.
I don’t believe all WW2 Nazi’s were “evil”. I understand the historical conditions and arguments of the assertion for “no good Nazis”, but I also know human nature, and how people are ignorant, fight for different reasons, or are otherwise uninterested in ideological bullshit.
I’m anticipating a certain flavour of reply, and I won’t be responding to those comments. Bring on the down votes and claims that I’m also a Nazi.
The last decade has brought a lot of clarity to me on this. People follow the herd and are tribal. If a movement gains enough momentum, most people will go along with it even if it’s “against their principles”. There are very few people that will stand up in front of an advancing hoard and say “Stop! This is wrong.”
I suspect Nazi Germany was the same. Most people will have accepted what was happening as the price of an easy life, and it wasn’t until it was too late that they realised what had happened.
