the quite had been used by authoritarian regimes, as i understand it the Nazi’s didn’t use the direct quite as they don’t speak English and things don’t translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.
not to say your wrong as your not just saying that using Nazis as a vehicle to get the point across isn’t completely dishonest, usually best to use a more broad approach like “authoritarian regimes” rather than Nazis
[…] as i understand it the Nazi’s didn’t use the direct quite as they don’t speak English and things don’t translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.
okay so where did you mentioning Göbbels come from, or a speech.
in my original response to you tagging me i had not mentioned Göbbels or a speech but rather than a normal dialogue you put words i had never said in my mouth.
In my original debate I did not tag you because I had the debate with you, but because I used your comment as reference to bring my point across why misinformation crafted like that can fire pretty quick. People will trust a privacy related meme with a text on it and unrelated Snowden interview in the back. The only thing that I brought up to you is what I brought up replying directly to your comment.
the chat with my ex military friend was months ago and this misinformation has been commonly miss-attributed to Nazi propaganda, also i was not saying your wrong rather that most authoritarian regimes have used similar sentiments to meet the same end. in my original comment i had agreed with you and reading prior through this thread i would commend but its frustrating when someone misses the point of my response.
Yes it’s OK, it’s not about you, I was just forming an argument in a different debate where it suited the purpose. I see your point, I was just responding to the part where you said that the Nazis didn’t used to speak English and pointed out again, that it does not matter if the Nazis spoke English or German because the matter is not lost in translation but there is completely no evidence that the speech exists or that Göbbels had this or a similar catch phrase.
In total it’s a common figure of speech being used by many totalitarian regimes or the ones that want to become one. It’s a simple manipulation tactic to shift the blame to the consumer and open the door for corruptive misuse. Which is of course really bad, which also wraps up the whole thing that made me get into this debate in the first place, using manipulative techniques to pull us into the “good side” with misinformation is kinda equally bad/wrong so we can now choose to live in hypocrisy or point out the flaw. I chose pointing out the flaw.
the quite had been used by authoritarian regimes, as i understand it the Nazi’s didn’t use the direct quite as they don’t speak English and things don’t translate but they did say and depict similar sentiments.
not to say your wrong as your not just saying that using Nazis as a vehicle to get the point across isn’t completely dishonest, usually best to use a more broad approach like “authoritarian regimes” rather than Nazis
There is no evidence of this speech nor of Göbbels coining the phrase in any way. It’s not a language barrier problem.
Yea and now your putting words in my mouth. Take it easy
This is the part I replied to.
okay so where did you mentioning Göbbels come from, or a speech. in my original response to you tagging me i had not mentioned Göbbels or a speech but rather than a normal dialogue you put words i had never said in my mouth.
In my original debate I did not tag you because I had the debate with you, but because I used your comment as reference to bring my point across why misinformation crafted like that can fire pretty quick. People will trust a privacy related meme with a text on it and unrelated Snowden interview in the back. The only thing that I brought up to you is what I brought up replying directly to your comment.
the chat with my ex military friend was months ago and this misinformation has been commonly miss-attributed to Nazi propaganda, also i was not saying your wrong rather that most authoritarian regimes have used similar sentiments to meet the same end. in my original comment i had agreed with you and reading prior through this thread i would commend but its frustrating when someone misses the point of my response.
Yes it’s OK, it’s not about you, I was just forming an argument in a different debate where it suited the purpose. I see your point, I was just responding to the part where you said that the Nazis didn’t used to speak English and pointed out again, that it does not matter if the Nazis spoke English or German because the matter is not lost in translation but there is completely no evidence that the speech exists or that Göbbels had this or a similar catch phrase.
In total it’s a common figure of speech being used by many totalitarian regimes or the ones that want to become one. It’s a simple manipulation tactic to shift the blame to the consumer and open the door for corruptive misuse. Which is of course really bad, which also wraps up the whole thing that made me get into this debate in the first place, using manipulative techniques to pull us into the “good side” with misinformation is kinda equally bad/wrong so we can now choose to live in hypocrisy or point out the flaw. I chose pointing out the flaw.