Do you agree with this quote?

[LordLarry]

"If there are nine people and one Nazi sitting at a table, there are ten Nazis sitting at a table."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, partly because the wording implies that Nazis aren't people, which would be awfully convenient if it were true.

Also, the customary format here for this type of poll is "Opinion of quote" with "FQ" and "HQ" as the options.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

[TheReckoning]

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Can’t this apply to literally everything else?
“you cannot claim to be anti-communist if you willingly associate with Communists.”
“you cannot claim to be anti-Republican if you willingly associate with Republicans.”
“you cannot claim to be anti-capitalist if you willingly associate with capitalists.”

No reasonable person would agree with any of the above statements.

[Big Abraham]

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Is Daryl Davis a Klansman?

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

What if he is a closeted Nazi?

Anyway...no, I don't.

[Ferguson97]

Truly disgusted by the results of the poll. Atlas is pro-Nazi now?

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Is Daryl Davis a Klansman?

Disingenuous comparison and willful misunderstanding of my statement.

Daryl Davis engaged with members of the KKK with the express purpose of convincing them that they were wrong.

And that's not the case with the hypothetical scenario laid out in the quote.

[John Dule]

Truly disgusted by the results of the poll. Atlas is pro-Nazi now?

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Is Daryl Davis a Klansman?

Disingenuous comparison and willful misunderstanding of my statement.

Daryl Davis engaged with members of the KKK with the express purpose of convincing them that they were wrong.

And that's not the case with the hypothetical scenario laid out in the quote.

That is exactly the scenario laid out in this quote. People like you object to the idea of "sitting down and convincing KKK members they're wrong" because you wrongly imagine that any discourse whatsoever with unpleasant people somehow validates their views. If progressives had their way, Mr. Davis would never have bothered to engage with those people, and the many Klansmen he turned away from bigotry would still be lonely, isolated, marginalized, bitter, and hateful.

[Ferguson97]

Truly disgusted by the results of the poll. Atlas is pro-Nazi now?

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Is Daryl Davis a Klansman?

Disingenuous comparison and willful misunderstanding of my statement.

Daryl Davis engaged with members of the KKK with the express purpose of convincing them that they were wrong.

And that's not the case with the hypothetical scenario laid out in the quote.

That is exactly the scenario laid out in this quote. People like you object to the idea of "sitting down and convincing KKK members they're wrong" because you wrongly imagine that any discourse whatsoever with unpleasant people somehow validates their views. If progressives had their way, Mr. Davis would never have bothered to engage with those people, and the many Klansmen he turned away from bigotry would still be lonely, isolated, marginalized, bitter, and hateful.

The exact quote is "If there are nine people and one Nazi sitting at a table, there are ten Nazis sitting at a table."

Nowhere in this sentence is it suggested that the nine are there with the express purpose of convincing the Nazi to abandon his ideals.

The way that I read it was that they're all willing to ignore his Nazism for the sake of something else., which is morally unacceptable.

You can't just decide to change the premise that a quote is based on.

[John Dule]

Truly disgusted by the results of the poll. Atlas is pro-Nazi now?

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Is Daryl Davis a Klansman?

Disingenuous comparison and willful misunderstanding of my statement.

Daryl Davis engaged with members of the KKK with the express purpose of convincing them that they were wrong.

And that's not the case with the hypothetical scenario laid out in the quote.

That is exactly the scenario laid out in this quote. People like you object to the idea of "sitting down and convincing KKK members they're wrong" because you wrongly imagine that any discourse whatsoever with unpleasant people somehow validates their views. If progressives had their way, Mr. Davis would never have bothered to engage with those people, and the many Klansmen he turned away from bigotry would still be lonely, isolated, marginalized, bitter, and hateful.

The exact quote is "If there are nine people and one Nazi sitting at a table, there are ten Nazis sitting at a table."

Nowhere in this sentence is it suggested that the nine are there with the express purpose of convincing the Nazi to abandon his ideals.

The way that I read it was that they're all willing to ignore his Nazism for the sake of something else., which is morally unacceptable.

You can't just decide to change the premise that a quote is based on.

At best it's ambiguous, and the recent push among progressives to make certain things "not up for debate" tells me that even if those nine people were trying to change that person's mind, they'd still have a problem with it. The idea that we should shun and refuse to engage with extremists is a symptom of the left's complete unwillingness (and inability) to coherently and calmly argue for its viewpoints on a level playing field. News flash: You aren't the arbiter of right and wrong. It is your responsibility to put forward thoughtful arguments for your positions just like the rest of us.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

No, partly because the wording implies that Nazis aren't people, which would be awfully convenient if it were true.

Also, the customary format here for this type of poll is "Opinion of quote" with "FQ" and "HQ" as the options.

Nazis aren't people.

[John Dule]

No, partly because the wording implies that Nazis aren't people, which would be awfully convenient if it were true.

Also, the customary format here for this type of poll is "Opinion of quote" with "FQ" and "HQ" as the options.

Nazis aren't people.

A dangerous and inhuman sentiment.

[Ferguson97]

Truly disgusted by the results of the poll. Atlas is pro-Nazi now?

Yes, you cannot claim to be anti-Nazi if you willingly associate with Nazis.

Is Daryl Davis a Klansman?

Disingenuous comparison and willful misunderstanding of my statement.

Daryl Davis engaged with members of the KKK with the express purpose of convincing them that they were wrong.

And that's not the case with the hypothetical scenario laid out in the quote.

That is exactly the scenario laid out in this quote. People like you object to the idea of "sitting down and convincing KKK members they're wrong" because you wrongly imagine that any discourse whatsoever with unpleasant people somehow validates their views. If progressives had their way, Mr. Davis would never have bothered to engage with those people, and the many Klansmen he turned away from bigotry would still be lonely, isolated, marginalized, bitter, and hateful.

The exact quote is "If there are nine people and one Nazi sitting at a table, there are ten Nazis sitting at a table."

Nowhere in this sentence is it suggested that the nine are there with the express purpose of convincing the Nazi to abandon his ideals.

The way that I read it was that they're all willing to ignore his Nazism for the sake of something else., which is morally unacceptable.

You can't just decide to change the premise that a quote is based on.

At best it's ambiguous, and the recent push among progressives to make certain things "not up for debate" tells me that even if those nine people were trying to change that person's mind, they'd still have a problem with it. The idea that we should shun and refuse to engage with extremists is a symptom of the left's complete unwillingness (and inability) to coherently and calmly argue for its viewpoints on a level playing field. News flash: You aren't the arbiter of right and wrong. It is your responsibility to put forward thoughtful arguments for your positions just like the rest of us.

If I think that someone is truly willing to change their mind on something, then I would do all that I can to try and get them to agree with what I think is right. What I won't do is engage with someone that I believe is arguing in bad-faith or is unwilling to change their mind.

And you're not actually addressing my argument, you're just creating a strawman.

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

[Ferguson97]

No, partly because the wording implies that Nazis aren't people, which would be awfully convenient if it were true.

Also, the customary format here for this type of poll is "Opinion of quote" with "FQ" and "HQ" as the options.

Nazis aren't people.

I really dislike statements like these.

Dehumanizing Nazis deprives them of their agency. And if they have no agency then they cannot be held to our standards of morality.

The Nazis were people. Most of them were otherwise ordinary people. And they did unfathomably evil things. They were sick, twisted individuals who had evil lurking in their hearts. But they were still human.

I don't say that as a defense, but as a warning. To deny the humanity of the Nazis is to downplay how easily something like the Holocaust could happen again.

Treating Nazis as some aberration or some defect isn't going to help us learn from the mistakes that lead to the Holocaust.

[John Dule]

If I think that someone is truly willing to change their mind on something, then I would do all that I can to try and get them to agree with what I think is right. What I won't do is engage with someone that I believe is arguing in bad-faith or is unwilling to change their mind.

And you're not actually addressing my argument, you're just creating a strawman.

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

I think you are not qualified to determine whether someone is arguing in good faith (or if they're a Nazi, for that matter, given how liberally that term has been applied in recent years). I don't think anyone here believes it's ok to treat an actual Nazi like a good friend without seriously trying to reform them and push back against their beliefs. Then again, the poll result tells met that most people didn't read it that way.

[Ferguson97]

If I think that someone is truly willing to change their mind on something, then I would do all that I can to try and get them to agree with what I think is right. What I won't do is engage with someone that I believe is arguing in bad-faith or is unwilling to change their mind.

And you're not actually addressing my argument, you're just creating a strawman.

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

I think you are not qualified to determine whether someone is arguing in good faith (or if they're a Nazi, for that matter, given how liberally that term has been applied in recent years). I don't think anyone here believes it's ok to treat an actual Nazi like a good friend without seriously trying to reform them and push back against their beliefs. Then again, the poll result tells met that most people didn't read it that way.

Who is, in your opinion?

[John Dule]

If I think that someone is truly willing to change their mind on something, then I would do all that I can to try and get them to agree with what I think is right. What I won't do is engage with someone that I believe is arguing in bad-faith or is unwilling to change their mind.

And you're not actually addressing my argument, you're just creating a strawman.

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

I think you are not qualified to determine whether someone is arguing in good faith (or if they're a Nazi, for that matter, given how liberally that term has been applied in recent years). I don't think anyone here believes it's ok to treat an actual Nazi like a good friend without seriously trying to reform them and push back against their beliefs. Then again, the poll result tells met that most people didn't read it that way.

Who is, in your opinion?

I think it is impossible for anyone to read the mind of another person, so we should approach all conversations with the assumption of good faith. It takes a lot for me to assume someone is arguing in bad faith or trolling. Ascribing malice without proof is a common tendency among modern progressives, and it has been weaponized against them by people who know how to make them look as if they're jumping to conclusions. Just strategically speaking, it should be abandoned.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

No, partly because the wording implies that Nazis aren't people, which would be awfully convenient if it were true.

Also, the customary format here for this type of poll is "Opinion of quote" with "FQ" and "HQ" as the options.

Nazis aren't people.

I really dislike statements like these.

Dehumanizing Nazis deprives them of their agency. And if they have no agency then they cannot be held to our standards of morality.

The Nazis were people. Most of them were otherwise ordinary people. And they did unfathomably evil things. They were sick, twisted individuals who had evil lurking in their hearts. But they were still human.

I don't say that as a defense, but as a warning. To deny the humanity of the Nazis is to downplay how easily something like the Holocaust could happen again.

Treating Nazis as some aberration or some defect isn't going to help us learn from the mistakes that lead to the Holocaust.

Nazis thought Jews weren't people so as a Jewish person I think likewise of the Nazis.

[dead0man]

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

"friends"?  Where is that in the quote?  It's not even implied (or inferred?).  I've sat at tables and was not friends with everyone there.  Hell, I've sat at a table with people I've hated before.  It didn't make me whatever political label best describes them.  If you put the label of other groups in the quote, do you come to the same conclusion?

"If there are nine people and one used car salesman sitting at a table, there are ten used car salesmen sitting at a table."

"If there are nine people and one Commie sitting at a table, there are ten Commies sitting at a table."

"If there are nine people and one Cop sitting at a table, there are ten Cops sitting at a table."

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is a meaningful difference between a Nazi, a Nazi sympathizer, a Nazi enabler, an apolitical normie who's oblivious about Nazis, and an anti-Nazi who supports dialogue as a way of combating Nazi beliefs, all of whom could be sitting at that table.

Flattening these differences doesn't serve to combat Nazism. It just serves to make certain people feel smug about themselves.

[Sol]

I think we urgently need the expertise of Wulfric here, given his related research in "Socialist by association" phenomena.

[Ferguson97]

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

"friends"?  Where is that in the quote?  It's not even implied (or inferred?).  I've sat at tables and was not friends with everyone there. Hell, I've sat at a table with people I've hated before.  It didn't make me whatever political label best describes them.  If you put the label of other groups in the quote, do you come to the same conclusion?

"If there are nine people and one used car salesman sitting at a table, there are ten used car salesmen sitting at a table."

"If there are nine people and one Commie sitting at a table, there are ten Commies sitting at a table."

"If there are nine people and one Cop sitting at a table, there are ten Cops sitting at a table."

It's implicit in the intended meaning of the statement. Don't be deliberately obtuse about this.

You are using "sitting at a table" way too literally. It's very obviously meant to be people you are friends with/willingly associate with.

Why else would the author have come up with the quote in the first place?

[dead0man]

I'll ask again: in the scenario that I'm talking about, where nobody at the table is interested in the art of debate, do you think that it's morally acceptable for the nine to be friends with a Nazi?

"friends"?  Where is that in the quote?  It's not even implied (or inferred?).  I've sat at tables and was not friends with everyone there. Hell, I've sat at a table with people I've hated before.  It didn't make me whatever political label best describes them.  If you put the label of other groups in the quote, do you come to the same conclusion?

"If there are nine people and one used car salesman sitting at a table, there are ten used car salesmen sitting at a table."

"If there are nine people and one Commie sitting at a table, there are ten Commies sitting at a table."

"If there are nine people and one Cop sitting at a table, there are ten Cops sitting at a table."

It's implicit in the intended meaning of the statement. Don't be deliberately obtuse about this.

You are using "sitting at a table" way too literally. It's very obviously meant to be people you are friends with/willingly associate with.

Why else would the author have come up with the quote in the first place?

of the 17 people to read this so far, you're the only one to come to that conclusion

[All Along The Watchtower]

Munich 1938, Molotov-Ribbentrop....

[John Dule]

Literal Communist FDR.