Jewish Defence league. Are they really that dumb?
 

Here is what Will Smith said about Hitler:

and the JDL's response:

Can't these folks at the JDL see they are shooting themselves in the foot over this type of thing? What Mr. Smith said is basically TRUE. If you had the chance to interview Hitler and asked, "Mr. Hitler, are you evil?" what do you think his response would have been?

The only one I see being ignorant here is the JDL.

The road to hell is paved with ____ intentions.

I have to agree, Moonie. Irrational kneejerk response.

Probably the same as if you asked him if Jews were fully human.

I expect he would have answered both questions "No."

Am I to read into your response that you think Mr. Smiths comments were somehow pro-Hitler?

just goes to show how an intelligent, well spoken logic based opinion can get you into as much trouble as a really dumb one all depending on who hears it and how they decide to take it

Yeah, pretty dumb and uninformed response from them. I can't stand when the truth of history gets obscured by emotions and opinions. It's like people who love conspiracies and dislike the government so they think that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a political move to "scare the Russians." Revisionist history sucks. We're supposed to learn from the past and use it as a lesson in what not to do in the future, but that isn't possible when past events can't be viewed and discussed accurately. It's as though Michael Moore is teaching history in all our schools or something.

I really like Will Smith. I would think that the JDL could choose their battles just a little better. Smith is clearly anti-Hitler.

Pro-Hitler? No. Anti-semitic? Possibly. Phenomenally stupid? Absolutely.

We all have impulses to cruelty, and Hitler and the Nazis joyfully gave theirs free rein. When someone declares people sub-human, confiscates their property, murders them en masse, including children, harvests their fillings, makes people dig their own mass grave, etc., etc., etc., you don't look back on that with a shrug and say, "Well, he meant well."

No one has published the full context of his quote. The reaction is based on an article author's preface, "Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good." What a disgusting twist on a quote with no other context.

Sorry, but all he said was the Hitler himself didn't think what he was doing was evil. Who can possibly dispute that statement? Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. Period.

This "controversy" is pathetic.

Hitler was pretty much the poster boy for megalomania. Self delusion is inherent. He DID mean well, he DID not think of himself as evil. You weaken your own argument if you deny facts.

It seems to me you are reading in some type of apology for the actions of Hitler in Mr. Smiths statements. It's not there. Hitler was evil on an almost unimaginable scale and what Hitler thought of himself does not change that score.

I guess no evil can come in to the world as long as we think what we are doing is good...

If ever there was a lesson to come out of the Nazi era, I would hope that it would be that the essence of evil lurks in everyone - but then again it's always easier to blame your ills on some one else/some other group

Yeah, yeah, whatever.


It was STUPID for Smith to say such a thing, even though the limited truth of it (Hitler approves of self and own actions, d'uh) is self-evident.

That being so, however, does not explain why a public figure would make such a controversial statement unless he was a moron or a sh!t-stirrer.

You don't answer the point about willful cruelty. The Poles of Jedwabne were happy to have been occupied by the Germans because it allowed them cover to massacre their Jews, beating them to death in the street and burning the rest in a barn. Did they dust off their hands at the end of the day and say, "Yes, well done, much nicer?" I think they probably went home and masturbated.

Thus, I don't think Will Smith's comment is terribly useful. Declaring it a useful perspective seems inconsistent with your view that, as an absolute proposition, Hitler was evil, rather than a product of his circumstances who stumbled into what we, the victors, call evil to boost our standing.

So you think that Hitler went to bed every night thinking, "Bwahahaha!!! I did so much evil today! I am so evil and terrible! I'm the evilist, most terrible person who ever lived!!!"

I highly doubt that was the case. Even though he pretty much was the most evil and terrible person to ever live, he didn't think so and that is what Smith was speaking to. Nobody is arguing that Hitler was basically an average Joe who just got caught up in his bad side. The point is that Hitler was so deranged and completely removed from reality that while committing the most heinous acts humanity has ever seen he thought it was all fine and good, and there is a lesson to be learned in that.

Smith's comments weren't incorrect, inappropriate or anti-Semitic, they were just challenging and thought provoking.

I think Hitler has become iconinc for evil in our culture and thus a benchmark - but I think sometimes demonizing him allows us to ignore the same or even worse evils going on today. But becasue of his iconic nature, no reasonable conversation can be had about him - thus Godwins law.

Very true. I wonder how long before he is required to be referred to as He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

It's a bit sad because Hitler presents a very rare real-world example of extreme psychological and sociological disorders and a lot could be learned from studying him but the taboo that exists around even discussing him closes off that path. Sometimes I worry that at some point another Hitler may emerge and the world will miss the chance to prevent it because no lessons were learned in Hitler's case.

I doubt that Hitler probably did not assess himself using adjectives like good or evil. However, I have no problem thinking he went to bed thinking, "Bwahaha!! I killed so many Jews, etc. today! I accumulated so much power today for myself and my country at the expense of the weak."

I'm certainly willing to think that Hitler was deranged and removed from reality, although since he was elected to rule a country that largely shared his views, I'm not sure that this is as apt as saying that he was the product of a sick or damaged culture in the same way we condemn inner city culture as sick or damaged.

I don't think Will Smith's comment captures any of this. He makes Hitler sound like someone who just couldn't see the other side of the argument. Since everyone who disagrees with me is willing to declare Hitler objectively evil, I still fail to see that Smith's comments are particularly useful.

Actually, I would go so far as to say that it *is* a useful statement.

It is easy to dismissively note that of course Hitler approved of his own actions and considered them "good." It is more complicated to recognize what that means in contemporary life, society, and politics.

Writing off people who have done horrible things as "evil", and ignoring any exploration of their intentions or motivations, invites a reliance on the notion that identifying such people (without the benefit of hindsight) is easy and obvious. Good guys and bad guys don't stroll about wearing convenient name tags. The world is shades of grey. Is Musharraf a good guy who is preventing Islamic radicals from taking power, or a bad guy preventing the spread of democracy? Is Bhutto a shining example of female empowerment in the Muslim world or a famously corrupt politician?

Which isn't to say that I'm suggesting Hitler had a "good" side and was just tragically misunderstood. Rather, it is a lesson to all of us to be mindful of how what is "good" for us may be "bad" for others.

In fact, even something that is completely "good" in the abstract may be "bad" when put into actual practice. We should be vigilant to ensure that our "good" intentions result in "good" result - not results that start of kind of good for us and not for others, and then still a bit good for us but really quite objectionable to others, ending up in really quite repellent any way you look at it.

Will Smith explains Hitler remarks

03:22 PM CST on Wednesday, December 26, 2007

That is the entire article that I found on the Dallas Morning News site.

Sidenote: this is not true at all. The German people were suffering the effects of the Treaty of Versailles. They were demoralized and felt oppressed and Hitler took advantage of a movement (set into motion long before he arose) to reinvigorate Germany to seize power for himself. One of the first things he did was eliminate any political opposition, including top military leaders, which might stand in his way. The German people supported him as far as rebuilding Germany and its economy, but they didn't at all wholesale believe in exterminating Jews, world domination and all that. They just wanted a stronger Germany. Remember that a lot of the Jews who were killed were German. Look into accounts of German life during the war and you'll see that by and large, with the exception of the rich upper class the German populace suffered greatly under Hitler and disliked him as much as, if not more than, anyone else.

I think Hitler was just misunderstood.

I'm a moral relativist - so I do not believe Hitler was "objectively" evil

The song "Springtime for Hitler" just came to mind.

So, what would Godwin do when Hitler IS the topic?

I dunno... do you lose the argument comparing him to Pol-pot or Caesar?

Oooh, I've got it: Castro!

Hmm... no that doesn't quite fly either. Hussein? Ahmahdinejad? King George?

Was there every anybody as evil as Hitler that time has simply forgotten? Who was Hitler before Hitler was Hitler?

Genghis Kahn.

George Bush?


Oh. You said before. Nevermind.

Anybody else here met and spoken with Will Smith for any period of time?

This is a perfect example of somebody taking a statement out of context, then another entity getting all crazy (JDL).

I think it's completely asinine when things get blown up like this. He was simply stating that he doubted Hitler would think he was a bad man, nothing any prison warden wouldn't back up, as probably 99.9% of people incarcerated think they are basically good people. Will sounds like he was using the ultimate in modern examples of evil as an example of this mode of thought,

Jewish Defence league. Are they really that dumb?
 

Well, that and the OP of this thread who doesn't know how to spell Defense.

And didn't capitalize League, but I don't want to split hairs.

We live in a world where people look for the opportunity to be outraged or offended. Often those who do not share the outrage or offense are looked as as somehow contributing to the outrage and offense of those that are outraged and offended. The benefit of the doubt is rarely given, and the labels applied to those who spoke the original words or did the origial deed are also applied to those who do not condemn the original perpetrator harshly enough.

It's a bunch of crap.

Really! They can't even spell the name of their own organization correctly. Sad, very sad.

And it is EXACTLY what I dealt with yesterday.

This is too funny and needed to be posted again :D

Outrage as a useful tool to encourage group-think. God FORBID you look at things in a different way!

one would suppose it would be very difficult for a black man to be a hitler fan, dont you think?

well, except maybe Idi Amin but he really doesnt count for various reasons

Hitler fan? That's as bad as the JDL being outraged about his comment. He's hardly a Hitler fan.

I think it's a drastic oversimplification to say that evil people don't recognize their own evilness. Perhaps they rationalize it, perhaps they act regardless ... but i really doubt people like Hitler and his ilk simply believe they are "good."

Smith didn't even say that. "do what he thought was good." It couldn't be more clear that Hitler thought that he was doing the world a favor, that he was creating a better world.

I want to coin a new word ---- "Nontroversy".

Sure they do - as they were ridding the world of another "evil," the Jews.

Horrible things are done by men who believe they are doing good - again this is why I think it important to remember Hitler was a man, and the things he was capable of, we all are capable of. As long as we continue to see "evil" as "other" we will always be its servant.

Brilliant!

I'll second - can we call for a vote?

I like nontroversy.

In the sense that this quote seems to have been taken (I am online for the first time in a few days and am catching up, so I'm not reading for every detail in this thread), it seems to me that this isn't useful as far as just talking about Hitler, but talking about a myriad of choices that are made here and there, consistently, and everything in between. The same comparisons could be made of any leader, and of any one of us... that what we do now we may think of as "good" -- but perhaps it isn't.

Well, I guess I'm just saying that the quote is particularly relevant when looking at other subjects and persons. Compare a Hitler to a George Bush, to a JFK, to Kim Jong Il, to whomever... though Hitler pretty much made the benchmark on "evil," had things turned out differently in history, we might... or rather they might say the same of others.

I mean, what if the Nazis won? Would we/they be saying he was so evil? It's hard to say what this alternate reality would hold for us, and certainly there were enough people supporting Hitler and his ideas to have kept him in power as long as he was.

Neither, she's been killed in a suicide attack. :eek:

I do remember. They're in the family tree. They were also upper class. At least until their properties and businesses were confiscated. And I didn't say that the majority of Germans went so far as to favor mass extermination, although I think that's an open question. They certainly favored discrimination, confiscation and allowing their kids to beat my dad up for being Jewish so that he skipped school most of the time.

All I know is that if I were a Jewish person living in Nazi Germany and I needed a way out I would not of sought out a "good" Nazi but would rather pin my hopes to a corrupt one.

I also like Nontroversy.

This definitely qualifies, but still fun to discuss.

Such great points, both.

Do you have to be a sane person to acknowledge, even in your own head, that you are making a conscious choice to do something bad or wrong? I don't believe so. I think anyone is capable of discerning that, even the vilest human. Might not stop them, but I think they are able to own it, then justify it. I agree that it is an oversimplification to say that evil doers don't know that they are.

Also agree that there are truly horrific things done (every day) with steadfast belief that it is for the greater good.

I do many questionable things every day for the greater good, and I'm only aware of half of them.

But of course -- however, in Hitler's case, I don't think that someone who is filled with such a lust for power is thinking about the greater good, or is merely misguided. He's thinking about his own selfish a$$ and fulfilling his addiction to make people bend to his will. Smith's nontroversy was an oversimplification of what evil is (or about one's own perception of evil) -- yeah I don't think that SMITH meant harm, but I do believe Hitler did (and that Smith's comments were beyond stupid).

That being said, I think the JDL would have taken a better tactic to refute Smith's comments, show why Smith is misguided, rather than aiming a nuke at Smith himself.