SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12 February 2018, 22:44
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 875
Affirmative Action similarities to Nazism

So I was nose deep in the big ass dictionary this weekend and stumbled into some definitions, posted them on Facebook and ended up comparing Affirmative Action to Nazism. Mind you this is just based on what I found in the old ass dictionary from 1986, pre Google redefining words to meet the group think academia is foisting on our children.

Lets start with definitions from the old 1986 dictionary and not the Google definitions which have been softened to remove any reference to government control when talking about Socialism.

Nazi - abbreviation of NAtionalsoZialist, the National Socialist Workers German Workers party

Nazism - key characteristics - Government knows best (totalitarian principle), state control of industry, predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior, supremacy of the furher (let's go look up fascism next)

Fascism - any (key word here, any) program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship and forcible suppression of the opposition

Autocracy - a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power

Affirmative Action - a way for the government to distribute access to education and financing to young individuals based on the color of their skin - IE a government formula approach to awarding of funds and mandated enrollment to institutions and job roles that is dissassociated from merit, assigning a mandated 'diversity' requirement to various parts of industry (college, public work etc) soley on the basis of an individuals skin color, gender, ethnicity or whatever diversity metric, and not on the content or merit of their character or performance.

Lets look at the characteristics of Nazism line item by line item

Totalitarian control - common core, academic tenure, government formula's for what is the right mix of 'diversity', Federal direction of all of this directly tied to disbursement of funding. This removes the power from local control to Federal control

State control of industry - unlimited and free access to student loans distorting the value of a 4 year degree by encouraging professors and institutions to grow programs with no market value in the absence of financial restriction. Government diversity mandates interfere with a free labor market.

Predominance of groups assumed to be racially superior - this is the crux. We have an assumption that 'diversity' is better than 'merit' which is a race based judgement. The assumption is that a perfectly 'diverse' world will be more equitable for all, however there seems to be no qualms about the discrimination required to get there. This is the racial component that links Affirmative Action to Nazism

Supremacy of the fuhrer - this is going to be the president, either Barack, Trump, Bush or Clinton - see Fascism

When we look at Fascism, often used in close proximity to Nazi, we see the reference to ANY autocratic regime with the following characteristics

Severe Nationalistic policies - the current 'diversity' hysteria sweeping the land, based on population minorities often times less than 10% is reminiscent of the Bolshevik/Menshevik dynamic in Russia, where a loud vocal minority carries a disproportionate amount of national influence.

Replace Nationalist with Diversity, and you have a pretty good description of what Affirmative Action was aiming for - Severe Diversity policies.

Regimentation of industry, commerce and finance - I mean this is obvious - diversity requirements in government jobs, student loans

Forcible suppression of the opposition - all over campuses nationally

When we look at how our two most recent executives wielded the power of the office, one was significantly MORE likely to push an agenda through Executive Action, and bragged about how he would do that publicly. That was Barack.

So when you ask how Affirmative Action is linked to Nazi's the picture becomes pretty clear when we look at the definitions of the words as they were used when Social Science was still somewhat scientific before the advent of Google changing definitions to meet current political pressures.

Affirmative Action is the lynchpin of a national strategy to influence the industry, commerce and finance through the lens of ethnicity and race, including violent repression of dissenting views, totalitarian steamrolling of individual opposition, and centralized control and mandate of the administration of the program.

That's like, all the key characteristics of the definition found in the big dictionary (it's like 8" high, and weighs 20 odd pounds).

--------------------------------

Where are the flaws in this proof? Is Affirmative Action really literally akin to Nazism by definition? Would love to hear the forums thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12 February 2018, 23:10
smp52 smp52 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 1,552
Respectfully, doing a breakdown of dictionary terms that have a lot of contextual factors involved from sociology, economics, anthropology, history, etc. isn't going to yield a proof or theorem. Its like doing analysis by purposefully looking through a straw a millimeter wide. This isn't even a good working hypothesis or theory, let alone a proof. Its seems like you hold certain positions and are seeking data points to support an inclination - AKA confirmation bias.

I'm in a social science graduate program right now and have a hard sciences background. Honestly, the construct you've laid out would fail both ends of the spectrum.

My answer is no. These are apples and oranges in comparison. You're conflating a method (affirmative action) with an ideology (Nazism). Context matters and regardless of social science or hard science, an apples to apples test is always ensuring the context (framing) is on the same level of analysis. A fundamental text if you're really interested in getting a better foundation to do effective inquiry would be Newman's book on both qualitative and quantitative social science research. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Social-Resear...oding=UTF8&me=

IMO, this isn't going to be productive dialogue. My 2 cents, YMMV.

Last edited by smp52; 12 February 2018 at 23:18. Reason: More info
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12 February 2018, 23:14
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 875
I admit I am approaching this as a layman without a college degree.

Why does looking at definitions of words, and linking them together to follow to a conclusion not result in a 'proof' of sorts, like a geometry proof?

I mean, the way I got here was making an inflammatory comment, then doing research on what the words I used actually meant, enter the dictionary and the comparison to the Google definitions vs an old ass dictionary definition, and resulted in the above observation.

I mean, the words mean what the words mean right?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12 February 2018, 23:23
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 875
How is Affirmative Action not an ideology? It has now morphed into Progressivism or whatever you want to call the Diversity movement of today. It is the doctrine that enables the craziness in our society.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12 February 2018, 23:26
Gray Rhyno's Avatar
Gray Rhyno Gray Rhyno is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NoVa
Posts: 9,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
I mean, the words mean what the words mean right?
While I agree with you, to many people words mean what "they" want them to mean. Structurally, "people of color" is the same as "colored people", but one of them is considered appropriate and the other is racist.
__________________
"The most HSLD stuff ever taught was the basics. So-called 'advanced training' is often no more than the very fluid and expert application of those basic skills." - SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12 February 2018, 23:29
smp52 smp52 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
I admit I am approaching this as a layman without a college degree.

Why does looking at definitions of words, and linking them together to follow to a conclusion not result in a 'proof' of sorts, like a geometry proof?

I mean, the way I got here was making an inflammatory comment, then doing research on what the words I used actually meant, enter the dictionary and the comparison to the Google definitions vs an old ass dictionary definition, and resulted in the above observation.

I mean, the words mean what the words mean right?
Language isn't geometry nor is it hard coded like mathematics. It has and continues to change with time, like biological DNA does. its utility is fundamentally designed around its usefulness in communicating. Hence words, grammar, and languages go in and out of use. Else, everyone today would still be speaking root languages.

Level of analysis, apples to oranges comparison big time. Socio-Political-Economic systems at the meta level (Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Monarchy, Military Dictatorship, Democratic Socialism, Republicanism, etc.) can all be discussed at the same level of analysis.

You can have all of the above with or without affirmative action. Secondarily, affirmative action exists outside the United States in varying contexts and boundaries.

If you're saying you want good social science, then this doesn't pass the sniff test to the very fundamentals you seek to prove it on.

EDIT:
Your observation (drift in definitions) is indicative of other things over time (longitudinally) not that one equals another. IMO, you're conflating your observation, which may apply not to just those definitions, but many across the board, which is potentially a symptom of other things too. A better question IMO would be how does change in language over time affect our understanding of socio-political contexts and their boundaries?

Last edited by smp52; 12 February 2018 at 23:41.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12 February 2018, 23:43
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 875
So what your saying is that Affirmative Action could be compared to Apartheid.

Is that what you consider Apples to Apples.

And how can we say language is not hard coded? That is why we had a dictionary.

The fact that Google can now reinvent language, and folks can reinvent meaning of words is the root cause of the insanity we are seeing rife in our country. The speed at which language could change if we tolerate that as a standard is pretty dang quick.

How could you do any kind of analysis if you cant rely on the language used to communicate it?

I mean, I guess it depends what the meaning of is is....
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 13 February 2018, 00:04
smp52 smp52 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 1,552
Dictionaries are an evolving codebook, not a static one. That is what I am saying. English in particular is the ultimate adapter of other languages, it is the languages strength but also creates more variance. Hence understanding intent through context is a big part of English. There are languages with more precision out there.

The internet is just accelerating what English already does, on a global scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia

Reliability even in mechanistic systems isn't 100%. When we discuss language, each group develops its own norms and application of language - its normal and part of human tribal traditions. Hence, dialects.

The very creation of our own American English dictionary must have been an affront to those who spoke the pure "Queen's" English. How dare those Americans come up with their version of English
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 13 February 2018, 00:07
btq96r's Avatar
btq96r btq96r is offline
Calix Meus Inebrians
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Improving my Foxhole
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
And how can we say language is not hard coded? That is why we had a dictionary.
There's an entire field of study (etymology) that covers the history of words, as well as how language and the meaning of words evolve over time.

Not to mention, the linking of definitions, without the context of any social background at the time of their use is arbitrary at best, and practically waiting for confirmation bias as you "connect the dots."
__________________
Moderation is for Canadians.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 13 February 2018, 00:19
doitforjonny doitforjonny is offline
pumpin gas and kickin ass
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: California
Posts: 875
So, how is a layperson expected to keep pace?

I mean, yeah, I get it, English is a living language, but what y'all are describing is what I would call 'slang'.

Using words from the 80's during the hey day of Capitalism vs Communism would seem to be a logical place to start when talking about currently fashionable proclivities for Socialism.

Saying you can't hold people accountable to the definitions of words, when they are accelerating the redefinition of words, seems likes a recipe for insanity.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 13 February 2018, 01:21
smp52 smp52 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
So, how is a layperson expected to keep pace?

I mean, yeah, I get it, English is a living language, but what y'all are describing is what I would call 'slang'.

Using words from the 80's during the hey day of Capitalism vs Communism would seem to be a logical place to start when talking about currently fashionable proclivities for Socialism.

Saying you can't hold people accountable to the definitions of words, when they are accelerating the redefinition of words, seems likes a recipe for insanity.
It's not slang - there are distinct dictionaries in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster%27s_Dictionary

Nor am I saying one can't be held accountable. Its the additive synthesis of your argument that doesn't hold based on the construction of your proposal and conclusions drawn from it.

If you're making a rhetorical argument in alignment with standard political debates, sure have at it. I disagree, but political opinions and debates on the internet are dime a dozen.

However, you invited inquiry and critique based on your constructed proof in an attempt to anchor it in social science. On those merits, it doesn't hold water. How you've constructed your argument is exactly how ineffective research of leftists of the "critical school" fall short, where far reaching observations get rolled into conclusions on passionate arguments with little adherence to research fundamentals.

I see the following errors in the logic:
- Confirmation Bias
- Level and unit of analysis conflation (think measurement units - centimeters vs. lbs)
- Cause/effect errors. For example, you're blaming Google. They may be a reason, however your argument isn't designed to test Google specifically.
- Language drift predates the web and will continue on much longer. There are several online dictionaries, some continue to be authoritative in nature.
- Observations being misconstrued as proof; observer expectancy effect.

With respect to the question how anyone is supposed to keep pace, where therein lies the dilemma of our generation - but that's a different technology/sociology discussion.

If I'm mistaken, my apologies. Not looking to get into a standard political debate.

Last edited by smp52; 13 February 2018 at 01:33.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 13 February 2018, 01:33
wildman43's Avatar
wildman43 wildman43 is offline
Never to old to learn
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: California
Posts: 1,968
There are 4,510,000 results on Affirmative Action similarities from the KKK, etc.Unions, Clubs, etc. Just take your pick an you can find a different definition in all 4,510,000 results
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 13 February 2018, 01:38
Steve83 Steve83 is online now
**** Cancer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Solon
Posts: 1,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post

Using words from the 80's during the hey day of Capitalism vs Communism would seem to be a logical place to start when talking about currently fashionable proclivities for Socialism.
As you're probably aware, not only does the definition of the bolded word seem to drift, but its proper allocation and execution over a long enough time line seems to drift as well.

Maybe as soon has we "real" definition of Socialism, we'll have the "real" application of it. Just ignore the starving kids in the mean time.
__________________
L'État, c'est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.

~ Frédéric Bastiat
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 13 February 2018, 01:46
btq96r's Avatar
btq96r btq96r is offline
Calix Meus Inebrians
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Improving my Foxhole
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by doitforjonny View Post
So, how is a layperson expected to keep pace?

I mean, yeah, I get it, English is a living language, but what y'all are describing is what I would call 'slang'.

Using words from the 80's during the hey day of Capitalism vs Communism would seem to be a logical place to start when talking about currently fashionable proclivities for Socialism.

Saying you can't hold people accountable to the definitions of words, when they are accelerating the redefinition of words, seems likes a recipe for insanity.
The layperson is expected to learn so that they are cognizant of what is really happening. That's not some upper class only trait, it's situational awareness.

I get the learning from history aspect, but I don't think you're separating Communism from Socialism, or delving into the various degrees of Socialism (which has to happen to gauge where we're at for the moment). Affirmative action is only one small part and you're comparing it to a political theory based in Pan-Germanism given form in a version of government. At the roots, you're comparing a strategy to tactics...and not tactics that are connected to the execution of the strategy. That's before even dwelling into the issues you have trying to fix to a specific moment in time for the language being evaluated.

This isn't the clear cut issue you're trying to paint it as, and not for nothing, using a comparison to Nazism, and all the history that entails, is baffling. It's akin to when "the left" throws Nazi out hoping it sticks on anything they aren't in agreeable with these days.

The better approach is to look at affirmative action and see if 1) the stated aims are still viable in hindsight, and 2) if so, how are the results we're seeing.

Affirmative action was born as a part of the civil rights changes in government to prevent hiring discrimination, and it spread from there to a "leveling the playing field" type of tactic. More than a few of places that used it as a hiring or admissions standard have changed (or been forced to change) from a race based quota system to a economic one. In some instances, it's accepted that affirmative action being used above a specified level of merit brings us a civil service representative of the population. It's a valid argument that we need to examine where we're at as a society with it, but do your cause a favor and leave the Nazi comparisons out.
__________________
Moderation is for Canadians.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 13 February 2018, 02:11
1RiserSlip's Avatar
1RiserSlip 1RiserSlip is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Po Dunk, WV
Posts: 4,982
Wow!

I logged back on and this thread hasn't been locked yet.
__________________
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them.

John Wayne as J.B. Books in the Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 13 February 2018, 03:41
Look. Don'tTouch. Look. Don'tTouch. is offline
killjoy
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: West
Posts: 1,762
By forcing a racist to hire minorities, you are keeping them in business. They're getting perks, tax breaks, and the benefit of having any and all productive minorities working for them. They'd go out of business if it wasn't for AA in a natural state of our economy where performance has an incredible variance among all.

Since the quota for meeting "diversity" may be a certain percentage, you just might be subliminally programming that business owner to keep only X out of 10 employees a minority. Without any specific AA mark on the ruler, in a natural state, that owner might hire more than the "required" amount.

Last edited by Look. Don'tTouch.; 13 February 2018 at 03:57.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 13 February 2018, 07:59
Guy's Avatar
Guy Guy is offline
#AllLionsMatter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: CONUS @ the moment
Posts: 13,219
Look at what you posted...

Oh let's not leave it with just construction - it's not every country that sends out their 22 year old females to negotiate million dollar contracts with the 60 year old violent misogynistic tribal chief that then tries to negotiate with her security guards because, well, you can't seriously expect him to negotiate with their property they are rudely bringing to the business transaction, can you?

Our diplomats, ever on the bleeding edge of cultural awareness.
__________________
Quote:
Education is acquired through the formal institutions like school, colleges, and universities, whereas knowledge is gained from the real-life experiences.
Quote:
Education is all about gaining theoretical knowledge in the classroom or any institution. Training is a way to develop specific skills, whereas education is a typical system of learning.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 13 February 2018, 08:06
RangerJurena RangerJurena is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Back In Texas
Posts: 606
It's early, I'm getting older but did Guy post in the wrong thread or have I lost the ability to comprehend?
__________________
2 Charlie <1>
A long time ago
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 13 February 2018, 08:15
MountainBum's Avatar
MountainBum MountainBum is offline
Vivat Fraternitatis
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: OCONUS
Posts: 926
Dr. Jordan Peterson's videos and interviews are...illuminating on this topic.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 13 February 2018, 08:40
37F5V's Avatar
37F5V 37F5V is offline
One jump chump
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Galt's Gulch, MI
Posts: 1,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerJurena View Post
It's early, I'm getting older but did Guy post in the wrong thread or have I lost the ability to comprehend?
Guy never posts in the wrong thread. The thread simply hasn't caught up to Guy yet...
__________________
Hearts and minds? -- that's two to the chest and one in the head, right?

“An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.”
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018