# Soldier, 92, Breaks Silence Over Auschwitz Heroics



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I thought his point about right and wrong today was very interesting.

Avey said his book was relevant today.
*"The difference between right and wrong is fast receding.* Awareness is being diluted, people are just saying 'such is life'. People are like this now."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/soldier-92-breaks-silence-over-auschwitz-heroics-20110331-053645-598.html


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> I thought his point about right and wrong today was very interesting.
> 
> Avey said his book was relevant today.
> *"The difference between right and wrong is fast receding.* Awareness is being diluted, people are just saying 'such is life'. People are like this now."
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/soldier-92-breaks-silence-over-auschwitz-heroics-20110331-053645-598.html


...unfortunately, it sounds a bit like the old guy lament that society is going to hell in a handbasket, a sentiment that has been around longer than handbaskets.

auschwitz was the direct result of our natural "herd" instinct. we create, or join, a herd, or tribe. and then take the position that OUR herd is superior and, conversely, the OTHER herd is inferior, and must be targetted.

and feared...

and we never learn. our fear of communists, homosexuals, non-christians, of anyone who we perceive to be "you know...different from you and me..." persists.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

david henman;344710and we never learn. our fear of communists said:


> That's because society wan't s to sanitize everything and pretend it didn't happen. "you can't teach that to kids" It may offend someone. Let's remove this word from an entire work of art so no one will know that it was once used. The term "lest we forget" was coined for a reason.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> That's because society wan't s to sanitize everything and pretend it didn't happen. "you can't teach that to kids" It may offend someone. Let's remove this word from an entire work of art so no one will know that it was once used. The term "lest we forget" was coined for a reason.


...denial is definitely part of the problem, but i believe that the attempts at "political correctness" you describe, as wrong-headed as they may be, are motivated by a genuine desire to be sensitive to our differences.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...denial is definitely part of the problem, but i believe that the attempts at "political correctness" you describe, as wrong-headed as they may be, are motivated by a genuine desire to be sensitive to our differences.


That may be so, but in the attempts to appease the few (who are overly sensitive) we forget the context.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> That may be so, but in the attempts to appease the few (who are overly sensitive) we forget the context.


...not sure i follow. the context?


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

Can't remember who said "no man is an island", but if we keep going down this road towards smaller and smaller, more diverse interest groups, eventually we'll end up with 7 or 8 billion "islands". I believe people were meant to be in relationships, communities, societies etc., and there has to be some guiding sets of values or principles. Sometimes it's easy to see when these are bad, other times difficult. That's when morals, laws etc. are supposed to come into play....not to say anyone can do anything he/she wants, but we have an expectation that you will behave this way. We've even seen it applied on this forum. 

By way of a definition I recently learned, the literal meaning of "idiot" is one who stands alone.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...not sure i follow. the context?


if i may-










the edmonton swastikas- 1916.
does this picture offend anyone?
sort of like the english calling a smoke a *** really.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

washburned said:


> Can't remember who said "no man is an island", but if we keep going down this road towards smaller and smaller, more diverse interest groups, eventually we'll end up with 7 or 8 billion "islands". I believe people were meant to be in relationships, communities, societies etc., and there has to be some guiding sets of values or principles. Sometimes it's easy to see when these are bad, other times difficult. That's when morals, laws etc. are supposed to come into play....not to say anyone can do anything he/she wants, but we have an expectation that you will behave this way. We've even seen it applied on this forum.
> 
> By way of a definition I recently learned, the literal meaning of "idiot" is one who stands alone.


Interesting point, especially seeing we have about twice as many countries now, as we did in 1940 and 1000 more agencies trying to keep everyone's perspectives and rights in order.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

japan is an excellent example of the collective mindset put to good use. not saying they're perfect, of course. 
just that they have that part down pretty well compared to most of us.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

Times have changed....

Here's an interesting historical story about a Canadian city that wanted to dissociate itself from anything to do with it's Germanic roots...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_to_Kitchener_name_change


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...should we live in harmony/community? 

absolutely!

should we be forced to surrender our individuality? our culture? our traditions? our language? our religion?

why?


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I've said this before here, but I used a word in a company meeting, a word that is a real English word, used in context, that almost got me fired. Because of stupid people being overly sensitive. I am not and have never been a racist. It doesn't prove anything, but I am in a bi-racial marriage. But if I said to you 'niggardly', and used it in context, would you be offended? Or am I the insensitive one? In this case, I was the one told to give up a piece of language. Which side of the argument does this put me on?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...it helps to think it through. for you, it's just a word. and, in "context", a harmless word, and the intention behind it entirely devoid of malice. 

for someone else, it may be a painful reminder of immense suffering and humiliation.

i use a lot of what is considered foul language. however, i steadfastly refuse to use such language in the company of anyone who might be offended. my parents, for example, or my daughters or grandchildren.


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

keto said:


> I've said this before here, but I used a word in a company meeting, a word that is a real English word, used in context, that almost got me fired. Because of stupid people being overly sensitive. I am not and have never been a racist. It doesn't prove anything, but I am in a bi-racial marriage. But if I said to you 'niggardly', and used it in context, would you be offended? Or am I the insensitive one? In this case, I was the one told to give up a piece of language. Which side of the arguement does this put me on?


It appears that the context has nothing to do with it. Link.

So what was the problem with this word?


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

keto said:


> I've said this before here, but I used a word in a company meeting, a word that is a real English word, used in context, that almost got me fired. Because of stupid people being overly sensitive. I am not and have never been a racist. It doesn't prove anything, but I am in a bi-racial marriage. But if I said to you 'niggardly', and used it in context, would you be offended? Or am I the insensitive one? In this case, I was the one told to give up a piece of language. Which side of the arguement does this put me on?


It appears that the context has nothing to do with it. Link.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

So because I have a big vocabulary I get punished. No, I'm never going to 'get' that one. Again, mixed messages on the argument. 

For further context, there was nobody in that meeting (of roughly 30 people, 100% were under me in the chain of command) who would have any background reason to be personally offended. I knew them and their families well. Indeed, entirely devoid of malicious intent - which I think is key here.

That said, would I do it again? On that specific word, not worth the hassle, but I feel like the oppressed not the oppressor.

"should we be forced to surrender our individuality? our culture? our traditions? our *language*? our religion?"


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Bah single click double post.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

starjag said:


> It appears that the context has nothing to do with it. Link.


I used it exactly in context, as someone who was a miser. Not sure what you're saying, star 

Of course, someone who was unfamiliar with the word, all they heard was (forgive me) '******'. *edit* Ya, can't even say it here, but I think you know.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

once again single pump double post.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

keto said:


> So because I have a big vocabulary I get punished. No, I'm never going to 'get' that one. Again, mixed messages on the argument.
> For further context, there was nobody in that meeting (of roughly 30 people, 100% were under me in the chain of command) who would have any background reason to be personally offended. I knew them and their families well. Indeed, entirely devoid of malicious intent - which I think is key here.
> That said, would I do it again? On that specific word, not worth the hassle, but I feel like the oppressed not the oppressor.
> "should we be forced to surrender our individuality? our culture? our traditions? our *language*? our religion?"


...its all a matter of perspective. perhaps you should be asking why it's "all about you". we live in a free democracy, and in private company you can use virtually any language you like. however, in thje public domain, if you don't see any point in being sensitive to others, there may be deeper issues at play than your sense of being the "victim" of so-called "political correctness".


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

keto said:


> So"should we be forced to surrender our individuality? our culture? our traditions? our *language*? our religion?"


..."our"? not sure i follow. what group are you referring to?

the "us" vs "them" mentality is actually the cause of ALL human suffering throughout history.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

david henman said:


> ..."our"? not sure i follow. what group are you referring to?


Oh, those are your words, note the quotation marks. I was just referring to the English language. Which does rapidly evolve and change, that's just culture at work and no argument from me there on the one hand, but on the other hand to use a real ('real' is a poor choice, I hope my context comes through, meaning non-malicious and a clearly defined) word and be censured for it....well, you know where I stand.

As to the perspective thing, perhaps you're right but I'm not really much of an 'all about me' kind of guy, neither am I much of a 'victim' nor do I have feelings of entitlement (they sorta go hand in hand). What I mean is, my outlook in general on my lot in life is what I make of it, not what's forced on me by those around me. I was just giving an illustration from my perspective, I'll end my participation here. Last word is yours if you want it


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

hey can i pick the last word? how about "zombie"?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...being sensitive to others is not a bad thing. it won't precipitate the downfall of society. and it really requires very little effort on your (or anyone's) part. 



keto said:


> Oh, those are your words, note the quotation marks. I was just referring to the English language. Which does rapidly evolve and change, that's just culture at work and no argument from me there on the one hand, but on the other hand to use a real ('real' is a poor choice, I hope my context comes through, meaning non-malicious and a clearly defined) word and be censured for it....well, you know where I stand.
> As to the perspective thing, perhaps you're right but I'm not really much of an 'all about me' kind of guy, neither am I much of a 'victim' nor do I have feelings of entitlement (they sorta go hand in hand). What I mean is, my outlook in general on my lot in life is what I make of it, not what's forced on me by those around me. I was just giving an illustration from my perspective, I'll end my participation here. Last word is yours if you want it


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

keto- im pretty well read, i understand the context and use of "niggardly"- but i can guarantee that just about 100% of the people i actually speak to on any given day would take it the wrong way. theyre only going to understand the first six letters. this is one of those words which are no longer cool- not that it matters. these days you could call everyone in the board room a bunch of bitches and itd be funny, yo. but dont say niggardly, thats racist. 
weird times- something very strange is happening to our language.
political correctness doesnt need a dictionary to rear its idiotic head- it just needs a familiar series of letters.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

I don't know if anyone recalls George Bush changing "French" fries to "freedom" fries to show his spite for France not participating in the Iraq war...it's kinda dumb...I personally still order "French" fries...it's all I've ever called them my whole life...

You can't bury or hide the past by banning certain words...you'd have to gather up all the old Huckleberry Finn books scattered around the world...then destroy them...that'll never happen...History must be kept open and alive so that we may learn from it...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...like anything else on the planet, political correctness can be easily abused. personally, i embrace the concept of being sensitive others. there's nothing even remotely idiotic about that. i just don't see how that can be a bad thing UNLESS it is abused.

do all of you walk around your family home using the same language you would if you were out drinking with the boys (or girls)?




fraser said:


> keto- im pretty well read, i understand the context and use of "niggardly"- but i can guarantee that just about 100% of the people i actually speak to on any given day would take it the wrong way. theyre only going to understand the first six letters. this is one of those words which are no longer cool- not that it matters. these days you could call everyone in the board room a bunch of bitches and itd be funny, yo. but dont say niggardly, thats racist.
> weird times- something very strange is happening to our language.
> political correctness doesnt need a dictionary to rear its idiotic head- it just needs a familiar series of letters.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

starjag said:


> It appears that the context has nothing to do with it. Link.
> 
> So what was the problem with this word?


The population has been so dumbed down and the english language so butchered that you cant use a lot of words anymore. Forget about using that one, 99% of the people hearing it will get the wrong idea.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> The population has been so dumbed down and the english language so butchered that you cant use a lot of words anymore.



...that is a pretty broad claim. can you cite some examples? it might help some of us, me at least, make sense of what you are contending.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

Does this help to explain what is meant by dumbing down and bastardizing the English language...???...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...not for me. what would really help would be if someone just came right out and said, specifically, what words, phrases, language so-called "political correctness" prevents them from using.



jimihendrix said:


> Does this help to explain what is meant by dumbing down and bastardizing the English language...???...


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...that is a pretty broad claim. can you cite some examples? it might help some of us, me at least, make sense of what you are contending.


Mental retardation = impaired cognition. Permanent impaired cognition to be precise.

Compare with:
"Mentally challenged" = implication that working hard can overcome a deficiency. It can not.
"Special" = Someone with a talent over and above the average. Superman is special.

These labels actually belittle the condition in order to help who? Definately not those inflicted with the impairment.........


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...perhaps you're young and don't remember that "retarded" became an insult, a word used to degrade and humilate people, mentally challenged or not.

again, this is about being sensitive to people and, except in those rare situations where it is taken to ridiculous extremes, i just don't see how being senstive toward others can be a bad thing.

although, i suppose if it "inconveniences" you in some way, you (and i don't mean "you" personally) might become resentful of the concept.....






Accept2 said:


> Mental retardation = impaired cognition. Permanent impaired cognition to be precise.
> 
> Compare with:
> "Mentally challenged" = implication that working hard can overcome a deficiency. It can not.
> ...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Actually, the original usage of the term "retarded" referred to the speed/rate at which a given individual reached certain developmental milestones. In other words, it said nothing about their ultimate attainment, but simply declared they would be slow...er out of the starting gate.

I prefer it because I find it more hopeful than "mentally challenged", "intellectually disabled", "cognitively impaired", and a host of others. There ARE folks who are cognitively impaired or intellectually disabled, but that refers to specific types of neural insult. What we have traditionally called "retarded" in past was rather nonspecific.

Many years ago, these same individuals would have also been called "cretins", derived from "chretiens" (christians), based on the supposition that they had been "touched by God" (which is where describing someone as "a bit touched" comes from).

Todd Rundgren has a lovely very moving tune about Stephen Hawking where he describes Hawking's affliction with ALS as stemming from "when God kissed me, and I melted when he/she (depending on song verse) held me in his arms".

Of course, the origins of a term are quite separate from whether it becomes used in a pejorative way. "Retarded" was initially a descriptive and empathetic term, but for a host of reasons came to be pejorative ("What are you? A retard of some sort?"). Plenty of perfectly acceptable terms come to be used pejoratively. For example, "Jew" is a legitimate word, but some apply it as a pejorative verb.

Personally, I prefer the term ipsisexual, ambisexual, and contrasexual to "gay", "straight", and all their accumulated equivalents. A person is either physically attracted to the same sex (ipsi), the other one (contra), or both (ambi), regardless of their biological sex. Descriptors like "gay" and "straight" imply that sexual attraction is necessarily accompanied by other behavioural traits, which we know not to be true. Stick with the facts, I say.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...like anything else on the planet, political correctness can be easily abused. personally, i embrace the concept of being sensitive others. there's nothing even remotely idiotic about that. i just don't see how that can be a bad thing UNLESS it is abused.
> 
> do all of you walk around your family home using the same language you would if you were out drinking with the boys (or girls)?


in my family home its just me and a fish named jeff. same language rules as work apply here. and i never go drinking with the boys.
but i see your point.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> The population has been so dumbed down and the english language so butchered that you cant use a lot of words anymore. Forget about using that one, 99% of the people hearing it will get the wrong idea.



...i hear this complaint constantly, and yet no one ever names specific words that can no longer be used. 

for example, i constantly hear people complain that they are no longer 'allowed' to say "merry christmas", and yet when i ask them to cite specific situations wherein this happens, the conversation suddenly ends...

i'm beginning to wonder if it's not just a lot of hot air and rhetoric.


----------

