GOP speaking instructions: open mouth, insert foot.

[IanKennedy]

Sir Thomas More, for instance, burned alive for refusing to recant his Catholicism, must have been kicking himself, as the flames licked higher, that it never occurred to him to say, "I recant my Catholicism."

[Mikey]

Well, there you go. I think a passable rule of thumb is that if Rowan Atkinson set forth an idea in character, it's perhaps not the best argument for a life philosophy in RL.

[sunnyside]

. Not to mention the fact that the Nazis would paint any armed resistance in terms of "Look, we were right all along, they're killing Germans openly now! The enemy within, just like we always said!"

So we're letting people get away with saying that it could have been worse for the German Jews?

I'm kidding, except you'd probably see that if Carson said it. Note I'm not exactly a Carson fan. I'm in this for the 2A angle.

Anyway to get back to the article Mikey linked, the question was about the laws of Europe and six million Jews that could have been armed. Carson said Hitler's ability to achieve his goals on that front would have been "greatly diminished."

I think millions of armed combatants could have diminish some plans. Just convincing Hitler to enact his final solution after he dealt with the Russians would have been enough to make a huge difference. Just gumming up the works some would have made some difference. At a minimum there would have been German casualties instead of laborers in work camps making more Nazi materiel and maybe you'd save some people in the next country over. Not a responsibility thing. It doesn't make it "their fault." But why are we making our kids take geography and history classes if they aren't supposed to actually learn anything and apply it in some meaningful manner?


But I can see it being a sensitive topic. Maybe talking about things like the relative resistance of Kurds vs other groups vs ISIS might be better. But that's more complicated and people haven't watched a half dozen movies/tv series on it.

[Mikey]

The archetypal issue is this: as an African-American, Carson would NEVER have said that if Africans subject to the triangle slave trade were armed, American racial slavery could have been hampered; the fact of the slave trade having been more difficult were that the case is completely insignificant to make compared to the fact that you're broaching such a topic and even slightly intimating the fact that the Africans involved had any responsibility for the slave trade continuing. In like manner, the completely moronic hypothetical of an armed Jewish populace of late 30's central Europe (and it is moronic, because a Europe that allowed armed Jews wouldn't have bred the Europe of Kristallnacht, the ghettoes, and the Holocaust) is ridiculously insignificant compared to the topic it broaches about resting any modicum of responsibility for preventing the Holocaust on the Jews, Romany, Catholics, homosexuals, and other groups targeted by the Holocaust.

The seat of my displeasure with Carson's commentary wasn't merely the blaming-the-victim sort of bigotry he'd never tolerate were it his own group; but also the fact of the sheer uselessness and senselessness of even mentioning it.

[sunnyside]

Actually Carson has exhibited a willingness to use slavery is his speeches. Predominantly in his stance on abortion and a he brought it out for Obamacare. He gets a little flack for that, but, being who he is, not that much. So perhaps he'll take a cue and stick to what he's allowed to work with.

I wonder if in both cases things might play out better if it was stressed that it's a very hypothetical argument. There were many factors in play from laws, to culture, to having the financial resources to even have a weapon regardless of the rest. The Africans and Jews wound up in their positions largely without viable options as they lacked the defensive opportunities granted to Americans. However we do have a choice. Something like that.

Or maybe it is just too much of a beehive. Normally inflaming internet social justice warriors isn't going to hurt too much when it comes to the Republican base, but this is probably an exception.

It lacks the power, but maybe someone could just say there are plenty of famous examples in history and leave it at that. Perhaps stressing not wanting to risk blaming the victim if pressed, but indicate you're pretty sure everyone can bring an example to mind.

[Mikey]

No, the "hypotheticality" of the argument is quite plain to see. It doesn't matter how big the "If" is when you say, "IF she wasn't wearing a miniskirt, then maybe she wouldn't have been raped." Clearly hypothetical, and yet clearly as assholic a statement as could be.