Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Quality childcare in a
welcoming & supportive environment

A moment on hitler parody

By johnboy 11 February 2014 40

With Giulia Jones and Jeremy Hanson appointing themselves the last arbiters of taste for performances they haven’t seen and calling for drastic sanction against people only remotely involved I thought in my capacity as a private citizen I’d like to throw my own 2c in via the great Charlie Chaplin.

chaplin

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
40 Responses to
A moment on hitler parody
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
PBO 12:58 pm 18 Feb 14

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Masquara said :

NoImRight said :

So having “a Jewish production team” would make it OK?

Yes, in exactly the same way that African Americans can use the word “niggah” but they don’t want privileged whites to.

Sure African Americans can use the word ‘nigger’ but don’t get upset about it, after all we have words like ‘yacht’ and ‘thanks for the warning officer’.

True Dat! Well said my fellow Honkey, well said.

Masquara said :

NoImRight said :

So having “a Jewish production team” would make it OK?

Yes, in exactly the same way that African Americans can use the word “niggah” but they don’t want privileged whites to.

Sure African Americans can use the word ‘nigger’ but don’t get upset about it, after all we have words like ‘yacht’ and ‘thanks for the warning officer’.

PBO 11:12 am 18 Feb 14

Postalgeek said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Mr Evil said :

The difference is that Charlie Chaplin was creative and funny; which is something many ‘artists’ in Canberra could learn from…….

No he wasn’t. He was yet another example of boringly witless american humour.
Or “humor”, as the yanks misspell it.
He wasn’t even in colour.
Or “color”…

Chaplin was about as funny as getting an arrow through the neck, and then finding there’s a gas bill tied to it.

Oh Mein Gott! A gas bill reference a day after the buring of the Elchkopf-stag (Mooseheads) can only be an anti-semetic remark! NAZI’s NAZI’s NAZI’s!

Postalgeek 2:29 pm 17 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock said :

Mr Evil said :

The difference is that Charlie Chaplin was creative and funny; which is something many ‘artists’ in Canberra could learn from…….

No he wasn’t. He was yet another example of boringly witless american humour.
Or “humor”, as the yanks misspell it.
He wasn’t even in colour.
Or “color”…

Chaplin was about as funny as getting an arrow through the neck, and then finding there’s a gas bill tied to it.

dungfungus 1:18 pm 17 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock said :

Mr Evil said :

The difference is that Charlie Chaplin was creative and funny; which is something many ‘artists’ in Canberra could learn from…….

No he wasn’t. He was yet another example of boringly witless american humour.
Or “humor”, as the yanks misspell it.
He wasn’t even in colour.
Or “color”…

Sounds like he was a climate change denier also.

Nylex_Clock 8:43 am 17 Feb 14

Mr Evil said :

The difference is that Charlie Chaplin was creative and funny; which is something many ‘artists’ in Canberra could learn from…….

No he wasn’t. He was yet another example of boringly witless american humour.
Or “humor”, as the yanks misspell it.
He wasn’t even in colour.
Or “color”…

Mr Evil 8:04 am 17 Feb 14

The difference is that Charlie Chaplin was creative and funny; which is something many ‘artists’ in Canberra could learn from…….

IrishPete 3:12 pm 16 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock said :

Have to disagree with you there, and I will provide a good reference later – a book I picked up in Galway many years ago after visiting Connemara several times and finding constant reminders around the countryside about the vast extent of the depopulation that occurred under the watch of a viciously genocidal British government.
The lands were taken from the people that lived on them and turned into large estates that remained net *exporters* of agricultural produce (very productive and producing enormous income) throughout the decades of the Irish famines when the prices being paid for this produce on the other side of the Irish sea had risen very high, with those people being forced to migrate up the sides of the hills where agriculture was very marginal, as proven by the loss of 50% of this population, much higher in Connemara, obviously.

I am not particularly debating the outcome, just the intent and whether it was a policy of government or something less organised. I am familiar with Irish history, and although two versions are taught in Northern Ireland, it was the nationalist/republican/Catholic version that they tried to indoctrinate me with.

So was the famine intentional, or just a side-benefit of a social policy? Was it organised by government, with that deliberate outcome, or were landlords just trying to maximise their profits from the Catholic peasantry, and the famine was a side-benefit? I doubt we’ll ever know, but I am inclined towards the cock-up rather than conspiracy explanation.

Yes, there were large amounts of food exported from Ireland during the famine, and oddly quite a lot of food was imported back again (there’s the wonderful free market for you) but I understand there were miniature versions of the famine occurring on the British mainland too, and they got the food. Plus exporting expensive crops and importing cheaper crops isn’t necessarily a bad idea if you have lots of hungry mouths to feed. (Not that they did that, nor that it worked if they did do it, but it isn’t necessarily as bad as it sounds.)

The dispossession and disenfranchisement of the Irish Catholic peasantry has a lot in common with how the English treated indigenous Australians.

Did you know that the word “boycott” comes from the Connemara region? And is strongly related to the issue you are describing.

IP

Nylex_Clock 9:08 pm 15 Feb 14

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Not sure about scoring them “100”.

The British government quite deliberately starved the irish in the 1830’s-1850’s, reducing the population by 50% (4 million).

The Indonesians systematically exterminated the East Timorese, actually killing over 30% of them (200,000).

The Germans killed a lot of people, but they were dealing with large populations in the first place.

Stalin killed far more than Hitler did, anyway.

And I’m sure some would argue that the Khmer Rouge were incredibly thorough in their attempt to destrioy an entire culture.

Fair comment. The 100 was plucked from the air too.

Not so sure about the Famine in Ireland. I don’t think the British aristocracy that ruled (and probably still rules) Britain was smart enough to design such a policy. Seen with hindsight it was inevitable, but perhaps not to the rulers and landowners back then. Although the population of Ireland reduced by 50%, most estimates put the number of deaths at about 1 million, one-eighth of the population. I’ve never been able to work out how the rest are accounted for, as an emigration of 3 million by sailing boats seems unlikely, even over the number of years of the famine. Ireland’s population has never recovered, to the same level, perhaps partly because of the legacy of a culture of emigration (of which I am part, no doubt), perhaps also through family size getting smaller. The plots of land people were trying to live off rapidly reduced from generation to generation, because of the number of children, resulting in a situation where the only crop productive enough to support the families was potatoes. I don’t think you can entirely blame the British for that.

IP

Have to disagree with you there, and I will provide a good reference later – a book I picked up in Galway many years ago after visiting Connemara several times and finding constant reminders around the countryside about the vast extent of the depopulation that occurred under the watch of a viciously genocidal British government.
The lands were taken from the people that lived on them and turned into large estates that remained net *exporters* of agricultural produce (very productive and producing enormous income) throughout the decades of the Irish famines when the prices being paid for this produce on the other side of the Irish sea had risen very high, with those people being forced to migrate up the sides of the hills where agriculture was very marginal, as proven by the loss of 50% of this population, much higher in Connemara, obviously.

IrishPete 5:42 pm 15 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock said :

Not sure about scoring them “100”.

The British government quite deliberately starved the irish in the 1830’s-1850’s, reducing the population by 50% (4 million).

The Indonesians systematically exterminated the East Timorese, actually killing over 30% of them (200,000).

The Germans killed a lot of people, but they were dealing with large populations in the first place.

Stalin killed far more than Hitler did, anyway.

And I’m sure some would argue that the Khmer Rouge were incredibly thorough in their attempt to destrioy an entire culture.

Fair comment. The 100 was plucked from the air too.

Not so sure about the Famine in Ireland. I don’t think the British aristocracy that ruled (and probably still rules) Britain was smart enough to design such a policy. Seen with hindsight it was inevitable, but perhaps not to the rulers and landowners back then. Although the population of Ireland reduced by 50%, most estimates put the number of deaths at about 1 million, one-eighth of the population. I’ve never been able to work out how the rest are accounted for, as an emigration of 3 million by sailing boats seems unlikely, even over the number of years of the famine. Ireland’s population has never recovered, to the same level, perhaps partly because of the legacy of a culture of emigration (of which I am part, no doubt), perhaps also through family size getting smaller. The plots of land people were trying to live off rapidly reduced from generation to generation, because of the number of children, resulting in a situation where the only crop productive enough to support the families was potatoes. I don’t think you can entirely blame the British for that.

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 5:10 pm 15 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock said :

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dtc said :

The difference between the Jews and the Russians or Poles etc, in a ‘conceptual sense’, is that the latter were killed during invasions, during fighting – as combatants or as civilians caught up in a war zone..

Utter rubbish.

Oradour-sur-Glane.

Massacring civilians out of the warzone was standard practice, especially in the East, peopled by nothing but Untermenschen as it was.

Indeed. What’s wrong with the education system when people are allowed to leave school without knowing some basic and important historical facts?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Nazism was not a one-off. Sometimes the way it is described seems self-serving, a way of disowning the atrocities and saying they were inhuman. They were actually human, just the worse aspects of being human, and there have been similar events before and since – not on the same scale perhaps, and not with the same industrial efficiency, but measurable on the same spectrum. If Nazi Germany scored 100 for genocide (I hope it was 100, and that nothing worse is possible) then perhaps Rwanda scored 70, Indonesia 50 in East Timor etc (don’t argue with those scores, they’re plucked form the air).

IP

Not sure about scoring them “100”.

The British government quite deliberately starved the irish in the 1830’s-1850’s, reducing the population by 50% (4 million).

The Indonesians systematically exterminated the East Timorese, actually killing over 30% of them (200,000).

The Germans killed a lot of people, but they were dealing with large populations in the first place.

Stalin killed far more than Hitler did, anyway.

And I’m sure some would argue that the Khmer Rouge were incredibly thorough in their attempt to destrioy an entire culture.

If you want to make a scale, then mongols are on top. No doubt.

Nylex_Clock 4:14 pm 15 Feb 14

IrishPete said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dtc said :

The difference between the Jews and the Russians or Poles etc, in a ‘conceptual sense’, is that the latter were killed during invasions, during fighting – as combatants or as civilians caught up in a war zone..

Utter rubbish.

Oradour-sur-Glane.

Massacring civilians out of the warzone was standard practice, especially in the East, peopled by nothing but Untermenschen as it was.

Indeed. What’s wrong with the education system when people are allowed to leave school without knowing some basic and important historical facts?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Nazism was not a one-off. Sometimes the way it is described seems self-serving, a way of disowning the atrocities and saying they were inhuman. They were actually human, just the worse aspects of being human, and there have been similar events before and since – not on the same scale perhaps, and not with the same industrial efficiency, but measurable on the same spectrum. If Nazi Germany scored 100 for genocide (I hope it was 100, and that nothing worse is possible) then perhaps Rwanda scored 70, Indonesia 50 in East Timor etc (don’t argue with those scores, they’re plucked form the air).

IP

Not sure about scoring them “100”.

The British government quite deliberately starved the irish in the 1830’s-1850’s, reducing the population by 50% (4 million).

The Indonesians systematically exterminated the East Timorese, actually killing over 30% of them (200,000).

The Germans killed a lot of people, but they were dealing with large populations in the first place.

Stalin killed far more than Hitler did, anyway.

And I’m sure some would argue that the Khmer Rouge were incredibly thorough in their attempt to destrioy an entire culture.

IrishPete 2:41 am 15 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock said :

dtc said :

The difference between the Jews and the Russians or Poles etc, in a ‘conceptual sense’, is that the latter were killed during invasions, during fighting – as combatants or as civilians caught up in a war zone..

Utter rubbish.

Oradour-sur-Glane.

Massacring civilians out of the warzone was standard practice, especially in the East, peopled by nothing but Untermenschen as it was.

Indeed. What’s wrong with the education system when people are allowed to leave school without knowing some basic and important historical facts?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Nazism was not a one-off. Sometimes the way it is described seems self-serving, a way of disowning the atrocities and saying they were inhuman. They were actually human, just the worse aspects of being human, and there have been similar events before and since – not on the same scale perhaps, and not with the same industrial efficiency, but measurable on the same spectrum. If Nazi Germany scored 100 for genocide (I hope it was 100, and that nothing worse is possible) then perhaps Rwanda scored 70, Indonesia 50 in East Timor etc (don’t argue with those scores, they’re plucked form the air).

IP

Nylex_Clock 7:26 pm 14 Feb 14

dtc said :

The difference between the Jews and the Russians or Poles etc, in a ‘conceptual sense’, is that the latter were killed during invasions, during fighting – as combatants or as civilians caught up in a war zone..

Utter rubbish.

Oradour-sur-Glane.

Massacring civilians out of the warzone was standard practice, especially in the East, peopled by nothing but Untermenschen as it was.

Masquara 3:17 pm 14 Feb 14

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Masquara said :

Would Jorian Gardner et al be defending a little tap performance in blackface? Well?

How is that relevant?

Maskybaby, always grasping at straws in her attempts to try and sledge greens and labor, no matter how far fetched.

Looks as though JB is back moderating!

NoImRight 3:17 pm 14 Feb 14

dtc said :

The difference between the Jews and the Russians or Poles etc, in a ‘conceptual sense’, is that the latter were killed during invasions, during fighting – as combatants or as civilians caught up in a war zone.

The Jews were not fighting, they were targeted as civilians for no reason other than being Jewish (same for gays).

Sad as it is, killing soldiers or fighters or people in war zones is inherently part of a war.

Wholesale rounding up civilians and killing them for no reason is not inherently part of war. It is not something that has ever been part of war and is why the Nazis are regarded, rightly so, as ‘evil’. Its what makes the Nazis different from every other ‘enemy’ force in recent western history (I’m sure the Chinese have views on the Japanese and historically the Catholics on the Protestants and vice versa etc). Not because they killed a lot of Russians while trying to invade; because they killed Jews who were not combatants in any way or related to combatants or even in war zones.

Its why anything that deals with the Nazis has to tread carefully, because the Nazis were not just an invading force, they were also a force dedicated to killing Jews. It is fair to say that while Russians were killed during fighting, the Jews were simply murdered. Making light of murderers is always going to be a delicate subject.

Of course, I say ‘conceptually’ because a dead person is still a dead person and the practical consequences for the individual are the same.

Not wanting to drag this out further but na huh Im afraid. It wasnt “just” Jewish civilians singled out. Look closer at what the Nazis considerd any Polish person or Russian etc. The 20 Million odd Russians killed werent all caught up in the fighting. Look at some of the stats on soldiers vs civilians who died.Even thsi is distorted a significant number of Russian soldiers died in prison camps not in a battle. This idea that one group somehows owns oppression and therefore are the only ones who can OK it sounds a lot like David Brent saying he’s not racist because the office black laughed at his joke.

What is offensive to me is someone feigning outrage just so they can attack a minor local political figure. Im sure the 10s of millions who suffered during the war appreciate being used for such a pathetic purpose.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 1:22 pm 14 Feb 14

Nylex_Clock said :

Masquara said :

Would Jorian Gardner et al be defending a little tap performance in blackface? Well?

How is that relevant?

Maskybaby, always grasping at straws in her attempts to try and sledge greens and labor, no matter how far fetched.

dtc 11:57 am 14 Feb 14

The difference between the Jews and the Russians or Poles etc, in a ‘conceptual sense’, is that the latter were killed during invasions, during fighting – as combatants or as civilians caught up in a war zone.

The Jews were not fighting, they were targeted as civilians for no reason other than being Jewish (same for gays).

Sad as it is, killing soldiers or fighters or people in war zones is inherently part of a war.

Wholesale rounding up civilians and killing them for no reason is not inherently part of war. It is not something that has ever been part of war and is why the Nazis are regarded, rightly so, as ‘evil’. Its what makes the Nazis different from every other ‘enemy’ force in recent western history (I’m sure the Chinese have views on the Japanese and historically the Catholics on the Protestants and vice versa etc). Not because they killed a lot of Russians while trying to invade; because they killed Jews who were not combatants in any way or related to combatants or even in war zones.

Its why anything that deals with the Nazis has to tread carefully, because the Nazis were not just an invading force, they were also a force dedicated to killing Jews. It is fair to say that while Russians were killed during fighting, the Jews were simply murdered. Making light of murderers is always going to be a delicate subject.

Of course, I say ‘conceptually’ because a dead person is still a dead person and the practical consequences for the individual are the same.

Nylex_Clock 11:01 am 14 Feb 14

Masquara said :

Would Jorian Gardner et al be defending a little tap performance in blackface? Well?

How is that relevant?

Mysteryman 10:17 am 14 Feb 14

justin heywood said :

Damn straight Johnboy. People should be able to say whatever they want without regard to the feelings of others, especially if they’re Jews.

Pretty amusing coming from you. A look at the moderated comments from this site indicates that you yourself censored many comments over the years that did not breach this site’s Terms &Conditions (at least no more than you yourself regularly did).

Hear, hear.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site