Skip to main content

Why I Think Banning the Mention of Hitler on Facebook is STUPID

Getty Images

It's crazy how reporting a comment with the word "Hitler" can get anyone banned. For example, this is what I found on Quora:

They should be allowed. there are quotes of his that are not in praise of hitler but showing how he thought so that people are critical of their current leaders. For example, here’s a quote by him “ How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.” This is a perfect example of why Hitler quotes should be allowed; to show how dictators think and how people should be critical. Yes, he started a giant war and murdered people but censoring what he said will only help the next dictator start more wars and murder more people because people forgot about Hitler. This is why the First Amendment is so important: it’s about communication and freedom so that we all make better decisions in the future.

I just told someone that Adolf Hitler seized the means of production and I got a strike. Like what? I wonder what has happened to the administration of Facebook? This is the big problem that was quoted by several great leaders. I don't believe that Winston Churchill or George Santayana was the first to say, "Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it." There are statements like "History repeats itself." I remember a classmate of mine once wrote a simplistic yet meaningful speech called "History: A Teacher" way back in high school.  

The fact that the mere mention of Hitler is banned on Facebook can be stupid. The Germans may have banned Nazi references but they haven't forgotten Hitler. The significance of a Holocaust Memorial Center is to remember the atrocities that he committed. Do we want to have more people like Hitler rising up? Is it because we forget history that we have people who want to follow in his footsteps and try to succeed where he failed? 

Hitler's quotes as well as many other Nazis should not always be viewed as promoting them. Sharing a Hitler quote not out of praise but showing that he meant something should be allowed. What is so wrong with me mentioning that Hitler seized the wealth of the Jews and it was ever beneficial for Nazi Germany in the long run? Is it wrong to fight protectionism by mentioning that a wicked man like Hitler actually caused it? What's with all these bans on merely mentioning Hitler or sharing a quote he made, to prove a point, ever been a point?

I could really say that we've probably been all too sissified. Are we too scared to mention a vital truth when the mere mention of Hitler's name is banned? It's really big cowardice. Do we want people to become ignorant of who Hitler really was and the damage that he did? If so, people are doomed to repeat history because of this serious mistake. 

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

A Common Sense Challenge to the Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Chiong Sisters Case

Several years ago, Case Unclosed featured an episode about the Chiong Sisters, a few years before Give Up Tomorrow came out. One of the things I could say is that GMA-7 is far less biased than ABS-CBN in news reporting. The late Antonio "Tony" Calvento even aired a dramatization of Davidson Rusia's testimony , which had Niño Muhlach play as Juan Francisco "Paco" Larranaga . It's easy to say, "Unlike you, I read the Supreme Court decision." This came out a year after the controversial case involving the late Federico "Toto" Natividad and his controversial film Animal  had ended in 2007. Apparently, Animal (2004),  which was released as Butakal (1999),  still remains banned. Since I'm not a lawyer nor do I have the temperament to be one in court, I'm simply writing based on common sense .  As I read through the Supreme Court decision , I confess it's a difficult read,  especially since I'm not a lawyer. Thankfully, I watched...
Read more

Recalling Amos Yee's Anti-LKY Rants As He Gets His UNSURPRISING Worst of the Worst Status in American Soil

PHOTO: US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY   Who can remember Amos Yee, that brat who badmouthed the late Lee Kuan Yew? It's been 10 years and several months since LKY died on March 23, 2015. According to The Straits Times article written by Chinese Singaporean writer Daniel Lai, it should be interesting to note that he's the only Singaporean among the arrested. This is what Lai wrote about Amos, which should be  disturbing at several levels. The webpage states that Yee was convicted of enticement of a minor for indecent purposes, sexual exploitation of a minor via photograph and sexual exploitation of a minor via telecommunications . It added that he was arrested in Chicago, Illinois. The 27-year-old child sex offender is in the custody of ICE after he was released on parole on Nov 20. He is last known to have been detained at the Dodge Detention Facility in Wisconsin, a four-hour drive from Illinois, where he was serving a six-year jail term for child pornography and sexual ...
Read more

Why Philippine Elections Can Be Compared to GAMBLING

Gemini AI Art Some time ago, I wrote an essay that Filipinos can expect to lose more money betting that people will vote wisely . It's time for the truth,  and the  inconvenient truth hurts now, doesn't it? I had Gemini AI create this new AI art of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. and Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" S. Gerona-Robredo, at the casino, just to make a point. Sure, Bongbong shook hands with Leni in Sorsogon as a step for political reconcilation . However, such events should be considered more like random variables, such as getting your ball to land on a certain color and a specific number in a game of roulette.  Let's define what a gamble means. The Cambridge Dictionary defines gamble as: to do something that involves risks that might result in loss of money or failure, hoping to get money or achieve success: The gamble of whether your candidate wins or not, because popularity is fickle It's effortless to say, "It's not rea...
Read more

A Long Reign Isn't Necessary Tyrannical, a Short Reign Isn't Necessary Benevolent

As the call for charter change (or constitutional reform) happens, I must write this entry. Let me remind you that I'm no fact-checker so many of my posts labeled under "facts vs. gossip" may be very wrong. I recall the anti-cha-cha ad that happened in the 1990s and the 2000s. One of them was during the reign of the late Fidel V. Ramos. The Marcos Years (1965-1986) were often  said to be dictatorial not because of how the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. ruled but how long he ruled . One of the ads said, "Just think, under a parliamentary system, a president will rule for more than six years. A scary thought, right?"  I talked with some people about the rule of Marcos Sr. Some told me that, unlike the current president, Marcos Sr. was a vindictive person. It was also known that Marcos Sr. himself has documented human rights abuses. LKY even recalled in his book From Third World to First how the Philippines was left in a terrible condition. It's a shame that some...
Read more