No, no, the OP is interested in what Hitler would have said.
Bracelets with WWAS!! As surefire bestseller at the next Toastmasters.
What Would Adolph Say.
- By writing an excerpt of Hitler’s speech, you are praising his speechwriting skills, not necessarily his oratory. These are two different things, the content and the delivery.
Later you ask “why would I want to listen to propaganda?” without noting the apparent irony that your dream is to persuade others to your point of view. So, why would your audience want to listen your propaganda? What do you know that your audience doesn’t, and would value knowing? What is the evidence that you have any teachings of great value to impart?
Can I change that to Thursday 1 pm EDT?
A lot of people here seem unfamiliar with the whole “ty men” meme, which was uncharacteristically dropped after numerous “sincere” posts.
Not only is he apparently unaware of the irony in his propaganda statements, it also appears that he does NOT consider Hitler to be propaganda. After all, if it were propaganda, he wouldn’t listen to it. He actively seeks out Hitler, so therefore, not proaganda.
back to the original OP, it strikes me as pretty stupid to pretend to be able to judge Hitler’s abilities as a public speaker if you don’t speak the language fluently. Do you? How can I say Mao was a great orator if I don’t speak Chinese? Am I not just parroting someone else’s assessment?
My impression ofrEVOLutionary:
Friends, Germans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Hitler, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Hitler.
What “ty men meme”? (I know that the OP used that phrase, but don’t understand how it’s a “meme”.)
Excellent point. I was thinking the same thing yesterday.
How in the world do you evaluate someone’s orating skills through subtitles?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Ask yourself: “What would Hitler have done in this situation?”
[/QUOTE]
Sent us all to Dachau?
“ty men” is just one more confirmation that the OP is a troll.
I get that “ty men” is a tacit admission of trolling. I just don’t get how it’s a “meme”.
rEVOLutionary,
I am going to give you a massive benefit of the doubt and assume that you really want to learn better communication and really only admire Hitler for his oration. This thread indicates that you have a really long way to go. In this thread that you have totally failed to communicate the ideas you wanted to to your audience. As someone who believes in great communicators, you must accept that when this happens is not a problem with the audience it is a problem with the speaker (ie you) or his message.
If you go back to the beginning of the thread you will notice that at first everyone was actually quite receptive and trying to be helpful, including some suggestions that in speaking you might want to drop the Hitler thing. If in post 22 you said “Ok forget the Hitler thing, its not the point of my OP” and never mentioned it again you would have had a much more successful thread than this current train wreck. The problem is you couldn’t just let the point drop.
You have a quality shared by many Libertarians as well as fundamentalist Christians and fundementalist atheists which is a complete unwavering conviction in every detail of their beliefs and a misconception that the only reason people don’t believe the way they do is that they haven’t had all the facts explained to them. So they fight on every single fact and refuse to give any ground. In the process they totally lose the forest for the trees. The result is that they are admired by those who already agree with them and are ignored or ridiculed by those who don’t.
You claim
I think you are probably correct about this, but I don’t really think it is their stubbornness that is the problem. Again if a speech doesn’t go over well a good speaker doesn’t blame the audience.
As previously stated.
You say you want be an orator that convinces people, then you are going to need to learn to compromise. The number one thing that all great speakers have is an ability to connect to the audience. So that they feel that you understand them. That means that if you want to convince them of something you can’t just boldly state it give your reasons and state that everyone who disagrees with you is factually wrong. This will instantly build a wall between you and your audience. (See the reception of the audience to Ron Paul’s Howard University Speech as gold standard for this failure.) Instead you need to meet them half way or even three quarters of the way and inch them towards your point of view.
Really stupid ones. I grade standardized writing tests typically a few days at week at home online. I run into at least three or four people a month who start in with the Hitler was a really great man stuff. Because if you’re asked to write an essay about a really great leader who do you pick? MLK or JFK or Abe Lincoln or Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth I or Mandela? Oh no. You pick Hitler of course! Because the test reader will be suitably impressed by your vast wisdom and originality rather than thinking you’re either really stupid or a would-be Nazi.
Sure.
Rounding them up and having them shot doesn’t work well in this situation.
I think you mean “and.”
Now that we are in the pit, I can mention an unrelated funny bit that reminded me, from QI:
… is that… is that … gas? coming out of my speakers? What on earth could that…
thud
is going to hell
Not even funny little mustaches?
Make a little hand signal to a brown shirt. He wouldn’t need to do anything more. The problem would ‘go away’.
Speaking of little hand signals, I think a number of people in this thread are making hammer signs your way. Do your brown shirt duty!