subtoot, "you"
What you say: "Well, during the nazi occupation, people were forced into cooperating with the nazis, so you can't really hold those people responsible, because you don't really have a choice when they're at your door."
What I hear: You cannot be trusted with my (and our) safety under adverse conditions.
subtoot, "you"
@joepie91 funny how people forget about plausible deniability, malicious compliance and active acts of resistance when things get difficult
subtoot, "you"
@bram The argument I got was "well they would also persecute the people who knew but didn't cooperate", which uhhhh elides a few rather important steps as to how exactly the nazis would have found out the truth to begin with
subtoot, "you"
@joepie91 i think nowadays that argument would stand because of the amount of surveillance capitalism and stuff
but back then we just had paper? that and accounts from witnesses i guess
subtoot, "you"
@bram Even today I would not accept this argument without a very specific and clear rationale as to how it really was unavoidable
subtoot, "you"
@joepie91 yeah true
subtoot, "you"
@bram Like, this is kind of my fundamental issue with that "they didn't have a choice" justification.
It's not that such situations *can't* exist (because they can and do), it's that there should be a very very high bar to accept that a situation actually *was* like that. It shouldn't just be assumed for the whole category of "situations that involve coercion", exactly because most of the time there absolutely are covert options that people *should* have taken.
