The contradiction arises because the user "flashback" depicts it as an either-or scenario. It shouldn't be interpreted as an exclusive OR statement; instead, there might be a nuanced interplay between thinking and feeling.
It's weird that we live in a time where my initial reaction upon reading your comment was "this guy is definitely an AI bot". "That" phrasal structure + freshly created account? I'm simultaneously thinking that maybe I'm being unfair to a real human being and that I'm not really sure if I should care at this point... maybe the new machine men with machine hearts will be more humane than the machine men with machine hearts we have today.
Too many policies are based on too little reason, with too much feeling, all while thinking they're scientific, but without taking human feelings into account, they fail harder each time they are tried. But who am I to know better; Surely with the right person in charge, this time it will work…
I think feel isn't precise enough, maybe compassion is better? In the speech, Chaplain opposes the Nazis, yet the main tool the Nazis used to gain and hold power in Germany was by emotion, distributed thru speeches on the radio especially. Hitler was a highly emotional speaker. WWII didn't occur due to a lack of feeling.
Was there more emotional rhetoric than is otherwise used in politics?
Personally the “hitler mind controlled everyone with his speach” theory that I was told in the 90s just isn’t convincing. Facism was in the zeitgeist around the world.
They believed the "stabbed in the back" narrative like the US establishment believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Irak.
It was a motivated belief, thoroughly uninformed by rational thought, and maintaining and spreading that belief took no small amount of blatant lies and cynicism.
