• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

Story Monday, Nov 18, 2019 [Party-089]

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Imposing consequences on use of the N-word? On hate speech in general?

One example of difference between freedom of expression and white supremacists ideals: White supremacists would want to use N-word as label for people including their classmates. It's considerably less dangerous if the word happens to be in century old book: even when discussing the book, you can limit the usage of N-word to context of the book, avoiding it's use for classmates.

Meanwhile, I see big issues with attempts to rewrite history by changing the book to not include the word.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

No, but it does make it greatly suspect because they cannot be trusted to argue in good faith. In fact, they may be counted to argue in bad faith whenever possible because they know that presenting the opposition with some of their own concerns will often throw them off. When it comes to hate groups, arguments about tolerance quite simply do not apply, because the rules for civilized debate hold no meaning for those whose entire objective is causing civilization to fail.

All of this is talking about the white supremacists and hatemongers: it doesn't say ANYTHING about the arguments itself.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Also it does not fit, for the broken clock is not malign and will not deliberately attempt to mislead you by showing the correct time sometimes and giving you misleading information the rest of the time.

While the issue of racism is sufficiently popular, there are lot of people who will not deliberately attempt to mislead you, yet are spreading dangerous or flawed ideas on some issues (like LGBTQ...): they simply are not aware of the flaw.

... however, it's true that I only came with this in hindsight ; originally, it wasn't supposed to fit closely.

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:
18 hours ago, hkmaly said:

.... wait. Were they gray, small with big eyes and from another planet? Or did they had pointed ears?

Hard to say; the researchers didn't have any Uryuom or Immortal DNA to compare it to.

Pity.

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:
18 hours ago, hkmaly said:

One important note about this is that democracy is less effective than many alternatives. Turns out that when it comes to the general contentment of the populace, effectiveness can have negative value ...

Effective how? I mean, all governments I am aware of exist for the purposes of promoting the well being of the leaders and/or the general populace. Contentment and well being are not one and the same, but they usually go together, so I would think content populace would suggest a fairly effective government...

In response to war and/or natural catastrophes, for example.

Dictator can declare war in minutes. If you insist declaration of war requires approval of government, it goes to hours. Parliament, days. Referendum, realistically speaking, months.

The delay is present in most issues, although it's not so obvious - and obviously problematic - in most cases. The time needed for getting all approvals to build something comes in mind ... democracies tend to require asking various groups if they don't mind. Dictator can decide to build a highway quickly and just tell people who's homes are in way to move or else. Which is good example of case where effectiveness of government goes AGAINST the content of populace, at least the affected part ... (affected part can be even larger when you are not building highway but dam.)

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:
17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, even broken watches show correct time twice per day

That depends on whether they have an electronic or physical display, and just how badly broken they are...

Yes, that saying was specifically about mechanical watches with quite obvious means of failure. Digital watches with LCD usually stops showing anything at all, although with E-ink ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Meanwhile, I see big issues with attempts to rewrite history by changing the book to not include the word.

There is a difference between imposing penalties on hate speech and censorship. I never once proposed the latter.

13 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

All of this is talking about the white supremacists and hatemongers: it doesn't say ANYTHING about the arguments itself.

Nor was it intended to. I was saying that as soon as this kind of destructive hate group employs an argument, it is automatically suspect because they do not argue in good faith.

14 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

While the issue of racism is sufficiently popular, there are lot of people who will not deliberately attempt to mislead you, yet are spreading dangerous or flawed ideas on some issues (like LGBTQ...): they simply are not aware of the flaw.

Trust me, there are hate groups aimed at LGBTQI* people, too. The Nazis included. I agree that some people spread misinformation out of ignorance rather than malice which complicates matters. But it must nonetheless be opposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Meanwhile, I see big issues with attempts to rewrite history by changing the book to not include the word.

There is a difference between imposing penalties on hate speech and censorship. I never once proposed the latter.

YOU didn't. Some US universities, according to some articles I read, meanwhile ...

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

All of this is talking about the white supremacists and hatemongers: it doesn't say ANYTHING about the arguments itself.

Nor was it intended to. I was saying that as soon as this kind of destructive hate group employs an argument, it is automatically suspect because they do not argue in good faith.

Well, even if they use argument which is obviously true their style of argumentation is still suspect.

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

While the issue of racism is sufficiently popular, there are lot of people who will not deliberately attempt to mislead you, yet are spreading dangerous or flawed ideas on some issues (like LGBTQ...): they simply are not aware of the flaw.

Trust me, there are hate groups aimed at LGBTQI* people, too. The Nazis included.

Of course.

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I agree that some people spread misinformation out of ignorance rather than malice which complicates matters.

And unlike racism, where it requires quite lot of ignorance to not be aware of the problem, in case of LGBTQ it can easily be normal starting position.

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

But it must nonetheless be opposed.

Yes. But carefully. When you use too strong methods, the hate groups will win despite you using them against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yes. But carefully. When you use too strong methods, the hate groups will win despite you using them against them.

That is very relative. I would call World War Two a method that many might consider 'too strong.' The Nazis didn't win that one, if you will recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, normally one wants the OTHER side to be the first to resort to violence, because then one can claim that they are the real bullies. This was the strategy underpinning nonviolent resistance under such leaders as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. Those who attacked them with violence received major badwill from witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ijuin said:

Well, normally one wants the OTHER side to be the first to resort to violence, because then one can claim that they are the real bullies. This was the strategy underpinning nonviolent resistance under such leaders as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. Those who attacked them with violence received major badwill from witnesses.

The situations are not directly comparable.

Ghandi and Reverend King both faced occupying superior forces. For them, violence was simply not an option because they would almost certainly lose. However, with newspapers such a powerful factor in the modern world, the old and true method of nonviolent resistance had grown exponentially more powerful and they were most certainly intelligent enough to take advantage of that.

The Nazis, on the other hand, operated from a position of power to begin with. They employed the large private armies founded during the Revolution in 1918/19 to repress the Socialist and Communist revolutionaries to violently enforce their position on politics. Local priest advocating tolerance and acceptance, and too many people listening to him? Beatdown. If that didn't work, fatal 'accident.' (He happened to be polishing his collection of knuckle dusters, broken bottles, clubs and jackboots, and then they all went off.) Worker foreman being too socialist? The same thing. Left wing political meeting? Nice little riot and beatdown for everything. Politician in the Bundestag with too much influence? BANG. Yeah, look it up. It happened. Done by 'right wing extremists'. Now which large organised group in Germany in the 1920s happened to be right wing extremists?

Hitler in 'Mein Kampf' directly advocates the use of violence at a grassroots level to strangle all opposition. The really interesting bit is that he picked this up from Communist enforcers doing the same thing and then decided that the way to go was to be better at it. As it happened, the Nazis proved to be just that. And with Germany in disarray, the private militias grew in power until 1933. From that point on they ruled unchallenged. And the only points where Hitler worried very much about who hit first were either whether he could manage to do it first or if he could make it look like the other side was doing it. Like, that unprovoked 'Polish' attack across the border to set a German border facility on fire.

Nonviolence is a political tool, one of many, and it is hardly invincible -- and as above, it may be faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
13 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yes. But carefully. When you use too strong methods, the hate groups will win despite you using them against them.

That is very relative. I would call World War Two a method that many might consider 'too strong.' The Nazis didn't win that one, if you will recall.

It's hard to find better example of using strong methods than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, I actually agree that it was necessary. Nazi being hate group was secondary: the important part was they were actually in progress of committing genocide, which is necessary to stop with any means necessary.

However, I don't think something similar could happen on average US university.

Also, while it was necessary to use any means to stop Hitler, it was NOT necessary to kill all Germans, no matter how many of them were in the Nazi party. In fact, it would be bad idea to kill all Nazi scientists and engineers ... it's possible there wouldn't be any project Apollo without them.

And finally, hate groups DID win that one. Not Nazis, of course. But establishment of communistic Russia as world power and resulting cold war WAS win for hate groups ...

2 hours ago, ijuin said:

Well, normally one wants the OTHER side to be the first to resort to violence, because then one can claim that they are the real bullies.

Of course, this is not good strategy if first use of violence by other side is large scale attack with nuclear ballistic missiles.

36 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Ghandi and Reverend King both faced occupying superior forces. For them, violence was simply not an option because they would almost certainly lose. However, with newspapers such a powerful factor in the modern world, the old and true method of nonviolent resistance had grown exponentially more powerful and they were most certainly intelligent enough to take advantage of that.

There were options of nonviolent resistance even around year 1 ... with some guy named Jesus proposing them ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hkmaly said:

Nazi being hate group was secondary: the important part was they were actually in progress of committing genocide, which is necessary to stop with any means necessary.

I would argue that it was exactly because it was a hate group that it was committing genocide, but I suppose that is quibbling.

1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

Also, while it was necessary to use any means to stop Hitler, it was NOT necessary to kill all Germans, no matter how many of them were in the Nazi party. In fact, it would be bad idea to kill all Nazi scientists and engineers ... it's possible there wouldn't be any project Apollo without them.

Maybe the reason they weren't killed is because the Allies were not principally led by hate groups? Possibly discounting autocratic Russia.

2 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

And finally, hate groups DID win that one. Not Nazis, of course. But establishment of communistic Russia as world power and resulting cold war WAS win for hate groups ...

I guess I am prejudiced. My family not being murdered in extermination camps counts as a win for me. But maybe since they would have let you live, that doesn't really count for you.

3 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Of course, this is not good strategy if first use of violence by other side is large scale attack with nuclear ballistic missiles.

We were very, very lucky that didn't happen. I count forty years of deadlock between major powers as a far more fortunate outcome than many possible.

4 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

There were options of nonviolent resistance even around year 1 ... with some guy named Jesus proposing them ...

Exactly, and they worked. Hence the Bible. Of course once Christianity became a major power, the nonviolence part pretty much fell by the wayside except for political dog and pony shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Old Hack said:
7 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Nazi being hate group was secondary: the important part was they were actually in progress of committing genocide, which is necessary to stop with any means necessary.

I would argue that it was exactly because it was a hate group that it was committing genocide, but I suppose that is quibbling.

But not every hate group is committing genocide. Most of them don't have the means to.

3 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
9 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Also, while it was necessary to use any means to stop Hitler, it was NOT necessary to kill all Germans, no matter how many of them were in the Nazi party. In fact, it would be bad idea to kill all Nazi scientists and engineers ... it's possible there wouldn't be any project Apollo without them.

Maybe the reason they weren't killed is because the Allies were not principally led by hate groups? Possibly discounting autocratic Russia.

Yeah, lot of Nazis worked hard on being captured by americans because russians would kill them.

4 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
10 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

And finally, hate groups DID win that one. Not Nazis, of course. But establishment of communistic Russia as world power and resulting cold war WAS win for hate groups ...

I guess I am prejudiced. My family not being murdered in extermination camps counts as a win for me. But maybe since they would have let you live, that doesn't really count for you.

I didn't said they were ONLY one who won. Of course, YOU ended on right side of iron curtain ...

6 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
12 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Of course, this is not good strategy if first use of violence by other side is large scale attack with nuclear ballistic missiles.

We were very, very lucky that didn't happen. I count forty years of deadlock between major powers as a far more fortunate outcome than many possible.

Extremely lucky. Although we are not completely in clear yet ...

7 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
13 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

There were options of nonviolent resistance even around year 1 ... with some guy named Jesus proposing them ...

Exactly, and they worked. Hence the Bible. Of course once Christianity became a major power, the nonviolence part pretty much fell by the wayside except for political dog and pony shows.

Of course. After all, those methods of nonviolent resistance were specific to Roman law and afterwards not only stopped working, people even forgot HOW they worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

But not every hate group is committing genocide. Most of them don't have the means to.

All of them want to, and all of them are trying. There are less obvious means, softer ones that they do have access to. Like politics and disinformation. Look up TERFs as an example. They are another group that would like to erase me from existence.

I am astonishingly popular, it seems. :danshiftyeyes:

18 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I didn't said they were ONLY one who won. Of course, YOU ended on right side of iron curtain ...

I know. <sigh> Some fifteen years ago a very nice gentleman from Russia -- a distant cousin of my father -- visited us in Copenhagen. He was astounded that we had survived the war. All the seventeen others he had tried to locate in previous years hadn't.

20 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Extremely lucky. Although we are not completely in clear yet ...

We never really will be, I think? We just have to keep working at it.

20 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Of course. After all, those methods of nonviolent resistance were specific to Roman law and afterwards not only stopped working, people even forgot HOW they worked.

Yup! And some systems were just so brutal that nonviolent resistance became all but impossible. Still, as soon as an oppressor started to have pretensions to nobility, they tended to leave openings that this kind of system could work against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Now which large organised group in Germany in the 1920s happened to be right wing extremists?

I dunno - the group most known for doing that stuff was explicitly socialist, which is usually regarded as left-wing. They even put it in their name: "National Socialist German Workers' Party". (Since they did it in German, „Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei‟.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don Edwards said:

I dunno - the group most known for doing that stuff was explicitly socialist, which is usually regarded as left-wing. They even put it in their name: "National Socialist German Workers' Party". (Since they did it in German, „Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei‟.)

Oh please. They were about as Socialist as the Deutsche Democratische Republik was democratic. It is an old, old song for dictators and autocrats to add nice sounding words to their party name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

And some systems were just so brutal that nonviolent resistance became all but impossible. Still, as soon as an oppressor started to have pretensions to nobility, they tended to leave openings that this kind of system could work against.

I once read a bit of alternate history, wherein the Nazis conquered the British Empire. The story was set in Nazi-ruled India. It was about Gandhi. It was a rather short story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don Edwards said:

I once read a bit of alternate history, wherein the Nazis conquered the British Empire. The story was set in Nazi-ruled India. It was about Gandhi. It was a rather short story.

Well, all Hitler had pretensions to was brutality and might makes right. He appealed solely to the basest instincts of man. You know the drill. "The coloured man is inferior to the white man in all ways. The white man is the rightful master of all he surveys by virtue of superior genes, strength and intellect. The inferior races must be subjugated and if necessary exterminated that they not pollute the strain of the Aryan Master Race." And so forth, and so forth. Sickening as well as absolute tripe -- of course Hitler had never bothered to pick up a book and find out what 'Aryan' actually meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
7 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

I dunno - the group most known for doing that stuff was explicitly socialist, which is usually regarded as left-wing. They even put it in their name: "National Socialist German Workers' Party". (Since they did it in German, „Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei‟.)

Oh please. They were about as Socialist as the Deutsche Democratische Republik was democratic. It is an old, old song for dictators and autocrats to add nice sounding words to their party name.

The difference between them and the Socialists was that the Socialists wanted the government to own all the means of production, whereas the Nazis merely wanted the owners of the means of production to be totally subservient to the government in all their business decisions - what they would make, when and where and how they would make it, whom they would employ, what they would pay, where they would buy their inputs... in other words government would exercise all the prerogatives of ownership but let someone else keep some portion of the profits (if there were any) in exchange for shouldering the blame (if things went wrong).

One of the most insidious bits of propaganda in the past hundred years is the promulgation of a political spectrum that has absolute dictatorship as BOTH extremes. There is no logical way that the opposite of absolute dictatorship is absolute dictatorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

The difference between them and the Socialists was that the Socialists wanted the government to own all the means of production, whereas the Nazis merely wanted the owners of the means of production to be totally subservient to the government in all their business decisions - what they would make, when and where and how they would make it, whom they would employ, what they would pay, where they would buy their inputs... in other words government would exercise all the prerogatives of ownership but let someone else keep some portion of the profits (if there were any) in exchange for shouldering the blame (if things went wrong).

One of the most insidious bits of propaganda in the past hundred years is the promulgation of a political spectrum that has absolute dictatorship as BOTH extremes. There is no logical way that the opposite of absolute dictatorship is absolute dictatorship.

You are oversimplifying. Moreover, you are oversimplifying to someone who knows the language and has studied that period of time and its context for much of her adult life.

What made the Nazis extreme right wing was 1) their nationalism (_that_ part wasn't a lie), 2) their open embrace of all the right wing hate ideologies (Jews, LGBTQI* people, coloured people, eugenics), 3) their use of the right wing militias and reforming them into the SA and finally 4) the Night of Long Knives where they finally purged all the working class elements from their leadership. Hitler did this as a necessary compromise with the German Army and Germany's production apparatus, showing Röhm all the loyalty Trump displays when he says of someone, "I barely knew him."

Actually, I may be unfair here. Hitler didn't just fire Röhm through intermediaries. He went to him in person, raged at him, and ordered his attendants to leave him a gun to commit suicide with if he wanted to. Röhm declined the generous offer and was executed instead.

But as to the 'both extremes of the spectrum can't be absolute dictatorship', that is true, just not the way you mean. The Communists were left wing as part of a _pretense_ of being part of the political spectrum, just like the Nazis were. Once in control, they fully intended to ditch the entire spectrum and assume absolute rule just like had happened in Russia, and happened again when Putin took control of the country. But the Nazis got there first so they got to do the ditching. Their right wing values were an utter sham and were of course jettisoned as soon as Hitler was in control. After that it was all about Hitler and ONLY Hitler. Mind you, he was aided and abetted by right wing parties who optimistically believed that he could be handled once he had the title he wanted. They were badly mistaken.

Which means that neither left nor right wing leads to absolute dictatorship, not as long as they embrace democratic values. It is as soon as they abandon them that dictatorship happens. And if you think only one wing is vulnerable to this, I have this very nice bridge I want to sell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

One of the most insidious bits of propaganda in the past hundred years is the promulgation of a political spectrum that has absolute dictatorship as BOTH extremes. There is no logical way that the opposite of absolute dictatorship is absolute dictatorship.

I dunno, the notion is based on the observation that the extreme versions begin to look more and more alike, to the point you can no longer tell them apart; they are similar just by being extremely extreme. I think the idea has some merit.

I think I'd credit more though the notion you've been talking about of mislabeling. As much as the Soviet Union wanted to be seen as the incarnation of Communism, it was not "For the benefit of the workers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

the notion you've been talking about of mislabeling.

The notion I was talking about, thank you. The inane 'Nazis were socialists' talking point is about as valid as 'Hitler was an atheist, therefore all atheists are Nazis.'

Incidentally, Hitler was brought up Roman Catholic. His mother was very devout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The notion I was talking about, thank you. The inane 'Nazis were socialists' talking point is about as valid as 'Hitler was an atheist, therefore all atheists are Nazis.'

Incidentally, Hitler was brought up Roman Catholic. His mother was very devout.

False flags are common in politics, especially in democratic systems. I believe the German "National Socialists" named themselves that to appeal to the broad worker class that might otherwise find the left appealing. In the US we have the Tea Party, which alleges to be grass roots, but got it's initial impetus from a rich cabal wanting their own taxes lowered, and now Trump. Brexit seems to have similar roots.

Unfortunately, ideology heavily colors perception. Voters are not even seeing the same reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

False flags are common in politics, especially in democratic systems.

Or even for the systems themselves. I submit to you the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, led by that magnificent and dear Leader Kim Jong-Un whom Trump loves so much. It has 'Democratic' and 'People's' and 'Republic' in it, so surely it must be a paradise of equity! For what other reason would Trump praise them after they released Otto Warmbier, a wrongfully arrested US citizen who was so badly traumatised from torture that he remained comatose for the rest of his all too short life?

8 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I believe the German "National Socialists" named themselves that to appeal to the broad worker class that might otherwise find the left appealing.

You believe correctly.

9 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Unfortunately, ideology heavily colors perception. Voters are not even seeing the same reality.

It is a common problem, one I struggle with, too. I have received more than one rude surprise from reading works written by competent and intelligent conservatives principled enough to remain at least partially objective about their own flaws. I remain strongly left wing in my viewpoints but I am more aware of the weaknesses of my position and ideals now -- for which I am sincerely grateful.

At least I do not believe the other side uniformly evil, an enemy to be exterminated at any cost, even if that cost be democracy itself. I admit that at times it is hard to retain my belief but I still believe myself better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

For what other reason would Trump praise them ...

Trump is delusional. He makes stuff up in his own head to explain what is going on and thereby force fit it into his own understanding. He also has near zero human empathy, and is unaware of the suffering of others. This is not just politics talking, I've observed how he operates, and haven't liked him for decades. (Although, he does surprise me at the depths he's willing to stoop to.)

I am aware a vast number of folks do not agree with me. See above about our ideology colors our reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

But not every hate group is committing genocide. Most of them don't have the means to.

All of them want to, and all of them are trying. There are less obvious means, softer ones that they do have access to. Like politics and disinformation. Look up TERFs as an example. They are another group that would like to erase me from existence.

Not the same. I would not consider using nuclear weapons on TERFs adequate response.

BTW, nice discussion. Proves that declaring some words slurs is something hate groups can use to their advantage as well.

9 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Extremely lucky. Although we are not completely in clear yet ...

We never really will be, I think? We just have to keep working at it.

We will get into much better position when we stop being contained on single planet. But completely in clear, probably not.

6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

I dunno - the group most known for doing that stuff was explicitly socialist, which is usually regarded as left-wing. They even put it in their name: "National Socialist German Workers' Party". (Since they did it in German, „Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei‟.)

Oh please. They were about as Socialist as the Deutsche Democratische Republik was democratic. It is an old, old song for dictators and autocrats to add nice sounding words to their party name.

The same can be said about Soviet Russia, which leads to question if there are any REAL socialists.

6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

One of the most insidious bits of propaganda in the past hundred years is the promulgation of a political spectrum that has absolute dictatorship as BOTH extremes. There is no logical way that the opposite of absolute dictatorship is absolute dictatorship.

What makes you think so? There is reason why middle way is called golden. Having dictatorships on both extremes is PERFECTLY logical ... also, political spectrum is not supposed to be single line anyway.

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Incidentally, Hitler was brought up Roman Catholic. His mother was very devout.

I'm not surprised.

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

False flags are common in politics, especially in democratic systems.

Or even for the systems themselves. I submit to you the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, led by that magnificent and dear Leader Kim Jong-Un whom Trump loves so much. It has 'Democratic' and 'People's' and 'Republic' in it, so surely it must be a paradise of equity! For what other reason would Trump praise them after they released Otto Warmbier, a wrongfully arrested US citizen who was so badly traumatised from torture that he remained comatose for the rest of his all too short life?

2019-08-22-1108-republics.png

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Unfortunately, ideology heavily colors perception. Voters are not even seeing the same reality.

It is a common problem, one I struggle with, too. I have received more than one rude surprise from reading works written by competent and intelligent conservatives principled enough to remain at least partially objective about their own flaws. I remain strongly left wing in my viewpoints but I am more aware of the weaknesses of my position and ideals now -- for which I am sincerely grateful.

At least I do not believe the other side uniformly evil, an enemy to be exterminated at any cost, even if that cost be democracy itself. I admit that at times it is hard to retain my belief but I still believe myself better for it.

Accepting the idea that there are just two sides is to already lose. Look at US, where both big parties race who will become worse.

57 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

For what other reason would Trump praise them ...

Trump is delusional. He makes stuff up in his own head to explain what is going on and thereby force fit it into his own understanding. He also has near zero human empathy, and is unaware of the suffering of others. This is not just politics talking, I've observed how he operates, and haven't liked him for decades. (Although, he does surprise me at the depths he's willing to stoop to.)

"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."

(Apparently, this is said by The Doctor. Which reminds me another quote: “I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.” Which, surprisingly, isn't said by Jesus, Martin Luther King or Gandhi, but by Mewtwo, one of the Pokemon.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Accepting the idea that there are just two sides is to already lose. Look at US, where both big parties race who will become worse.

I'll grant you that living in the prototype modern democracy is less than ideal; I like the proportional representation that the rest of y'all have.

 

Also, props on the Sandra and Woo. That was a recent one, IIRC.

Edited by Darth Fluffy
Added Sandra and Woo compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Not the same. I would not consider using nuclear weapons on TERFs adequate response.

???!? I start speaking of softer weapons and you escalate this to using nuclear weaponry? WTF just happened? :icon_eek:

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Proves that declaring some words slurs is something hate groups can use to their advantage as well.

Trust me, I know. For example, TERFs try to claim that 'TERF' is a slur. I feel so bad for them. There is a world of difference between aiming a slur at an oppressed minority and aiming it at a hate group. You cannot help being Black, for example. But you can most certainly help being a Nazi. (Yes, 'Nazi' started as a slur, and one that originally wasn't even aimed at the NSDAP (National-Sozialistisches Deutsches Arbeiter-Partei); it predated it by almost a decade, possibly longer. Hitler hated the word and it was made a crime to use it. All his enemies who left Germany carried it with them and spread it outside Germany. Then it returned like a boomerang after the war ended...)

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The same can be said about Soviet Russia, which leads to question if there are any REAL socialists.

Certainly. Many of them. These tend to be grass root organisations or political parties in multi-party democratic systems. In Denmark we have a couple or three political parties with either socialism as their mainstay or at least part of their foundation. The Social Democrats, for example, started out as a purely socialist party a century and a half ago. Today they are a fairly moderate party that usually operates in a compromise spot between socialism and capitalism. Much the same happened to the German Socialdemokratei, to the point where when the German revolution in 1918 happened, their leader quietly allied with the establishment parties to help crush the essentially Socialist revolution. He was fine with Socialism that compromised with capitalism but was NOT fine with violent revolution any more.

That actually describes me fine. I distrust revolutionary movements. I would not join one save in the case of a system which successfully entirely blocked some or even all regular citizens from influence or voting.

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Accepting the idea that there are just two sides is to already lose. Look at US, where both big parties race who will become worse.

I disagree. While flawed, the American system nonetheless worked fine for quite a while. It used to be so that both parties allowed for multiple viewpoints and compromises across the middle were not only common but the norm. It is the insistence that only ONE side can be right that leads to disaster. I always did wonder about people like Ann Coulter who insist that the other side is evil to the core. Or Michael Moore, for that matter.

One of the reasons for the current situation in the US is that currently compromise across the middle is not merely difficult but almost unthinkable. This unthinking partisanship has led to Trump. It may well lead to a Sanders or a Warren. I do not think either would be good for the US in the long term, either. Or even the short.

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."

(Apparently, this is said by The Doctor. Which reminds me another quote: “I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.” Which, surprisingly, isn't said by Jesus, Martin Luther King or Gandhi, but by Mewtwo, one of the Pokemon.)

Well of course it would be one of the evil Pokemon that embrace evolution. Evolution is of Satan, the Evangelical Christians say, and it must be true. After all, they embrace the Christian values of serial adultery, intolerance, hate and greed, so they ought to know. :danshiftyeyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Not the same. I would not consider using nuclear weapons on TERFs adequate response.

???!? I start speaking of softer weapons and you escalate this to using nuclear weaponry? WTF just happened? :icon_eek:

You need to follow the thread. Nazi were committing genocide and I approved use of nuclear weapons against them (although that didn't actually happened, but nuclear weapons WERE used against Japan in World War II ... obviously). You said that other groups are also committing genocide, but use softer weapons. I replied that it's not the same and that in this case I would NOT consider nuclear weapons adequate.

19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

You cannot help being Black, for example.

Michael Jackson tried to prove you can.

19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Proves that declaring some words slurs is something hate groups can use to their advantage as well.

Trust me, I know. For example, TERFs try to claim that 'TERF' is a slur. I feel so bad for them. There is a world of difference between aiming a slur at an oppressed minority and aiming it at a hate group. You cannot help being Black, for example. But you can most certainly help being a Nazi.

I still think that there are too many claims that something is a slur just because it's used by hate group to label oppressed minority.

But it's true that the difference you mentioned exists.

BTW, Black is still allowed?

19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Today they are a fairly moderate party that usually operates in a compromise spot between socialism and capitalism. Much the same happened to the German Socialdemokratei, to the point where when the German revolution in 1918 happened, their leader quietly allied with the establishment parties to help crush the essentially Socialist revolution. He was fine with Socialism that compromised with capitalism but was NOT fine with violent revolution any more.

You are lucky you have moderate parties like this, however ... doesn't "moderate" mean that it's closer to center and not an extreme?

19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Accepting the idea that there are just two sides is to already lose. Look at US, where both big parties race who will become worse.

I disagree. While flawed, the American system nonetheless worked fine for quite a while. It used to be so that both parties allowed for multiple viewpoints and compromises across the middle were not only common but the norm.

That effectively meant that there were two parties, but multiple sides. Ergo I don't see it as counterpoint to what I said.

19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

It is the insistence that only ONE side can be right that leads to disaster. I always did wonder about people like Ann Coulter who insist that the other side is evil to the core. Or Michael Moore, for that matter.

One of the reasons for the current situation in the US is that currently compromise across the middle is not merely difficult but almost unthinkable. This unthinking partisanship has led to Trump. It may well lead to a Sanders or a Warren. I do not think either would be good for the US in the long term, either. Or even the short.

Yes, I should've specified I meant current US, although I though it's obvious from the context.

19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
23 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Which reminds me another quote: “I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.” Which, surprisingly, isn't said by Jesus, Martin Luther King or Gandhi, but by Mewtwo, one of the Pokemon.)

Well of course it would be one of the evil Pokemon that embrace evolution.

Mewtwo is not supposed to be evil. Sure, in the first movie he started to oppose humans, but that was due to his experience with some of them.

Did you saw Detective Pikachu?

Also, Pokemon and evolution, well ... Pokemon evolve little differently than normal animals. And by little I mean completely.

19 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Evolution is of Satan, the Evangelical Christians say, and it must be true. After all, they embrace the Christian values of serial adultery, intolerance, hate and greed, so they ought to know. :danshiftyeyes:

... specifically Evangelical? ... I should probably refresh my knowledge of how Christians are divided. Last I looked, it was Catholics, Protestants and Eastern ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this