Galas wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest people didn't killed nazis because they where nazis but because they started a war invading poland.

Until that point nobody really cared about what they where doing in his own country. Or, well, some people cared, but nobody tried to go to germany to kill them.

Meanwhile they still murdered tens of thousands while nobody cared before WW2. Never again is a pretty meaningless phrase in international politics.

I agree. I was just pointing out that second ward didn's started because of some moral imperative to stop the nazis for doing what they where doing. It was a war started by one country invading other, like many others.

I know, sorry for anything implied. But if it wasn't for the war they would have just kept going. Its a cynical thing, but it did destroy a good part of it.

Damn. Some threads make me very glad that my political stances are not based on the people that surround me in daily life.

Hiring a political agitator as a speaker at a tabletop gaming convention: Weird. no matter the affiliation.

But pro tip for everyone involved: Every professional political agitator you've heard of is a huckster, or being used by one somewhere along the line. That's how they made enough money to be on platforms that enabled you to hear about them. No, not just the ones from the "other team" that you actively seek out information discrediting and attacking them - also the ones from "your team" that you carefully avoid listening to sources that discredit and attack them. Milos and Shapiros and Sharptons and Nyes and Petersons and Sargons and Spencers and Sarkesians are different flavors of the same product that get churned out in the same factory, separated into different focus-grouped packaging, branded with different ad campaigns and maybe get sprayed with different scents.

Enjoy your argument as long as you like. Defend your Old Spice Brand Mountain Manly as the one true deodorant, despise hated users of Dove Soft Care Cotton Scent For Women! Your views are distinct and different and true, they are at best victims of a cynical corporate scam and at worst, actively malevolent.

So this woman gets on a panel and 40 pages later we get to Nazi's.

Truly she has an impact.....sadly

topaxygouroun i wrote:
This reminds me of this:


Wartime happened in 1940. This was 80 years ago. None of us was there. yes people died. Leave them in their rest, don't bring them into your agendas. 2018 is not 1940. If you let hate flow through you, that's how we will end up in the Dark Side again.

It wasn't wartime though, Nazis killed people before and during the war even to the detriment of the war effort. Its inherent to the ideology.

I highly encourage anyone with a 'punch Nazis' fetish to just STFU about it and go do it.

That way, you'll end up in prison where most Nazis are, and I'm sure you'll show them who's boss and not end up being someone's recreational device. Have fun!

Still not sure how we got here from Anita Sarkeesian and her politics/ideology, but-

Oh I know not why we got here, but who got us here. Hmmm... derailed enough, it seems.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
DC Comics relaunching Vertigo, so woke, it enters self parody (even has a book written by Zoe Quinn!)
https://www.newsarama.com/40263-vertigo-relaunching-with-new-titles-socially-conscious-message.html

Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?

I fail to see the problem here. You say "make new stuff, don't change the old stuff to match your politics" and now here they are making new stuff and you still aren't happy. Somehow creating entirely new comics counts as "destruction of nerd hobbies", as if the mere existence of left-wing politics means that everything you enjoy is dead.

Hi it was me and I fully support it.

For shame people these comics are not captain america turned fascist or a myriad well established characters perverted and distorted to be something they never were, these are original stories, laugh them all you want, disagree all you want, they have the same right as you to create their own original content and you should support them for that.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is for all and all should respect it if we want to live in a society that will eventually learn to coexist, it does not matter if you agree with their ideology, it does not matter if you find the premise a joke, its their right to create something new and they have the same right as you do in creating their own stuff.

I majorly disapprove changing established stuff to express politics, I do not mind creating new stuff.


I do not say not criticise a work everybody has the right to do that, but the reaction on the announcement? please, read it and then criticise preferably with structure and constructively.

Remember this, the most difficult part in ideology and morality is to be consistent and just especially to your "adversaries".

 Necro wrote:
So this woman gets on a panel and 40 pages later we get to Nazi's.

Truly she has an impact.....sadly

Well its a pretty clear line "sarkeesian bad, dont make the community political-it was always political-no it wasn't-captain america-no he wasn't-cap fights actual nazis".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
So, let's apply the same to Communists. They racked up a bigger body count and did the same exact thing.

Oh, wait- maybe we shouldn't just murder people until they actually act on it. Crazy, crazy thought.

You know perfectly well that the two are not the same. Communism is an economic system that does not require murder, even if Stalinist dictatorships have done awful things. One can advocate communism without advocating mass murder. Nazism, on the other hand, is fundamentally an ideology about exterminating the lesser races. There is no Nazism without murder, genocide is the entire point. So, while a communist may simply want to see certain economic policies implemented through legal means a Nazi is either a murderer or someone who wishes to be a murderer. If Nazis do not currently murder people it is only because of the threat of violence, whether from state-sanctioned police or from individuals acting in self defense, keeps them from doing so.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I do not say not criticise a work everybody has the right to do that, but the reaction on the announcement? please, read it and then criticise preferably with structure and constructively.

True. They're free to make what they want, and if it sells- oh well, people wanted it. But if it doesn't sell...

...we're bigots. But we're always bigots in the eyes of the unhinged, so no real change there.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well its a pretty clear line "sarkeesian bad, dont make the community political-it was always political-no it wasn't-captain america-no he wasn't-cap fights actual nazis".

Exactly. Comic books have always been political. It's absurd to talk about bringing politics into Captain America when the character was specifically created as a political figure.

the_scotsman wrote:
Defend your Old Spice Brand Mountain Manly as the one true deodorant,

Hold up, are you saying Terry Crews' Old Spice isn't the one true deodorant?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Well its a pretty clear line "sarkeesian bad, dont make the community political-it was always political-no it wasn't-captain america-no he wasn't-cap fights actual nazis".

Cap fighting Nazis is one thing. But something is wrong if you see Cap Fighting Nazis and 'Donald Trump is a Nazi dictator in this issue' as remotely the same thing.

We were at WAR with the damned Nazis. Not people who voted differently than us.

Don't play ignorant. It lessens you.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays. Eventually they force you to take a choice.

We are not really discussing murder now, are we?

No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?

Have many Nazis tried to kill you? As in, in real, real life 2018? You, personally. Did people with swastikas came to kill you with guns?

Are you denying that there are parts of society that still believe in it? You should ask those German police officers who die in the line of duty against people clinging to the laws of the Reich in Germany. Its a dangerous ideology. Once they get into power its open season on a lot of people, at that point they have the right to defend themselves. Nazis have murdered people in recent years. We're not killing them for their beliefs right now are we?

Ok, I know in the US you are trigger happy. But please don't advocate you know how Europe works. And don't play the advocate to protect the German citizens from neonazis. Trust me there is no one on the planet with a deeper understanding and aversion from nazism than modern day Germans. There are about 0-2 German policemen per year who die as a result of their work. Latest data is in 2016, one policeman dead from a neonazi attack indeed. Previous to that, 2015 a dude stabbed two cops because he did not have a train ticket. Before that we need to go to 2011 where a cop died from a robbery shootout. Don't know what your media tells you, but the germans don't go burying policement to neonazis every second Tuesday.

"Once they get into power". They will not get into power unless they win majority in legal election. For that to happen the majority of Germans must vote for Neonazi parties. Once again, you need to meet more Germans if you think that's how they live.

Parts of society are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it. Thinking is not a crime. Repeat as many times as you have to until you understand it.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I majorly disapprove changing established stuff to express politics, I do not mind creating new stuff.

Do you also disapprove of changing stuff for other reasons? I mean, it seems kind of absurd to complain about comic companies changing stuff when they regularly reboot their series every few years so they can sell a fresh round of origin stories and rehash the same old plots for the 340503450th time. The idea that comic book IP is some kind of sacred and unchanging story is just not reality. So if you're going to accept changes for all these other reasons what is wrong with making changes to a character's gender or whatever?

It's just like 40k and female marines. Every time the topic comes up there's an endless flame war over it and the thread gets locked, and people complain about how it would violate the fluff and be completely unacceptable. Then GW sees a potential market, introduces primaris marines that are at least as bad as a fluff violation, and people buy them in vast quantities.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Necro wrote:
So this woman gets on a panel and 40 pages later we get to Nazi's.

Truly she has an impact.....sadly

Well its a pretty clear line "sarkeesian bad, dont make the community political-it was always political-no it wasn't-captain america-no he wasn't-cap fights actual nazis".

Lucky for me I don't care much for Nazi's, Captain America or Anita Sarkeesian

topaxygouroun i wrote:
"Once they get into power". They will not get into power unless they win majority in legal election.

This displays a rather disturbing ignorance of how the Nazis did get into power in the 1930s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
But something is wrong if you see Cap Fighting Nazis and 'Donald Trump is a Nazi dictator in this issue' as remotely the same thing.

I missed the "Trump is a Nazi dictator" issue. Are you sure it happened? Do I need to file a complaint with USPS and have them track down my missing package?

 Peregrine wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
"Once they get into power". They will not get into power unless they win majority in legal election.

This displays a rather disturbing ignorance of how the Nazis did get into power in the 1930s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
But something is wrong if you see Cap Fighting Nazis and 'Donald Trump is a Nazi dictator in this issue' as remotely the same thing.

I missed the "Trump is a Nazi dictator" issue. Are you sure it happened? Do I need to file a complaint with USPS and have them track down my missing package?

And your answer displays a total ignorance of how modern Germany is structured and governed. As I said, you need to meet more modern Germans.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays. Eventually they force you to take a choice.

We are not really discussing murder now, are we?

No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?

Have many Nazis tried to kill you? As in, in real, real life 2018? You, personally. Did people with swastikas came to kill you with guns?

Are you denying that there are parts of society that still believe in it? You should ask those German police officers who die in the line of duty against people clinging to the laws of the Reich in Germany. Its a dangerous ideology. Once they get into power its open season on a lot of people, at that point they have the right to defend themselves. Nazis have murdered people in recent years. We're not killing them for their beliefs right now are we?

Ok, I know in the US you are trigger happy. But please don't advocate you know how Europe works. And don't play the advocate to protect the German citizens from neonazis. Trust me there is no one on the planet with a deeper understanding and aversion from nazism than modern day Germans. There are about 0-2 German policemen per year who die as a result of their work. Latest data is in 2016, one policeman dead from a neonazi attack indeed. Previous to that, 2015 a dude stabbed two cops because he did not have a train ticket. Before that we need to go to 2011 where a cop died from a robbery shootout. Don't know what your media tells you, but the germans don't go burying policement to neonazis every second Tuesday.

"Once they get into power". They will not get into power unless they win majority in legal election. For that to happen the majority of Germans must vote for Neonazi parties. Once again, you need to meet more Germans if you think that's how they live.

Parts of society are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it. Thinking is not a crime. Repeat as many times as you have to until you understand it.

I'm dutch, born and raised, still living in the NL. I know how Europe is like. Look up Reichsburger. Most Germans hate Nazis, that doesn't mean there aren't some hardcore holdouts. People still die at the hands of Neonazis, how many are killed in reverse?

"It won't happen here, it won't happen here, it won't happen here"
The AFD is getting pretty apologetic meanwhile *looks at Gauland*

Thinking isn't a crime no, but that doesn't make them less dangerous.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays. Eventually they force you to take a choice.

We are not really discussing murder now, are we?

No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?

Have many Nazis tried to kill you? As in, in real, real life 2018? You, personally. Did people with swastikas came to kill you with guns?

Are you denying that there are parts of society that still believe in it? You should ask those German police officers who die in the line of duty against people clinging to the laws of the Reich in Germany. Its a dangerous ideology. Once they get into power its open season on a lot of people, at that point they have the right to defend themselves. Nazis have murdered people in recent years. We're not killing them for their beliefs right now are we?

Ok, I know in the US you are trigger happy. But please don't advocate you know how Europe works. And don't play the advocate to protect the German citizens from neonazis. Trust me there is no one on the planet with a deeper understanding and aversion from nazism than modern day Germans. There are about 0-2 German policemen per year who die as a result of their work. Latest data is in 2016, one policeman dead from a neonazi attack indeed. Previous to that, 2015 a dude stabbed two cops because he did not have a train ticket. Before that we need to go to 2011 where a cop died from a robbery shootout. Don't know what your media tells you, but the germans don't go burying policement to neonazis every second Tuesday.

"Once they get into power". They will not get into power unless they win majority in legal election. For that to happen the majority of Germans must vote for Neonazi parties. Once again, you need to meet more Germans if you think that's how they live.

Parts of society are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it. Thinking is not a crime. Repeat as many times as you have to until you understand it.

I'm dutch, born and raised, still living in the NL. I know how Europe is like. Look up Reichsburger. Most Germans hate Nazis, that doesn't mean there aren't some hardcore holdouts. People still die at the hands of Neonazis, how many are killed in reverse?

"It won't happen here, it won't happen here, it won't happen here"
The AFD is getting pretty apologetic meanwhile *looks at Gauland*

Thinking isn't a crime no, but that doesn't make them less dangerous.

Would you shoot Wilders if you saw him on the street?

 Necro wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Necro wrote:
So this woman gets on a panel and 40 pages later we get to Nazi's.

Truly she has an impact.....sadly

Well its a pretty clear line "sarkeesian bad, dont make the community political-it was always political-no it wasn't-captain america-no he wasn't-cap fights actual nazis".

Lucky for me I don't care much for Nazi's, Captain America or Anita Sarkeesian

Well you could question the extent to which politics gets involved even outside of Cap. The first Iron Man movie has some scenes you could view as political depending on your angle. Its quite hard to avoid depending on your own stance and maybe(?) subsequent blind spot to what we find normal.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
And your answer displays a total ignorance of how modern Germany is structured and governed. As I said, you need to meet more modern Germans.

Modern Germany is not the only place that Nazis are a threat. This is from the US:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Would you shoot Wilders if you saw him on the street?

No, I don't know what your obsession is with the idea I'm currently actually going out and hurting people? I'm saying once those people start to go out to hurt me/others I have the right to defend myself/others.

How many were there? 50?

Once again. They are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it.

So does anyone actually know what Sarkeesian is going to talk about yet?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Would you shoot Wilders if you saw him on the street?

No, I don't know what your obsession is with the idea I'm currently actually going out and hurting people? I'm saying once those people start to go out to hurt me/others I have the right to defend myself/others.

Of course you do. Once it happens. but the previous comments (by Peregrine, not you) were advocating precisely this. Kill them because it's a good thing to do. Well, no it's not.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Would you shoot Wilders if you saw him on the street?

No, I don't know what your obsession is with the idea I'm currently actually going out and hurting people? I'm saying once those people start to go out to hurt me/others I have the right to defend myself/others.

Of course you do. Once it happens. but the previous comments (by Peregrine, not you) were advocating precisely this. Kill them because it's a good thing to do. Well, no it's not.

I think there is an entire debate to be had in how we treat the movement compared to other groups and how the state acts on them. However that is best left to other threads.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
How many were there? 50?

Once again. They are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it.

They are acting on it. They are organizing politically and attempting to gain power. The time to kill Nazis and stop them from committing genocide is before they start exterminating whole classes of people, not after they get into power and officially start murdering their victims. Learn the lesson from WWII, appeasing Nazis does not stop them. Listen to Captain America, killing Nazis is your civic duty.

 Peregrine wrote:

I'll leave them in their rest when people stop parading around with Nazi flags and talking about the need for genocide to create a white nation and how Hitler was a hero. Until then the political statement made by the original Captain America remains true: Nazis are evil, and killing them is a moral virtue.

If you do to them what they did to their victims you are no different.

To whoever values the virtuous of democracy as it is now defined in the western world, the freedoms we have conquered through the recent decades, our culture and society as citizens of the west, it will never be "ok to punch a Nazi" because becoming a violent, authoritarian and totalitarian, regime to prevent the possible rise of a violent, authoritarian and totalitarian, regime is a complete betrayal to what the west stands for in values and in principle.

If you want to prevent the new "Nazi" to ever come up, never stop them from speaking, never deny them the freedoms our society offers and never attack them, do not give them the opportunity to be the victim and gain sympathy, do not give them the opportunity to call you justifiably a liar because you discriminate against them when your values are against it, do not give them the opportunity to show the world that you do not stand for what you speak.

Allow them to speak and call them on their ideology, remind everybody how they are allowed to speak when they would not allow the others to do so, show everybody that our society does not need to resort to violence to solve its problems even with its anathema and most importantly of all educate your young show them why our western society and values are better than theirs, that is how you defeat the Nazis.

Because whatever they may do or say the western values, the western freedom, however flawed, is always better and will always prevail in the end.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you do to them what they did to their victims you are no different.

Nonsense. That's like saying shooting someone in self defense is morally equal to torturing and murdering someone for fun. There is zero moral equivalence between committing industrialized genocide to exterminate the people you view as the lesser races and using violence to stop people from doing that.

If you want to prevent the new "Nazi" to ever come up, never stop them from speaking, never deny them the freedoms our society offers and never attack them, do not give them the opportunity to be the victim and gain sympathy, do not give them the opportunity to call you justifiably a liar because you discriminate against them when your values are against it, do not give them the opportunity to show the world that you do not stand for what you speak.

Or shoot them. Repeat as long as it is necessary to shoot Nazis. Nazis can not create extermination camps if they are dead. Freedom of speech is not an obligation to stand passively by and watch as the greatest evil in history organizes and attempts another try at genocide.

Allow them to speak and call them on their ideology, remind everybody how they are allowed to speak when they would not allow the others to do so, show everybody that our society does not need to resort to violence to solve its problems even with its anathema and most importantly of all educate your young show them why our western society and values are better than theirs, that is how you defeat the Nazis.

How did polite debate and superior values work in the 1930s?

(Hint: a whole lot of people were murdered, and a whole lot of people died to stop the Nazis.)

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Because whatever they may do or say the western values, the western freedom, however flawed, is always better and will always prevail in the end.

That's not entirely historically acurate. Often times it has only prevailed after a lot of people got hurt, not just nazism but other forms of fascism.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
How many were there? 50?

Once again. They are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it.

500. During said rally they also killed someone and injured many others.

 Peregrine wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
How many were there? 50?

Once again. They are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it.

They are acting on it. They are organizing politically and attempting to gain power. The time to kill Nazis and stop them from committing genocide is before they start exterminating whole classes of people, not after they get into power and officially start murdering their victims. Learn the lesson from WWII, appeasing Nazis does not stop them. Listen to Captain America, killing Nazis is your civic duty.

Now I am going to really shake your boots: They are allowed to organize politically and it's ok that they attempt to gain power, as long as they do it within the present legal structure, ie form a party and join the election. If they start exterminating people then this is obviously illegal, they are criminals and they will be dealt with. but until they actually do it, they are innocent of anything you want them to be. You learn to live in the 21st century.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
They are allowed to organize politically and it's ok that they attempt to gain power

Then you and I simply disagree. There is nothing ok about attempting to commit genocide. No step in that direction is acceptable, period. If there is any credible threat of Nazis gaining power then it is morally acceptable to use any means necessary, up to and including shooting every Nazi until no more Nazis remain, to stop them from doing so.

If they start exterminating people then this is obviously illegal, they are criminals and they will be dealt with.

Do you not see the contradiction here? If Nazis are allowed into power and pass a law saying "the lesser races will now be exterminated" then it is no longer illegal and they are not criminals. By your own argument you are not justified in using violence to stop them because they are following all of the laws of the democratic country. If you want to stop Nazis then you need a moral understanding that goes beyond what is and isn't legal, and then you will understand why shooting Nazis is a moral virtue.

Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Do not care one bit. Democracy is of zero value if it permits Nazis to commit genocide.

 Peregrine wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Do not care one bit. Democracy is of zero value if it permits Nazis to commit genocide.

Ok so you really are a troll. Doritos was right. Have a nice day.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Do not care one bit. Democracy is of zero value if it permits Nazis to commit genocide.

Ok so you really are a troll. Doritos was right. Have a nice day.

Eeeeeeeeeehhh. I dunno. He's not the first person I've seen express this view. I mean look at the reaction people had to Trump being elected.

Anyway, let us close this tangent with a relevant reminder that comic books have always been political and it's absurd to complain about politics in comic books just because the politics in a particular book aren't your own.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

Same goes for extremists using similar methos on the other side of the aisle.

...So.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the moderator for Sarkeesian's section is Luke Crane, the Head of Games at Kickstarter (and author of the Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer RPGs).

I think having him, or even the current CEO or another head at Kickstarter, would make for a better discussion, since Kickstarter has had such a huge influence on the tabletop hobby - whether its expectations of what companies bring to Kickstarter, or even if they should be using Kickstarter at all.

 infinite_array wrote:
...So.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the moderator for Sarkeesian's section is Luke Crane, the Head of Games at Kickstarter (and author of the Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer RPGs).

I think having him, or even the current CEO or another head at Kickstarter, would make for a better discussion, since Kickstarter has had such a huge influence on the tabletop hobby - whether its expectations of what companies bring to Kickstarter, or even if they should be using Kickstarter at all.

Seems like a bit of a waste only to have Crane show up to moderate, he isn't slotted to speak any other time?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
...So.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the moderator for Sarkeesian's section is Luke Crane, the Head of Games at Kickstarter (and author of the Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer RPGs).

I think having him, or even the current CEO or another head at Kickstarter, would make for a better discussion, since Kickstarter has had such a huge influence on the tabletop hobby - whether its expectations of what companies bring to Kickstarter, or even if they should be using Kickstarter at all.

Seems like a bit of a waste only to have Crane show up to moderate, he isn't slotted to speak any other time?

Looks like he'll also be running a seminar on long running campaigns on Saturday. Will probably be worth a listen. Oh, and he'll been in a seminar about what heavy metal to listen to during games. Probably others.

And that reminds me that I need to find a Torchbearer group. It looks like a really interesting, if challenging, RPG.

Lol, appeals to democracy for letting an inherently undemocratic group take power? I feel this comic needs to be read again.

 Carnikang wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

 infinite_array wrote:

Looks like he'll also be running a seminar on long running campaigns on Saturday. Will probably be worth a listen. Oh, and he'll been in a seminar about what heavy metal to listen to during games. Probably others.

And that reminds me that I need to find a Torchbearer group. It looks like a really interesting, if challenging, RPG.

That's pretty good. I don't know if the heavy metal one is all that relevant though

 Verviedi wrote:
Lol, appeals to democracy for letting an inherently undemocratic group take power? I feel this comic needs to be read again.

Spoiler:

So, whose job is it to determine whether a group is tolerant, and should be included in a tolerant, just society, or whether a group is intolerant, and should be evicted with intolerance by a tolerant, just society?

Do we put that decision with everyone, make it democratic? Don't have to follow that particular chain of logic too far into the history books to figure out that "everyone" is a pretty bad judge of character.

Do we pick one person as the Moral Avatar, maybe a small group of people, and make them in charge of figuring out which group to label as "intolerant" so we can eradicate them by force? An individual might be free of the biases of the overall populace, but they could bring their own.

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

Who do we consider a Nazi? People who go to Nazi rallies and wave flags, or who declare themselves as such?

Maybe.

But do you consider anyone else maybe a "secret nazi"? How about groups that you think might be secretly nazi fronts, or just as bad as nazis by another name?

 Peregrine wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I majorly disapprove changing established stuff to express politics, I do not mind creating new stuff.

Do you also disapprove of changing stuff for other reasons? I mean, it seems kind of absurd to complain about comic companies changing stuff when they regularly reboot their series every few years so they can sell a fresh round of origin stories and rehash the same old plots for the 340503450th time. The idea that comic book IP is some kind of sacred and unchanging story is just not reality. So if you're going to accept changes for all these other reasons what is wrong with making changes to a character's gender or whatever?

It's just like 40k and female marines. Every time the topic comes up there's an endless flame war over it and the thread gets locked, and people complain about how it would violate the fluff and be completely unacceptable. Then GW sees a potential market, introduces primaris marines that are at least as bad as a fluff violation, and people buy them in vast quantities.

See this what I like, a start for a great discussion.

There are two fundamental forces in a story or a character its core and the establishment.

"Core" is the core, the absolute fundamentals that you must keep in order you make anybody look at something and say yes, this is X, its a combination of visuals and character behaviour, people mistakenly emphasise on visuals because this is what people see, but behaviour is what will make or break the core, one may look like for example captain america, but if it behaves even remotely not like the captain america's core then the audience will cry foul.

Establishment on the other hand is a wider area than the core what has been established for the character, it is not essential, but it is what the audience expects from the character or setting, changing them is far more noticeable and needs great skills in crafting to make the audience accept the changes and for the most part changing them "just because" is impossible without an outrage, again in the same example there is no reason why captain America could not be female, or some other race but it is not what the audience expects from his establishment.

Mind you one off side stories that experiment with such ideas bypass this, as long as they respect the characters core, because the audience does not see them as main story but as a non canon experimentation.

I strongly dislike the constant rebooot of the American Superhero comics and that has distanced me from them, but until recently they managed to keep core and establishment relatively good, the recent comics from what I gather from the criticism either mess with characters core badly or change the Establishment for no other reason than to change it (seemingly to pass the writers agenda), this has created a lot of bad reaction.

Moving to GW and 40K I would say the reason why there is really no reaction to female stormcasts is because its a new IP and people do not care, new playground, new rules, GW has the freedom to create and people take the ride, personally I would cry foul if there were no female stormcasts by their fluff as the warhamer lore has established many female heroes.

On 40k it is more difficult, there is fundamentally nothing to the core of the space marine that is gender specific, but the establishment is that space marines are all male, regardless of excuses justifications and explanations it is against the establishment to have female space marines (excluding some chaos mutation I would guess) and there is no good justification to do them that would not look like an attempt to shove a female space marine, on the same token there is nothing in the sister of battle core that would make a sister female, but it is their establishment to be female, a male SoB would look as odd and out of place a s a female Space Marine.

Now I would argue the primaris are a violation of establishment and a good showcase of why you need really competent writers to change the establishment (personally I would have liked them to be brave say they wanted to make proper scale space marines with proper stats for Space marines and not do this nonsense) they are as far as I can see having a strong defence against them because they violate the established canon of 40k, I am not sure if it is at the same level as female space marines but it is quite high on the lore community it seems.

To sum it up
Core, never change it, if you do you get another character/ setting.
Establishment, play with it if it is a non canon one shot, have a really good excuse and a fantastic execution if you chose to do it as canon, better leave it alone.

I hope you found this interesting.

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, let us close this tangent with a relevant reminder that comic books have always been political and it's absurd to complain about politics in comic books just because the politics in a particular book aren't your own.

I agree with peregrine on this point, comics have always been parodies of the political times they were made in.

 Sim-Life wrote:


He goes on to say that you you should only silence the intolerant if they begin using force to silence the tolerant in order to preach their intolerance.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

" they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive"

Hmmm... doesn't that sounds like... "fake news"?

 Carnikang wrote:
We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society.

No, we should tolerate intolerance in a society built upon the principles of the freedom of expression and the open sharing of ideas.

Doesn't matter. Once the discussion starts discussing Hitler, it is pretty much over.

 Sim-Life wrote:


I love this comic because it exposes people who haven't done their own reading and just save things from Facebook, it takes only a small part of what Popper wrote and take it out of context. Popper said that intolerance should not be silenced and should be confronted in the court of public opinion.

He goes on to say that you you should only silence the intolerant if they begin using force to silence the tolerant in order to preach their intolerance.

Bingo. As Charles Bradlaugh said: "Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech".

EDIT: Geez, that comic really broke the quote tags.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Lol, appeals to democracy for letting an inherently undemocratic group take power? I feel this comic needs to be read again.

Spoiler:

I love this comic because it exposes people who haven't done their own reading and just save things from Facebook, it takes only a small part of what Popper wrote and take it out of context. Popper said that intolerance should not be silenced and should be confronted in the court of public opinion.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

He goes on to say that you you should only silence the intolerant if they begin using force to silence the tolerant in order to preach their intolerance.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Nazis cannot be countered by rational argument.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

-Jean-Paul Sartre

To not oppose Nazism is merely to condone it - it is to be the equivalent of the Social-Democratic party of the Weimar Republic - having such a flawed faith in Nazis meaning well that you gladly allow them into government and then get murdered when they legally dissolve democracy.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
...So.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the moderator for Sarkeesian's section is Luke Crane, the Head of Games at Kickstarter (and author of the Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer RPGs).

I think having him, or even the current CEO or another head at Kickstarter, would make for a better discussion, since Kickstarter has had such a huge influence on the tabletop hobby - whether its expectations of what companies bring to Kickstarter, or even if they should be using Kickstarter at all.

Seems like a bit of a waste only to have Crane show up to moderate, he isn't slotted to speak any other time?

Looks like he'll also be running a seminar on long running campaigns on Saturday. Will probably be worth a listen. Oh, and he'll been in a seminar about what heavy metal to listen to during games. Probably others.

And that reminds me that I need to find a Torchbearer group. It looks like a really interesting, if challenging, RPG.

What is a moderator’s job for a panel? To keep the discussion on topic, and under time?

 Verviedi wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Lol, appeals to democracy for letting an inherently undemocratic group take power? I feel this comic needs to be read again.

Spoiler:

I love this comic because it exposes people who haven't done their own reading and just save things from Facebook, it takes only a small part of what Popper wrote and take it out of context. Popper said that intolerance should not be silenced and should be confronted in the court of public opinion.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

He goes on to say that you you should only silence the intolerant if they begin using force to silence the tolerant in order to preach their intolerance.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Nazis cannot be countered by rational argument.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

-Jean-Paul Sartre

To not oppose Nazism is merely to condone it - it is to be the equivalent of the Social-Democratic party of the Weimar Republic - having such a flawed faith in Nazis meaning well that you gladly allow them into government and then get murdered when they legally dissolve democracy.

I do not think you understand Sartre's point here...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society.

No, we should tolerate intolerance in a society built upon the principles of the freedom of expression and the open sharing of ideas.

Doesn't matter. Once the discussion starts discussing Hitler, it is pretty much over.

Openly sharing ideas and expressing your views is fine. But being intolerant of a belief and actively trying to eradicate it isnt. That sort of intolerance does nothing for a society.

Bringing this all back around, being tolerant of 'feminist veiws' (already a contentious wording/topic here...) is alright until they start labeling those that dont agree with them as nazis or somesuch. When they start acting out and using silencing methods to remove opposition. Then it can become problematic for a tolerant society.

Again, having beliefs and opinions is fine, its how you act on them that labels you tolerant or intolerant, subjcting you to review.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

It actually wasn't most Germans at the time couldn't care less about antisemitism or disliking the Jews. It was always a pretty small and decicated minority that was enabled by the majority to do these things. Why else would they feel the need to hide it before they got into power and then hide what they were actually doing? The Nazis never managed to whip the whole population up into hatred. Hell they even had to downplay it in elections because it proved so unpopular. A small minority acxomplished something the majority would have never agreed with in 33 but just went with by 1941ish. That is the risk, baby steps until you suddenly realize how far its gone.

And you would be surprised how vanishingly tiny the minority would be. We're talking at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands having participated in the actions that led to the deaths of people. There weren't just camps. And no, Hitler was a coward.

"to fail to oppose nazis sufficiently is to condone them"

do you want to take a look at this for a moment? Consider the common turnaround "Yeah and Communists too".

What the Other Team is referring to here when they say Communists is what you'd probably dispute and refer to as "stalinist dictatorships" but it is in fact true that the actions taken by that dictator were in the name of communism.

Here, you would like to be able to take the name, and in some instances the symbols, that were at one point used to justify terrible killings and oppression, to justify something that is obviously distinct and highly different from that ideology. And you'd probably like to not be summarily ejected from free discourse (where you'd probably explain the distinction between your actual ideals and the ideals of those that came before.)

Why is a different symbol and name held to a different standard here? Why is it so obviously necessary to allow and protect the users of one set of symbols and name that to fail to do so would make you an oppressor, and so obviously necessary to attack and destroy the users of another set of symbols and name that to fail to do so makes you an oppressor?

I would think (hope, honestly) that it's because it has nothing to do with the symbol, and instead the ideology. But then the question returns again to "how do you determine when someone is in fact so abhorrent that they do not deserve a place in a just society?" How do you root out your secret nazis and determine you're punching the people you should be punching?

 Carnikang wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society.

No, we should tolerate intolerance in a society built upon the principles of the freedom of expression and the open sharing of ideas.

Doesn't matter. Once the discussion starts discussing Hitler, it is pretty much over.

Openly sharing ideas and expressing your views is fine. But being intolerant of a belief and actively trying to eradicate it isnt. That sort of intolerance does nothing for a society.

Bringing this all back around, being tolerant of 'feminist veiws' (already a contentious wording/topic here...) is alright until they start labeling those that dont agree with them as nazis or somesuch. When they start acting out and using silencing methods to remove opposition. Then it can become problematic for a tolerant society.

Again, having beliefs and opinions is fine, its how you act on them that labels you tolerant or intolerant, subjcting you to review.

Its kind of amazing that this thread has gone on for so long with so many tangents and sensitive topics discussed and yet we're still on topic and there'a only been one moderator warning. Not to metion we lasted longer than the Board Game Geek thread. I'm also surprised it to 40 pages to get to nazis. Maybe the mods here just don't care.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

It actually wasn't most Germans at the time couldn't care less about antisemitism or disliking the Jews. It was always a pretty small and decicated minority that was enabled by the majority to do these things. Why else would they feel the need to hide it before they got into power and then hide what they were actually doing? The Nazis never managed to whip the whole population up into hatred. Hell they even had to downplay it in elections because it proved so unpopular. A small minority acxomplished something the majority would have never agreed with in 33 but just went with by 1941ish. That is the risk, baby steps until you suddenly realize how far its gone.

And you would be surprised how vanishingly tiny the minority would be. We're talking at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands having participated in the actions that led to the deaths of people. There weren't just camps. And no, Hitler was a coward.

Well, that's actually just highly speculative. Some noted historians would deeply disagree with your assessment of its popularity but Der Spiegel insists there was no actual measurement so it's all guesswork.

Sebastian Haffner plausibly reckoned that Hitler had succeeded by 1938 in winning the support of "the great majority of that majority who had voted against him in 1933." Indeed Haffner thought that by then Hitler had united almost the entire German people behind him, that more than 90 percent of Germans were by that time "believers in the Führer." In the absence of any genuine test of opinion, and in conditions of intimidation and repression for those who might dare to challenge official propaganda, when the only public opinion which existed was that of the regime's agencies, such a figure can only be guesswork, and is probably too high. At the same time, it seems hard to deny that the regime had won much support since 1933, and that this owed much to the perceived personal "achievements" of Hitler. The personalized focus of the regime's "successes" reflected the ceaseless efforts of propaganda, which had been consciously directed to creating and building up the "heroic" image of Hitler as a towering genius, to the extent that Joseph Goebbels could in 1941 with some justification claim the creation of the Führer Myth to have been his greatest propaganda achievement.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

Audustum wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

It actually wasn't most Germans at the time couldn't care less about antisemitism or disliking the Jews. It was always a pretty small and decicated minority that was enabled by the majority to do these things. Why else would they feel the need to hide it before they got into power and then hide what they were actually doing? The Nazis never managed to whip the whole population up into hatred. Hell they even had to downplay it in elections because it proved so unpopular. A small minority acxomplished something the majority would have never agreed with in 33 but just went with by 1941ish. That is the risk, baby steps until you suddenly realize how far its gone.

And you would be surprised how vanishingly tiny the minority would be. We're talking at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands having participated in the actions that led to the deaths of people. There weren't just camps. And no, Hitler was a coward.

Well, that's actually just highly speculative. Some noted historians would deeply disagree with your assessment of its popularity but Der Spiegel insists there was no actual measurement so it's all guesswork.

Sebastian Haffner plausibly reckoned that Hitler had succeeded by 1938 in winning the support of "the great majority of that majority who had voted against him in 1933." Indeed Haffner thought that by then Hitler had united almost the entire German people behind him, that more than 90 percent of Germans were by that time "believers in the Führer." In the absence of any genuine test of opinion, and in conditions of intimidation and repression for those who might dare to challenge official propaganda, when the only public opinion which existed was that of the regime's agencies, such a figure can only be guesswork, and is probably too high. At the same time, it seems hard to deny that the regime had won much support since 1933, and that this owed much to the perceived personal "achievements" of Hitler. The personalized focus of the regime's "successes" reflected the ceaseless efforts of propaganda, which had been consciously directed to creating and building up the "heroic" image of Hitler as a towering genius, to the extent that Joseph Goebbels could in 1941 with some justification claim the creation of the Führer Myth to have been his greatest propaganda achievement.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

Disagree how? I never said Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, I said Hitler's antisemitism wasn't as popular as people always tend to think. There is more to the history of Nazi Germany than antisemitism, its not the only thing he did. The article you link doesn't mention antisemitism as widespread, it even explicitly said this:

The claim that the change in Germany's fortunes had been achieved single-handedly was, of course, absurd. Fascinating, nevertheless, in this litany of what most ordinary Germans at the time could only have seen as astonishing personal successes of the Führer, is that they represented national "attainments" rather than reflecting central tenets of Hitler's own Weltanschauung. There was not a word in this passage of the pathological obsession with "removing" the Jews, or of the need for war to acquire living space. Restoration of order, rebuilding the economy, removal of the scourge of unemployment, demolition of the restrictions of the hated Versailles Treaty, and the establishment of national unity all had wide popular resonance, ranging far beyond die-hard Nazis, appealing in fact in different ways to practically every sector of society. Opinion surveys long after the end of the Second World War show that many people, even then, continued to associate these "achievements" positively with Hitler.

Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population

the_scotsman wrote:
"to fail to oppose nazis sufficiently is to condone them"

do you want to take a look at this for a moment? Consider the common turnaround "Yeah and Communists too".

What the Other Team is referring to here when they say Communists is what you'd probably dispute and refer to as "stalinist dictatorships" but it is in fact true that the actions taken by that dictator were in the name of communism.

Here, you would like to be able to take the name, and in some instances the symbols, that were at one point used to justify terrible killings and oppression, to justify something that is obviously distinct and highly different from that ideology. And you'd probably like to not be summarily ejected from free discourse (where you'd probably explain the distinction between your actual ideals and the ideals of those that came before.)

Why is a different symbol and name held to a different standard here? Why is it so obviously necessary to allow and protect the users of one set of symbols and name that to fail to do so would make you an oppressor, and so obviously necessary to attack and destroy the users of another set of symbols and name that to fail to do so makes you an oppressor?

I would think (hope, honestly) that it's because it has nothing to do with the symbol, and instead the ideology. But then the question returns again to "how do you determine when someone is in fact so abhorrent that they do not deserve a place in a just society?" How do you root out your secret nazis and determine you're punching the people you should be punching?

Nazis want to exterminate me and many people I love and care about.

Communists want to reform the economy and institute social equality. They have a history of fascists co-opting their movements and ruining their symbols, and that’s unfortunate.

There’s really no equivalence here.

Peregrine wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you do to them what they did to their victims you are no different.

Nonsense. That's like saying shooting someone in self defense is morally equal to torturing and murdering someone for fun. There is zero moral equivalence between committing industrialized genocide to exterminate the people you view as the lesser races and using violence to stop people from doing that.

Advocating for something does not equate doing it, neo facists in the western world are at worse minor political powers with no real power, there is a huge difference in shooting for self defence against someone who assaulted you and shooting someone across the street because they said "I hope you die" the second is criminal offence and will get you in jail or worse in some countries, there is a big reason why feelings and intentions are not criminal offences, only actual acts.

Peregrine wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you want to prevent the new "Nazi" to ever come up, never stop them from speaking, never deny them the freedoms our society offers and never attack them, do not give them the opportunity to be the victim and gain sympathy, do not give them the opportunity to call you justifiably a liar because you discriminate against them when your values are against it, do not give them the opportunity to show the world that you do not stand for what you speak.

Or shoot them. Repeat as long as it is necessary to shoot Nazis. Nazis can not create extermination camps if they are dead. Freedom of speech is not an obligation to stand passively by and watch as the greatest evil in history organizes and attempts another try at genocide.

And gather them in your own extermination camps to save the humanity from their disgraceful existence, like they attempted to do with the Jews, the gay, the wrong thinkers and after you exterminate them, who is your next great opponent? at what point you realise that when you speak like a fascist, act like a fascist and think as a fascist you probably are a fascist? Freedom of speech is worthless if you apply it one sided and exclude groups from it, its not freedom it is controlling of speech.

Regardless at the moment we do not see "The greatest evil in history organise another try at genocide" neo fascists have virtually no power and whatever power they get is because people block them and do not allow them to express their stupid ideas and make themselves marginalised by society and false sympathy because they are a group that is constantly attacked.

Peregrine wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Allow them to speak and call them on their ideology, remind everybody how they are allowed to speak when they would not allow the others to do so, show everybody that our society does not need to resort to violence to solve its problems even with its anathema and most importantly of all educate your young show them why our western society and values are better than theirs, that is how you defeat the Nazis.

How did polite debate and superior values work in the 1930s?

(Hint: a whole lot of people were murdered, and a whole lot of people died to stop the Nazis.)

It was not polite and there were no superior values, you should look why the Nazi party rose to power in the 30's why common folk allowed them to gain power through legal political means and maybe try to not repeat the same mistakes? history is never a simple untangled web with one easy explanation for the causes of one result.

Also you really should look why the rest of the western world allowed Germany to become the Nazi state.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Because whatever they may do or say the western values, the western freedom, however flawed, is always better and will always prevail in the end.

That's not entirely historically acurate. Often times it has only prevailed after a lot of people got hurt, not just nazism but other forms of fascism.

True, on the same note though almost all fascist states rose to power legally and that means they offered a seemingly better solution than their opponents to their countries population, the lesson is to prevent this in the future, if a fascist party looks more attractive than any democratic party, the political parties of this country failed dramatically at their job.

Peregrine wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
They are allowed to organize politically and it's ok that they attempt to gain power

Then you and I simply disagree. There is nothing ok about attempting to commit genocide. No step in that direction is acceptable, period. If there is any credible threat of Nazis gaining power then it is morally acceptable to use any means necessary, up to and including shooting every Nazi until no more Nazis remain, to stop them from doing so.

It is obvious we disagree, point is what you advocate is fascism, if they gain power you obviously failed to prevent them gain popularity in the population, killing them and making them martyrs is one obvious way to fail.

If some one ask you why your concentration camps, your lynch mobs and your mass shootings are morally better what will you say to them? because there is a chance? after you exterminate them who is the next one to be purged?

If they start exterminating people then this is obviously illegal, they are criminals and they will be dealt with.

Do you not see the contradiction here? If Nazis are allowed into power and pass a law saying "the lesser races will now be exterminated" then it is no longer illegal and they are not criminals. By your own argument you are not justified in using violence to stop them because they are following all of the laws of the democratic country. If you want to stop Nazis then you need a moral understanding that goes beyond what is and isn't legal, and then you will understand why shooting Nazis is a moral virtue.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

It actually wasn't most Germans at the time couldn't care less about antisemitism or disliking the Jews. It was always a pretty small and decicated minority that was enabled by the majority to do these things. Why else would they feel the need to hide it before they got into power and then hide what they were actually doing? The Nazis never managed to whip the whole population up into hatred. Hell they even had to downplay it in elections because it proved so unpopular. A small minority acxomplished something the majority would have never agreed with in 33 but just went with by 1941ish. That is the risk, baby steps until you suddenly realize how far its gone.

And you would be surprised how vanishingly tiny the minority would be. We're talking at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands having participated in the actions that led to the deaths of people. There weren't just camps. And no, Hitler was a coward.

Well, that's actually just highly speculative. Some noted historians would deeply disagree with your assessment of its popularity but Der Spiegel insists there was no actual measurement so it's all guesswork.

Sebastian Haffner plausibly reckoned that Hitler had succeeded by 1938 in winning the support of "the great majority of that majority who had voted against him in 1933." Indeed Haffner thought that by then Hitler had united almost the entire German people behind him, that more than 90 percent of Germans were by that time "believers in the Führer." In the absence of any genuine test of opinion, and in conditions of intimidation and repression for those who might dare to challenge official propaganda, when the only public opinion which existed was that of the regime's agencies, such a figure can only be guesswork, and is probably too high. At the same time, it seems hard to deny that the regime had won much support since 1933, and that this owed much to the perceived personal "achievements" of Hitler. The personalized focus of the regime's "successes" reflected the ceaseless efforts of propaganda, which had been consciously directed to creating and building up the "heroic" image of Hitler as a towering genius, to the extent that Joseph Goebbels could in 1941 with some justification claim the creation of the Führer Myth to have been his greatest propaganda achievement.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

Disagree how? I never said Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, I said Hitler's antisemitism wasn't as popular as people always tend to think. There is more to the history of Nazi Germany than antisemitism, its not the only thing he did. The article you link doesn't mention antisemitism as widespread, it even explicitly said this:

The claim that the change in Germany's fortunes had been achieved single-handedly was, of course, absurd. Fascinating, nevertheless, in this litany of what most ordinary Germans at the time could only have seen as astonishing personal successes of the Führer, is that they represented national "attainments" rather than reflecting central tenets of Hitler's own Weltanschauung. There was not a word in this passage of the pathological obsession with "removing" the Jews, or of the need for war to acquire living space. Restoration of order, rebuilding the economy, removal of the scourge of unemployment, demolition of the restrictions of the hated Versailles Treaty, and the establishment of national unity all had wide popular resonance, ranging far beyond die-hard Nazis, appealing in fact in different ways to practically every sector of society. Opinion surveys long after the end of the Second World War show that many people, even then, continued to associate these "achievements" positively with Hitler.

Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population

Hitler's anti-Semitic policies were well known and public. People claimed they didn't know about death camps per se, but they had Jews publicly wearing Stars of David and being mass deported on trains to Poland for crying out loud. So yeah, you can absolutely draw the conclusion that people approved of these measures if they approved of him.

Also, your quote from the article is way out of context. That paragraph is simply analyzing a single speech Hitler gave in order to comment about what he highlighted in that speech. It's not talking about the Nazi regime as a whole. You can go to page 5 for an example of where it actually talks about Hitler as a whole:

Hitler's conquest of the masses had the vital consequence, therefore, of extending his autonomy from any possible constraints within other sections of the regime. This helped to ensure that the ideological fixations which Hitler obsessively maintained since the beginning of his political "career" -- the "removal" of the Jews and the pursuit of "living space" -- were by the later 1930s emerging not simply as distant utopian dreams, but as realizable policy objectives. The process had been promoted at all levels of the regime through a readiness to "work towards the Führer." But this in itself was a reflection of the dominance that Hitler had so rapidly established after taking over power, then consolidated and extended, backed at crucial stages by the plebiscitary acclamation which the expansion of his popularity had produced.

Emphasis mine.

Audustum wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

It actually wasn't most Germans at the time couldn't care less about antisemitism or disliking the Jews. It was always a pretty small and decicated minority that was enabled by the majority to do these things. Why else would they feel the need to hide it before they got into power and then hide what they were actually doing? The Nazis never managed to whip the whole population up into hatred. Hell they even had to downplay it in elections because it proved so unpopular. A small minority acxomplished something the majority would have never agreed with in 33 but just went with by 1941ish. That is the risk, baby steps until you suddenly realize how far its gone.

And you would be surprised how vanishingly tiny the minority would be. We're talking at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands having participated in the actions that led to the deaths of people. There weren't just camps. And no, Hitler was a coward.

Well, that's actually just highly speculative. Some noted historians would deeply disagree with your assessment of its popularity but Der Spiegel insists there was no actual measurement so it's all guesswork.

Sebastian Haffner plausibly reckoned that Hitler had succeeded by 1938 in winning the support of "the great majority of that majority who had voted against him in 1933." Indeed Haffner thought that by then Hitler had united almost the entire German people behind him, that more than 90 percent of Germans were by that time "believers in the Führer." In the absence of any genuine test of opinion, and in conditions of intimidation and repression for those who might dare to challenge official propaganda, when the only public opinion which existed was that of the regime's agencies, such a figure can only be guesswork, and is probably too high. At the same time, it seems hard to deny that the regime had won much support since 1933, and that this owed much to the perceived personal "achievements" of Hitler. The personalized focus of the regime's "successes" reflected the ceaseless efforts of propaganda, which had been consciously directed to creating and building up the "heroic" image of Hitler as a towering genius, to the extent that Joseph Goebbels could in 1941 with some justification claim the creation of the Führer Myth to have been his greatest propaganda achievement.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

Disagree how? I never said Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, I said Hitler's antisemitism wasn't as popular as people always tend to think. There is more to the history of Nazi Germany than antisemitism, its not the only thing he did. The article you link doesn't mention antisemitism as widespread, it even explicitly said this:

The claim that the change in Germany's fortunes had been achieved single-handedly was, of course, absurd. Fascinating, nevertheless, in this litany of what most ordinary Germans at the time could only have seen as astonishing personal successes of the Führer, is that they represented national "attainments" rather than reflecting central tenets of Hitler's own Weltanschauung. There was not a word in this passage of the pathological obsession with "removing" the Jews, or of the need for war to acquire living space. Restoration of order, rebuilding the economy, removal of the scourge of unemployment, demolition of the restrictions of the hated Versailles Treaty, and the establishment of national unity all had wide popular resonance, ranging far beyond die-hard Nazis, appealing in fact in different ways to practically every sector of society. Opinion surveys long after the end of the Second World War show that many people, even then, continued to associate these "achievements" positively with Hitler.

Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population

Hitler's anti-Semitic policies were well known and public. People claimed they didn't know about death camps per se, but they had Jews publicly wearing Stars of David and being mass deported on trains to Poland for crying out loud. So yeah, you can absolutely draw the conclusion that people approved of these measures if they approved of him.

Also, your quote from the article is way out of context. That paragraph is simply analyzing a single speech Hitler gave in order to comment about what he highlighted in that speech. It's not talking about the Nazi regime as a whole. You can go to page 5 for an example of where it actually talks about Hitler as a whole:

Hitler's conquest of the masses had the vital consequence, therefore, of extending his autonomy from any possible constraints within other sections of the regime. This helped to ensure that the ideological fixations which Hitler obsessively maintained since the beginning of his political "career" -- the "removal" of the Jews and the pursuit of "living space" -- were by the later 1930s emerging not simply as distant utopian dreams, but as realizable policy objectives. The process had been promoted at all levels of the regime through a readiness to "work towards the Führer." But this in itself was a reflection of the dominance that Hitler had so rapidly established after taking over power, then consolidated and extended, backed at crucial stages by the plebiscitary acclamation which the expansion of his popularity had produced.

Emphasis mine.

After he got into power, that's the point. By the time people started realizing what he was doing he already had full control. And I never said the majority wasn't aware of the antisemitism and the trains. I'm countering the original argument that "Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred". And you're quoting a biased source (Nazi Germany) from before the war (1938) on his popularity when those deportations only started in 1940-41. There is a reason the Nazis actually tried to keep the Final Solution as secret (which is not to say that people weren't aware), they knew it didn't have popular support. Popular support for Hitler and popular support for his antisemitism are two different things and it ignores his other 'accomplishments' that made him so popular in the first place.

 Verviedi wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
"to fail to oppose nazis sufficiently is to condone them"

do you want to take a look at this for a moment? Consider the common turnaround "Yeah and Communists too".

What the Other Team is referring to here when they say Communists is what you'd probably dispute and refer to as "stalinist dictatorships" but it is in fact true that the actions taken by that dictator were in the name of communism.

Here, you would like to be able to take the name, and in some instances the symbols, that were at one point used to justify terrible killings and oppression, to justify something that is obviously distinct and highly different from that ideology. And you'd probably like to not be summarily ejected from free discourse (where you'd probably explain the distinction between your actual ideals and the ideals of those that came before.)

Why is a different symbol and name held to a different standard here? Why is it so obviously necessary to allow and protect the users of one set of symbols and name that to fail to do so would make you an oppressor, and so obviously necessary to attack and destroy the users of another set of symbols and name that to fail to do so makes you an oppressor?

I would think (hope, honestly) that it's because it has nothing to do with the symbol, and instead the ideology. But then the question returns again to "how do you determine when someone is in fact so abhorrent that they do not deserve a place in a just society?" How do you root out your secret nazis and determine you're punching the people you should be punching?

Nazis want to exterminate me and many people I love and care about.

Communists want to reform the economy and institute social equality. They have a history of fascists co-opting their movements and ruining their symbols, and that’s unfortunate.

There’s really no equivalence here.

Communism was not co-opted by Fascism, it just fell into dictatorial and oligarchical variants of its own. Communism was militantly atheist, for example, and actively committed violence against religious institutions and worshippers. Stalin didn't starve the Ukrainians out of national superiority, but to eliminate an independence movement before it started or, if you are more charitable towards him, an unintended consequence of Soviet industrialization.

Do you realize Mao killed more people in his Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward than Hitler did? Mao was not a fascist. He was a dictatorial communist. Fascism is a wedding of the corporations and the state into a partnership where industry serves the aims of government. It's highlights are nationalism, bloody imagery and public-private hybrid entities. Communism there ARE no private corporations. The state simply is (until you hit anarchic communism). While Marx technically saw this stage as part of Socialism, the world at large commonly refers to it as Communism.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays. Eventually they force you to take a choice.

We are not really discussing murder now, are we?

No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?

Have many Nazis tried to kill you? As in, in real, real life 2018? You, personally. Did people with swastikas came to kill you with guns?

Are you denying that there are parts of society that still believe in it? You should ask those German police officers who die in the line of duty against people clinging to the laws of the Reich in Germany. Its a dangerous ideology. Once they get into power its open season on a lot of people, at that point they have the right to defend themselves. Nazis have murdered people in recent years. We're not killing them for their beliefs right now are we?

A Jewish friend of mine and his wife were attacked in HB by neo Nazis who followed them home. They ended up moving to get away from the hate. The son of my rabbi in college was put in the hospital, and I personally have been threatened and harassed (although that was by antisemites who claimed to be Palestinian sympathizers rather than Nazis). Nazis are still around and still violent when they think they can get away with it.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

It actually wasn't most Germans at the time couldn't care less about antisemitism or disliking the Jews. It was always a pretty small and decicated minority that was enabled by the majority to do these things. Why else would they feel the need to hide it before they got into power and then hide what they were actually doing? The Nazis never managed to whip the whole population up into hatred. Hell they even had to downplay it in elections because it proved so unpopular. A small minority acxomplished something the majority would have never agreed with in 33 but just went with by 1941ish. That is the risk, baby steps until you suddenly realize how far its gone.

And you would be surprised how vanishingly tiny the minority would be. We're talking at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands having participated in the actions that led to the deaths of people. There weren't just camps. And no, Hitler was a coward.

Well, that's actually just highly speculative. Some noted historians would deeply disagree with your assessment of its popularity but Der Spiegel insists there was no actual measurement so it's all guesswork.

Sebastian Haffner plausibly reckoned that Hitler had succeeded by 1938 in winning the support of "the great majority of that majority who had voted against him in 1933." Indeed Haffner thought that by then Hitler had united almost the entire German people behind him, that more than 90 percent of Germans were by that time "believers in the Führer." In the absence of any genuine test of opinion, and in conditions of intimidation and repression for those who might dare to challenge official propaganda, when the only public opinion which existed was that of the regime's agencies, such a figure can only be guesswork, and is probably too high. At the same time, it seems hard to deny that the regime had won much support since 1933, and that this owed much to the perceived personal "achievements" of Hitler. The personalized focus of the regime's "successes" reflected the ceaseless efforts of propaganda, which had been consciously directed to creating and building up the "heroic" image of Hitler as a towering genius, to the extent that Joseph Goebbels could in 1941 with some justification claim the creation of the Führer Myth to have been his greatest propaganda achievement.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

Disagree how? I never said Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, I said Hitler's antisemitism wasn't as popular as people always tend to think. There is more to the history of Nazi Germany than antisemitism, its not the only thing he did. The article you link doesn't mention antisemitism as widespread, it even explicitly said this:

The claim that the change in Germany's fortunes had been achieved single-handedly was, of course, absurd. Fascinating, nevertheless, in this litany of what most ordinary Germans at the time could only have seen as astonishing personal successes of the Führer, is that they represented national "attainments" rather than reflecting central tenets of Hitler's own Weltanschauung. There was not a word in this passage of the pathological obsession with "removing" the Jews, or of the need for war to acquire living space. Restoration of order, rebuilding the economy, removal of the scourge of unemployment, demolition of the restrictions of the hated Versailles Treaty, and the establishment of national unity all had wide popular resonance, ranging far beyond die-hard Nazis, appealing in fact in different ways to practically every sector of society. Opinion surveys long after the end of the Second World War show that many people, even then, continued to associate these "achievements" positively with Hitler.

Though Hitler's anti-Semitic paranoia was not shared by the vast bulk of the population

Hitler's anti-Semitic policies were well known and public. People claimed they didn't know about death camps per se, but they had Jews publicly wearing Stars of David and being mass deported on trains to Poland for crying out loud. So yeah, you can absolutely draw the conclusion that people approved of these measures if they approved of him.

Also, your quote from the article is way out of context. That paragraph is simply analyzing a single speech Hitler gave in order to comment about what he highlighted in that speech. It's not talking about the Nazi regime as a whole. You can go to page 5 for an example of where it actually talks about Hitler as a whole:

Hitler's conquest of the masses had the vital consequence, therefore, of extending his autonomy from any possible constraints within other sections of the regime. This helped to ensure that the ideological fixations which Hitler obsessively maintained since the beginning of his political "career" -- the "removal" of the Jews and the pursuit of "living space" -- were by the later 1930s emerging not simply as distant utopian dreams, but as realizable policy objectives. The process had been promoted at all levels of the regime through a readiness to "work towards the Führer." But this in itself was a reflection of the dominance that Hitler had so rapidly established after taking over power, then consolidated and extended, backed at crucial stages by the plebiscitary acclamation which the expansion of his popularity had produced.

Emphasis mine.

After he got into power, that's the point. By the time people started realizing what he was doing he already had full control. And I never said the majority wasn't aware of the antisemitism and the trains. I'm countering the original argument that "Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred". And you're quoting a biased source (Nazi Germany) from before the war (1938) on his popularity when those deportations only started in 1940-41. There is a reason the Nazis actually tried to keep the Final Solution as secret, they knew it didn't have popular support. Popular support for Hitler and popular support for his antisemitism are two different things and it ignores his other 'accomplishments' that made him so popular in the first place.

Note the emphasis. He only had control because of the popular support. They knew what he was doing and they helped him stay in power and do it.

If you want to argue the timing of the article and timing of the trains you need some evidence his popularity actually DECREASED in 1940-41. I haven't seen any and there's no reason in my book to believe he actually got less popular in this time. Even in your own words, "whipping them into hatred" would indicate he did indeed, eventually, get them behind it.

I would say there is as much ground to argue they tried to suppress some (note not all, just some) details of the final solution secret more for international reasons than domestic ones.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean it worked pretty well in WW2, lot less Nazis around nowadays. Eventually they force you to take a choice.

We are not really discussing murder now, are we?

No, its self defense, Nazis work towards the goal of murdering their political enemies and those that don't fit their racial views. Would you have people just stand by and let the 1940's happen again or?

Have many Nazis tried to kill you? As in, in real, real life 2018? You, personally. Did people with swastikas came to kill you with guns?

Are you denying that there are parts of society that still believe in it? You should ask those German police officers who die in the line of duty against people clinging to the laws of the Reich in Germany. Its a dangerous ideology. Once they get into power its open season on a lot of people, at that point they have the right to defend themselves. Nazis have murdered people in recent years. We're not killing them for their beliefs right now are we?

A Jewish friend of mine and his wife were attacked in HB by neo Nazis who followed them home. They ended up moving to get away from the hate. The son of my rabbi in college was put in the hospital, and I personally have been threatened and harassed (although that was by antisemites who claimed to be Palestinian sympathizers rather than Nazis). Nazis are still around and still violent when they think they can get away with it.

Yep, its easy to say you should be tolerant towards the intolerant, meanwhile they are just holding a knife behind their back waiting for you to turn around.

 Verviedi wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
"to fail to oppose nazis sufficiently is to condone them"

do you want to take a look at this for a moment? Consider the common turnaround "Yeah and Communists too".

What the Other Team is referring to here when they say Communists is what you'd probably dispute and refer to as "stalinist dictatorships" but it is in fact true that the actions taken by that dictator were in the name of communism.

Here, you would like to be able to take the name, and in some instances the symbols, that were at one point used to justify terrible killings and oppression, to justify something that is obviously distinct and highly different from that ideology. And you'd probably like to not be summarily ejected from free discourse (where you'd probably explain the distinction between your actual ideals and the ideals of those that came before.)

Why is a different symbol and name held to a different standard here? Why is it so obviously necessary to allow and protect the users of one set of symbols and name that to fail to do so would make you an oppressor, and so obviously necessary to attack and destroy the users of another set of symbols and name that to fail to do so makes you an oppressor?

I would think (hope, honestly) that it's because it has nothing to do with the symbol, and instead the ideology. But then the question returns again to "how do you determine when someone is in fact so abhorrent that they do not deserve a place in a just society?" How do you root out your secret nazis and determine you're punching the people you should be punching?

Nazis want to exterminate me and many people I love and care about.

Communists want to reform the economy and institute social equality. They have a history of fascists co-opting their movements and ruining their symbols, and that’s unfortunate.

There’s really no equivalence here.

There is if you understand what the phrase refers to (the aforementioned stalinist dictatorships).

Sure, people are falsely equivocating modern communists who just want to reform the economy and institute social equality with the mass murderers of stalinist dictatorships...

But how many people are currently being labeled as nazis who do not actually advocate for the policies of that group OR associate themselves with their symbology?

How do you distinguish between someone who secretly desires to exterminate you and your loved ones in a death camp and someone who thinks people of a different race fit certain commonly held stereotypes, wants to see immigrants deported, and wants women to continue to adhere to what they view as historically womanly inferior roles? A monster from a garden-variety donkey-cave, if you will?

Both those views fall under the category of "bad" but I'm wondering how you propose we sort one from the other, because I hope you can see that there is some sort of a degree or difference here.

Fascism is the belief that the state as a concept is somehow greater than the populace.

Stalin applied nationalist propaganda through his “socialism in one country” model, and actively suppressed communist movements in Spain by supporting the Falangists over the CNT-FAI. He also dissolved the soviets (labor councils).

He was also racist, throwing Jews (or as he called them, rootless cosmopolites) in camps, and homophobic (reversing Lenin’s tolerance of gay relationships).

The idea of the vanguard party itself, practiced in the Soviet Union and the majority of other ‘communist’ nations flies in the face of the ideological nature of communism being a popular movement.

Much of the same applies to Mao, except Mao was more of a complete idiot (who did not understand ecology) than Stalin.

the_scotsman wrote:


There is if you understand what the phrase refers to (the aforementioned stalinist dictatorships).

Sure, people are falsely equivocating modern communists who just want to reform the economy and institute social equality with the mass murderers of stalinist dictatorships...

But how many people are currently being labeled as nazis who do not actually advocate for the policies of that group OR associate themselves with their symbology?

How do you distinguish between someone who secretly desires to exterminate you and your loved ones in a death camp and someone who thinks people of a different race fit certain commonly held stereotypes, wants to see immigrants deported, and wants women to continue to adhere to what they view as historically womanly inferior roles? A monster from a garden-variety donkey-cave, if you will?

Both those views fall under the category of "bad" but I'm wondering how you propose we sort one from the other, because I hope you can see that there is some sort of a degree or difference here.

If you fly a swastika flag, admire the politics of Nazi Germany, think liberals/communists/jews should be thrown out of helicopters or put in camps, support a dictatorship to remove “degeneracy”, and advocate for extreme national superiority, you’re a Nazi.

The acts described are illegal and can/ should be prosecuted.

As it has been discussed and apparently dismissed, organising into a political party of their own is not illegal but assaulting them for that is, them assaulting individuals or groups is illegal and they can be legally prosecuted, not for their beliefs, but their actions.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Without getting too much into US politics, we've seen people double down on their tribalism when informed and ignore some truly heinous gak their candidates do. They even brag about voting specifically to hurt the other side, the one warning them. Your approach just doesn't work.

Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where the average person who has never been one of the untermenschen on the extermination list just doesn't get it, not on a personal level. This goes back to the earlier discussion about how homophobia just doesn't seem like the most important issue when you have the option to opt out of being affected by it. But for the people with the targets on their backs they can't get rid of, it feels a lot more like a life and death issue.

Audustum wrote:
Note the emphasis. He only had control because of the popular support. They knew what he was doing and they helped him stay in power and do it.

If you want to argue the timing of the article and timing of the trains you need some evidence his popularity actually DECREASED in 1940-41. I haven't seen any and there's no reason in my book to believe he actually got less popular in this time. Even in your own words, "whipping them into hatred" would indicate he did indeed, eventually, get them behind it.

I would say there is as much ground to argue they tried to suppress some (note not all, just some) details of the final solution secret more for international reasons than domestic ones.

No, whipping them into hatred is the point I disagree on, it wasn't made by me hence the quote marks.

And seriously, the source you yourself post said Hitler's antisemitism wasn't shared by the "vast bulk of the population" and now you're trying to argue that they knew what he was doing and had popular support in his antisemitism?

When they forced Jews to wear the yellow star on their clothing, the better for people to identify them, many non-Jewish Germans did not react in the way that Goebels wanted them to. Jews reported being greeted on the street with unusual politeness.... Foreign diplomats, among them the Swedish ambassador and the US Consul-General in Berlin, noted similarly sympathetic reactions on the part of the majority of the population...... Popular reactions to the introduction of the Jewish star were overwhelmingly negative... When, not long afterwards,the police began rounding up Jews in German cities and taking them to the local railway station for deportation to the east, negative public reactions outweighed the positive ones.

Evans, The Third Reich at War, 555

The page keeps going with SS reports on the negative attitudes if you want more.

 Carnikang wrote:

Openly sharing ideas and expressing your views is fine. But being intolerant of a belief and actively trying to eradicate it isnt. That sort of intolerance does nothing for a society.

Fair enough. As long as it is expression and not action, then it's fine. But what if someone is intolerant against expression itself? What if they can make the argument that the expression itself is an action?

What about if someone is intolerant towards sexy women in media and is actively trying to eradicate it? Couldn't they themselves argue that by creating sexy miniatures/games/whatever, they are perpetuating harmful behavior towards women and that it is morally just to seek to eradicate it? Moreover, couldn't they argue that by defending sexy miniatures, one would be acting in a manner harmful to society?

This isn't a theoretical question. I've seen the progressives argue that expression, such as hate speech, is a dangerous action in and of itself. I'm sure you probably subscribe to that belief yourself. So splitting hairs about the difference between expression and action doesn't really work. Fact is, the US was based on the principles of the freedom of expression - the freedom of the mind - and action is an expression that is likewise protected. For instance, burning the US flag in protest.

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

I think his point is that rational debate doesn't work against Nazis (not calling Trump one) if people are willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

I think his point is that rational debate doesn't work against Nazis (not calling Trump one) if people are willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

Doesn't matter if the Nazis don't listen. The ones you need to convince is the voters. The voters vote and no alt-right party has ever gone into power the last years. And no, Trump is not a Nazi nor a fascist. He's a millionaire clown. He has no political agenda or power whatsoever. Every last one USA citizen trolls him openly in all forms of media and they are free to keep doing so. Try to do that with a fascist regime governing.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think his point is that rational debate doesn't work against Nazis (not calling Trump one) if people are willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

Rational debate doesn't work against anybody. That's why we're currently arguing about Nazis. Because reason left the building a while ago and everybody is trying to emotionally anchor their opponents to something odious so that they can trump them with moral superiority.

I don't think Sarkeesian talking at GenCon is even vaguely related to WW2, except that authoritarianism is kind of a dick move.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

He is attempting to remove freedom of the press. He has openly stated he wants to use the apparatus of government to punish his enemies. He has incited violence at his rallies. Just because he isn't' competent doesn't mean he isn't trying.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think his point is that rational debate doesn't work against Nazis (not calling Trump one) if people are willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

Rational debate doesn't work against anybody. That's why we're currently arguing about Nazis. Because reason left the building a while ago and everybody is trying to emotionally anchor their opponents to something odious so that they can trump them with moral superiority.

I don't think Sarkeesian talking at GenCon is even vaguely related to WW2, except that authoritarianism is kind of a dick move.

Again we got here from people saying don't make the community political and others pointing out its always been back to Cap fighting Nazis.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Without getting too much into US politics, we've seen people double down on their tribalism when informed and ignore some truly heinous gak their candidates do. They even brag about voting specifically to hurt the other side, the one warning them. Your approach just doesn't work.

Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where the average person who has never been one of the untermenschen on the extermination list just doesn't get it, not on a personal level. This goes back to the earlier discussion about how homophobia just doesn't seem like the most important issue when you have the option to opt out of being affected by it. But for the people with the targets on their backs they can't get rid of, it feels a lot more like a life and death issue.

Did you just play the "you've never been oppressed" card on a Celt?

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

I think his point is that rational debate doesn't work against Nazis (not calling Trump one) if people are willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

Doesn't matter if the Nazis don't listen. The ones you need to convince is the voters. The voters vote and no alt-right party has ever gone into power the last years. And no, Trump is not a Nazi nor a fascist. He's a millionaire clown. He has no political agenda or power whatsoever. Every last one USA citizen trolls him openly in all forms of media and they are free to keep doing so. Try to do that with a fascist regime governing.

Didn't you just tell off someone for describing the government in Germany despite not living there? Why don't you take your own advice?

I have seen hate speech increase since the election, by a significant amount. People are more brazen. I have seen elected members of the OC government become noticibly more hostile and corrupt since the election, no doubt because they realized those tactics work now. That's not even getting into the Muslim ban or what ICE is doing.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

I think his point is that rational debate doesn't work against Nazis (not calling Trump one) if people are willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

Doesn't matter if the Nazis don't listen. The ones you need to convince is the voters. The voters vote and no alt-right party has ever gone into power the last years. And no, Trump is not a Nazi nor a fascist. He's a millionaire clown. He has no political agenda or power whatsoever. Every last one USA citizen trolls him openly in all forms of media and they are free to keep doing so. Try to do that with a fascist regime governing.

No its not the Nazis that don't listen, its that people don't listen to rational debate against Nazis as long as they get out of it what they want.

I'm glad that the extent of democratic safeguards is that not enough idiots have voted for the alt-right directly yet. Even though we had Bannon being pretty influential as the brain behind the "clown".

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Without getting too much into US politics, we've seen people double down on their tribalism when informed and ignore some truly heinous gak their candidates do. They even brag about voting specifically to hurt the other side, the one warning them. Your approach just doesn't work.

Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where the average person who has never been one of the untermenschen on the extermination list just doesn't get it, not on a personal level. This goes back to the earlier discussion about how homophobia just doesn't seem like the most important issue when you have the option to opt out of being affected by it. But for the people with the targets on their backs they can't get rid of, it feels a lot more like a life and death issue.

Did you just play the "you've never been oppressed" card on a Celt?

Do people tell you to climb into an oven?

The oppression you have experienced is different, and I don't know what it was like. If you tell me someone is acting to put you and yours in the ground, I'll believe you. But I do know what it is like to have people threaten me or casually bring up their cabal theories or state that Jews can't be trusted, or that I am good with money all because of my ancestry. I know there are groups of people who would gladly stomp my face if they were sure they wouldn't go to jail for it, and they have told me so. It makes the idea of stopping Nazis before they have the profile to protect each other all the more urgent.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Did you just play the "you've never been oppressed" card on a Celt?

Them's my potatoes son.


Also I'm impressed at the leap from passing familiarity + name on an expansion for a game = 'industry' guest of honour.

Regardless of whether you think she's toxic or not, the people at GenCon must be aware that many people (especially in this hobby given the crossover with video games) do see her as toxic. Why would you not just play it safe and not invite her?

Well the cynic might say controversy sells, a more idealistic mindset might be that they see the outside perspective as valuable.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

Openly sharing ideas and expressing your views is fine. But being intolerant of a belief and actively trying to eradicate it isnt. That sort of intolerance does nothing for a society.

Fair enough. As long as it is expression and not action, then it's fine. But what if someone is intolerant against expression itself? What if they can make the argument that the expression itself is an action?

What about if someone is intolerant towards sexy women in media and is actively trying to eradicate it? Couldn't they themselves argue that by creating sexy miniatures/games/whatever, they are perpetuating harmful behavior towards women and that it is morally just to seek to eradicate it? Moreover, couldn't they argue that by defending sexy miniatures, one would be acting in a manner harmful to society?

This isn't a theoretical question. I've seen the progressives argue that expression, such as hate speech, is a dangerous action in and of itself. I'm sure you probably subscribe to that belief yourself. So splitting hairs about the difference between expression and action doesn't really work. Fact is, the US was based on the principles of the freedom of expression - the freedom of the mind - and action is an expression that is likewise protected. For instance, burning the US flag in protest.

That sort of is the issue at heart. Expression of belief is subjective.

Adressing the underlined.... Not really? Hate speech is a vague term in my opinion. Its too widely used as a buzz word to 'rally the troupe'. When someone is actually spreading hate through words and actions, it is a dangeros expression. Using a racial slur on its own is really gakking rude, but using it as a means to focus hate on a particular party or person could be considered a dangerous action.

Burning the flag is generally seen as an act of aggression, depending on the who what when and where. Retiring the flag in flames is an expression of respect, while hoisting the flag and burning it while yelling anti-American slogans is threatening.

I cant type well on this gakked pho

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I think his point is that rational debate doesn't work against Nazis (not calling Trump one) if people are willing to ignore it for their own benefit.

Rational debate doesn't work against anybody. That's why we're currently arguing about Nazis. Because reason left the building a while ago and everybody is trying to emotionally anchor their opponents to something odious so that they can trump them with moral superiority.

I don't think Sarkeesian talking at GenCon is even vaguely related to WW2, except that authoritarianism is kind of a dick move.

This I agree with. Rational debate doesn't work once a subject feels too personal. In today's climate, that's most of the time.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

My cousin can no longer visit the country where pretty much the entirety of his extended family lives.

So that's one pretty direct one right there. Freedom to have my family members come and visit me.

I think you need to find a better way to phrase this argument.

Reds8n

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Without getting too much into US politics, we've seen people double down on their tribalism when informed and ignore some truly heinous gak their candidates do. They even brag about voting specifically to hurt the other side, the one warning them. Your approach just doesn't work.

Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where the average person who has never been one of the untermenschen on the extermination list just doesn't get it, not on a personal level. This goes back to the earlier discussion about how homophobia just doesn't seem like the most important issue when you have the option to opt out of being affected by it. But for the people with the targets on their backs they can't get rid of, it feels a lot more like a life and death issue.

Did you just play the "you've never been oppressed" card on a Celt?

Do people tell you to climb into an oven?

The oppression you have experienced is different, and I don't know what it was like. If you tell me someone is acting to put you and yours in the ground, I'll believe you. But I do know what it is like to have people threaten me or casually bring up their cabal theories or state that Jews can't be trusted, or that I am good with money all because of my ancestry. I know there are groups of people who would gladly stomp my face if they were sure they wouldn't go to jail for it, and they have told me so. It makes the idea of stopping Nazis before they have the profile to protect each other all the more urgent.

So you're playing the "my oppression is more valid than yours" card now? No, nobody tells me to climb into an oven but if me and my partner cross the border and go into Belfast I hear a lot of colourful language that I can't repeat here. There are other forms of oppression and violence on other races or groups that don't involve nazis.

the_scotsman wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

My cousin can no longer visit the country where pretty much the entirety of his extended family lives.

So that's one pretty direct one right there. Freedom to have my family members come and visit me.

Wasn't this a thing with Russians even before Trump? I have a colleague from a former Soviet state and she was not allowed to travel to the US for training with the local groups even since before Trump. Or am I mistaken?

 Carnikang wrote:
That sort of is the issue at heart. Expression of belief is subjective.

No. It's not. That's why none of this gak has reached the courts. If someone seriously got up in front of a judge and tried to say, "this sexy miniature is creating a culture of rape that is harmful to women", the judge would have to respond with, "tough titties". Because expression is the most protected right we have in the US, and even hate speech has been repeatedly, constantly, and uniformly rules as expression protected by the First Amendment.

But nobody is taking it to court because they'd lose. We know this because they've tried this in the past with things like satire, pornography, and hate speech and guess what? They lost. And because they'd lose, people are arguing in the court of public opinion, because the standards are lower and things like laws, rights, and justice are open for debate.

Adressing the underlined.... Not really? Hate speech is a vague term in my opinion. Its too widely used as a buzz word to 'rally the troupe'. When someone is actually spreading hate through words and actions, it is a dangeros expression. Using a racial slur on its own is really gakking rude, but using it as a means to focus hate on a particular party or person could be considered a dangerous action.

If you live in the US, hate speech is protected expression backed up by dozens, if not hundreds of court cases and Supreme Court verdicts. It's a vague term because hate speech does not legally exist in the US.

To "focus hate on a particular party or person", that's called incitement and there's legal precedence for that too. Basically, incitement of events in a indefinite future is protected expression, while imminent incitement is not protected. So, tweeting "Hamsters should all be set on fire" is protected because whatever reaction such a comment would yield is nebulous. However, giving a gun to the guy next to you and saying, "Kill this mother touching hamster", that is not protected speech. The vast, vast majority of what people would consider hate speech falls under the first category.

Burning the flag is generally seen as an act of aggression, depending on the who what when and where. Retiring the flag in flames is an expression of respect, while hoisting the flag and burning it while yelling anti-American slogans is threatening.

See "incitement" above. Ever seen the movie, "The American President". Great movie and it has one of my favorite movie monologues ever:

Aaron Sorkin wrote:America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:

We tried that and now have an admitted serial sexual assaulter who thinks some Nazis are good people in the White House. Your approach just doesn't work.

Name one of your freedoms that got suppressed since Trump got the office.

My cousin can no longer visit the country where pretty much the entirety of his extended family lives.

So that's one pretty direct one right there. Freedom to have my family members come and visit me.

Wasn't this a thing with Russians even before Trump? I have a colleague from a former Soviet state and she was not allowed to travel to the US for training with the local groups even since before Trump. Or am I mistaken?

Any foreign national can be denied travel through the normal visa/vetting process. However my cousin and his family have held valid visas and been through vetting (not to mention having over a dozen US citizen relatives able to vouch for him) several times. However, one of Trump's major campaign promises was a ban on all muslims entering the US "until we figure out what's going on."

The "we figured out how to deliver on this campaign promise somehow while not also being so blatantly illegal that it would never ever be able to pass even a moment's examination in the courts" version of that was the ban on travel from several countries we consider national security threats that just so happen to be the ones people know that "them weird furriners" come from. This means no matter if you have valid visas in hand, you can't travel to the US if you're from Iran, Chad, Syria, etc. My family is originally from Iran, we still have several relatives there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point we're just waiting until Trump "figures out what's going on."

That definitely seems like a solid way to govern a country to me.

the_scotsman wrote:
At this point we're just waiting until Trump "figures out what's going on."

No true scotsman would question a sitting president.

(it may have an audience of one, but I couldn't help myself)

Sqorgar, I want to be clear that I agree on the majority of your points made. I in fact havnt seen that movie, though the dialogue makes sense.

You approach it from a legal standpoint, of the courts, which is perfactly applicable. Im not dismissing it, though i will say I'm not the most wellversed person when it comes to all this.

Expessing your belifs is subject to review, meaning it can be more than that. Expressing a belief in hate, sharing that and giving others a focus for it is only incitement? Is using the same words "Hamsters should be set on fire" in two different settins all that differentiates it between free expression and incitement?

As an aside,despite some of the rising emotions, this has been pretty interesting and educating on a number of matters.

 Carnikang wrote:
"Hamsters should be set on fire" in two different settins all that differentiates it between free expression and incitement?

Are you sitting on your toilet muttering that to yourself, chuckling it into a mic at a stand up comedy club, or are you standing in front of an angry mob holding torches surrounding a hamster ball?

Yes, context of situation matters.

 Carnikang wrote:
Expessing your belifs is subject to review, meaning it can be more than that. Expressing a belief in hate, sharing that and giving others a focus for it is only incitement? Is using the same words "Hamsters should be set on fire" in two different settins all that differentiates it between free expression and incitement?.

Yes, context significantly matters, for a variety of reasons. It might not be the only thing that differentiates it (tbh, not sure), but it is a factor. Let me give you a couple of examples:

Libel and slander - there are different standards for how, um, critical you can be depending on who you criticize (laws are more lax when discussing public figures compared to private individuals); this is in part so the public can better discuss larger societal issues without risking punishment.

Situation - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be illegal, yelling "Fire!" in an abandoned theater or privacy of your own home would be fine. As such, context matters due to potential for harm.

If I tell a group of incited, emotional people at a political rally that they should shoot my political rival or beat up all the Jews/gays/Catholics/Muslims/etc...well, you be the judge.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

Situation - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be illegal, yelling "Fire!" in an abandoned theater or privacy of your own home would be fine. As such, context matters due to potential for harm.

If I tell a group of incited, emotional people at a political rally that they should shoot my political rival or beat up all the Jews/gays/Catholics/Muslims/etc...well, you be the judge.

Except communicating a threat and broadcasting a false alarm are actually crimes, and not at all comparable to "I hate X people". Nice try.

I go to work and suddenly Dakka is back at it with the NAZIS IN MAH CEREAL childishness again.

 Carnikang wrote:
You approach it from a legal standpoint, of the courts, which is perfactly applicable. Im not dismissing it, though i will say I'm not the most wellversed person when it comes to all this.

Not from a legal standpoint, from a guiding principle standpoint. The US was built on the principle of freedom of expression - a premise I wholeheartedly endorse and agreed with - and this principle has been tested repeatedly. Constantly. Daily. And every time, we, as a country, have decided that we value this principle above all else. In places where it is uneasy, difficult, or upsetting, we've still stated, clearly and unequivocally, that the sacrifices we make in the pursuit of this principle are worth it. It is better to suffer mildly in a world in which we hear uncomfortable speech than to suffer in a world where the wrong person is deciding what we are allowed to hear. And there is NOBODY who is the right person in that situation. History has proven that point repeatedly as well.

They've done surveys, which reflect well my personal experiences, that a large number of Millennials are okay with limiting speech (40% of them). All I can say to that is if they get what they want, they'll get what they deserve.

Expessing your belifs is subject to review, meaning it can be more than that. Expressing a belief in hate, sharing that and giving others a focus for it is only incitement? Is using the same words "Hamsters should be set on fire" in two different settins all that differentiates it between free expression and incitement?

Well, context matters, doesn't it? Even then, legally speaking, because the freedom of expression is the most fundamental right given to our citizenry, when it is unclear, the First Amendment is the default standard. I think that, legally speaking, it would be impossible to claim that saying "Hamsters should be set on fire" is incitement because it is not a direct command that someone is reasonably expected to follow. Instead, it is an expression of one's rights and the audience is directly responsible for their own response. In that case, responding to hate speech with violence would be the immoral and illegal thing to do. I can probably track down some court cases about this (I remember reading some a few years ago), but we aren't really here to talk about the legality of this stuff.

Though, generally speaking, when principles and legality differ, legality tends to win out. So it's a moot point to think hate speech is bad if it is constitutionally protected, because tough titties.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
No, I don't know what your obsession is with the idea I'm currently actually going out and hurting people? I'm saying once those people start to go out to hurt me/others I have the right to defend myself/others.

This is the correct answer. When they do something. And when the Nazis go out and start hurting people, you have my rifle, pistol, and knife.

Well, YOU don't have it, I do, I payed money for that. But I'll be right there with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
Nazis cannot be countered by rational argument.

If you can't counter a Nazi in a rational argument, you actually suck at arguments, objectively.

Sqorgar makes a good case answering what i asked here before. Disregard this post.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

If you can't counter a Nazi in a rational argument, you actually suck at arguments, objectively.

Lots of folks think arguing is about convincing the other person more so than those observing.

From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

I can counter them, do a little dance on their ideas, waste my entire day explaining how their 'facts' are fabrications and how their world view is little more than an elaborate form of scapegoating, but in the end I've most often just wasted my own time more than convinced that person to change their mind. Had far better luck with the audience in people actually changing opinions as they aren't the ones digging their heels in to oppose me.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Libel and slander - there are different standards for how, um, critical you can be depending on who you criticize (laws are more lax when discussing public figures compared to private individuals); this is in part so the public can better discuss larger societal issues without risking punishment.

It's almost impossible to win with libel or slander laws. You have to prove that the person slandering you knows it to be untrue and is using it in such a way to confuse a reasonable person into believing it. So if I say, "Trump likes to pee on reporters", I know that is untrue, but no reasonable person would believe it. It also means that expletives and exaggerations are not slander/libel, so I can call Trump an donkey-cave baby rapist all I want.

Situation - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be illegal, yelling "Fire!" in an abandoned theater or privacy of your own home would be fine. As such, context matters due to potential for harm.

Actually, I'm glad you brought that one up. It turns out that yelling fire in a crowded theater was a comment made by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Jones (I think) during a case, and was never legally binding. It was just used as an example to justify the argument - and that particular supreme court case is considered one of the worst First Amendment rulings in American history and was overturned a few decades later. The actual case was about a communist distributing flyers, and this was deemed to be inciting distrust and discontent... so, hate speech, basically.

Hold on, let me find an article on this because I see this talking point come up repeatedly. Ah, here's one from The Atlantic. U.S. v. Schenck was the case. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio, ruled in favor of the KKK and hate speech, basically setting the precedence for the incitement stuff that I was talking about earlier. So, anyone who brings up that fire in a crowded theater to defend putting limits on the First Amendment should be directed to the fact that it wasn't binding, the court case was bs, and it was overturned much later when the Supreme Court actually defended the literal KKK.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

If you can't counter a Nazi in a rational argument, you actually suck at arguments, objectively.

Lots of folks think arguing is about convincing the other person more so than those observing.

From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

I can counter them, do a little dance on their ideas, waste my entire day explaining how their 'facts' are fabrications and how their world view is little more than an elaborate form of scapegoating, but in the end I've most often just wasted my own time more than convinced that person to change their mind. Had far better luck with the audience in people actually changing opinions as they aren't the ones digging their heels in to oppose me.

You are correct, sir.

If I'm arguing with a Nazi, a Commie, a bigot, or a person who puts ketchup on their meatloaf- my objective is not to make them change their mind. I'm not going to bother. My objective is to make them look as stupid and wrong as possible to the casual observer. If the end result is everyone is snickering and pointing at them, then that's how you 'counter' or 'win' the argument.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

It's actually not difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. You may just be thinking that your argument seems so self evident that you may be doing a poor job of defending it. To reason with someone who disagrees with you, you must first understand why they disagree with you. Saying what you believe without listening to what they believe is just preaching.

That being said, the absolute best way to convince someone to change their mind is to simply let them talk. Most people haven't put much effort into their world view and the longer they go on trying to explain it, the more contradictions and holes they, themselves, will find. When trying to fill those holes, they'll end up changing their views to something more reasonable. So, just let people talk and ask respectful questions.

This does not work for progressives because their entire world view is built around not having to explain anything or listen to anything. There's a number of talking points that they will constantly repeat, and if you ever manage to get them to move past those points, they get uneasy, call you a racist, and then ban you (or gets the thread locked). The talking points aren't there for you, they are there for them. They also won't get into a discussion when there isn't an audience around that is sympathetic to their side, so that any time there is a moment of near self reflection, one of the peanut gallery will jump in, insult you to much cheering, and derail the discussion. I honestly have never finished a conversation with a dyed in the wool progressive, but I've had lots of really great discussions with religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and even holocaust deniers.

Now that I think about it, when you are less open to discussion than a holocaust denier, that should really be a moment for self reflection...

 Sqorgar wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Libel and slander - there are different standards for how, um, critical you can be depending on who you criticize (laws are more lax when discussing public figures compared to private individuals); this is in part so the public can better discuss larger societal issues without risking punishment.

It's almost impossible to win with libel or slander laws. You have to prove that the person slandering you knows it to be untrue and is using it in such a way to confuse a reasonable person into believing it. So if I say, "Trump likes to pee on reporters", I know that is untrue, but no reasonable person would believe it. It also means that expletives and exaggerations are not slander/libel, so I can call Trump an donkey-cave baby rapist all I want.

Situation - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater would be illegal, yelling "Fire!" in an abandoned theater or privacy of your own home would be fine. As such, context matters due to potential for harm.

Actually, I'm glad you brought that one up. It turns out that yelling fire in a crowded theater was a comment made by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Jones (I think) during a case, and was never legally binding. It was just used as an example to justify the argument - and that particular supreme court case is considered one of the worst First Amendment rulings in American history and was overturned a few decades later. The actual case was about a communist distributing flyers, and this was deemed to be inciting distrust and discontent... so, hate speech, basically.

Hold on, let me find an article on this because I see this talking point come up repeatedly. Ah, here's one from The Atlantic. U.S. v. Schenck was the case. In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio, ruled in favor of the KKK and hate speech, basically setting the precedence for the incitement stuff that I was talking about earlier. So, anyone who brings up that fire in a crowded theater to defend putting limits on the First Amendment should be directed to the fact that it wasn't binding, the court case was bs, and it was overturned much later when the Supreme Court actually defended the literal KKK.

I think you might've been missing the forest for the trees: what I'd meant to illustrate is that identical speech can be illegal or not dependent on the circumstances, and inciting a mass panic with the likelihood of injury would be considered as under that. I'd say that the colloquial use of the phrasing should've made it clear, but there's always one pedant or another, I suppose.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I think you might've been missing the forest for the trees: what I'd meant to illustrate is that identical speech can be illegal or not dependent on the circumstances, and inciting a mass panic with the likelihood of injury would be considered as under that. I'd say that the colloquial use of the phrasing should've made it clear, but there's always one pedant or another, I suppose.

Except that didn't hold water when that psycho Antifa teacher in Cali, Yvette Falarca, actually incited a riot.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
I think you might've been missing the forest for the trees: what I'd meant to illustrate is that identical speech can be illegal or not dependent on the circumstances, and inciting a mass panic with the likelihood of injury would be considered as under that. I'd say that the colloquial use of the phrasing should've made it clear, but there's always one pedant or another, I suppose.

I get what you were saying. I wasn't arguing against you specifically. It's just that the fire in a crowded theater is one of the most common, if not the absolute most common, thing I see quoted in debates about the First Amendment, and it's all kind of bs. I just saw an opportunity to debunk it.

 Sqorgar wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

It's actually not difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. You may just be thinking that your argument seems so self evident that you may be doing a poor job of defending it. To reason with someone who disagrees with you, you must first understand why they disagree with you. Saying what you believe without listening to what they believe is just preaching.

That being said, the absolute best way to convince someone to change their mind is to simply let them talk. Most people haven't put much effort into their world view and the longer they go on trying to explain it, the more contradictions and holes they, themselves, will find. When trying to fill those holes, they'll end up changing their views to something more reasonable. So, just let people talk and ask respectful questions.

This does not work for progressives because their entire world view is built around not having to explain anything or listen to anything. There's a number of talking points that they will constantly repeat, and if you ever manage to get them to move past those points, they get uneasy, call you a racist, and then ban you (or gets the thread locked). The talking points aren't there for you, they are there for them. They also won't get into a discussion when there isn't an audience around that is sympathetic to their side, so that any time there is a moment of near self reflection, one of the peanut gallery will jump in, insult you to much cheering, and derail the discussion. I honestly have never finished a conversation with a dyed in the wool progressive, but I've had lots of really great discussions with religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and even holocaust deniers.

Now that I think about it, when you are less open to discussion than a holocaust denier, that should really be a moment for self reflection...

Yes, I'm sure that when you try to have a discussion convincing people who hold extreme political views on the side of the spectrum you more commonly agree with are much, much less apt to just resort to crowd pleasing tribalism when you approach them in a place where they know they are surrounded by their team.

I'm sure the Charlottesville protests could have been easily broken up without violence if only you had been there, talking to one shirtless neonazi in a group of 50.

 Sqorgar wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:
From extensive experience, it's damned difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. I could 'beat' someone in an argument profusely, but if they refuse to use logic or reason even remotely similar to mine they aren't likely to acknowledge it. Lots of people take that as not really winning the argument.

It's actually not difficult to reason with a neo-nazi. You may just be thinking that your argument seems so self evident that you may be doing a poor job of defending it. To reason with someone who disagrees with you, you must first understand why they disagree with you. Saying what you believe without listening to what they believe is just preaching.

That being said, the absolute best way to convince someone to change their mind is to simply let them talk. Most people haven't put much effort into their world view and the longer they go on trying to explain it, the more contradictions and holes they, themselves, will find. When trying to fill those holes, they'll end up changing their views to something more reasonable. So, just let people talk and ask respectful questions.

This does not work for progressives because their entire world view is built around not having to explain anything or listen to anything. There's a number of talking points that they will constantly repeat, and if you ever manage to get them to move past those points, they get uneasy, call you a racist, and then ban you (or gets the thread locked). The talking points aren't there for you, they are there for them. They also won't get into a discussion when there isn't an audience around that is sympathetic to their side, so that any time there is a moment of near self reflection, one of the peanut gallery will jump in, insult you to much cheering, and derail the discussion. I honestly have never finished a conversation with a dyed in the wool progressive, but I've had lots of really great discussions with religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and even holocaust deniers.

Now that I think about it, when you are less open to discussion than a holocaust denier, that should really be a moment for self reflection...

Hm.

This does not work for conservatives because their entire world view is built around not having to explain anything or listen to anything. There's a number of talking points that they will constantly repeat, and if you ever manage to get them to move past those points, they get uneasy, call you a snowflake, and then ban you (or gets the thread locked). The talking points aren't there for you, they are there for them. They also won't get into a discussion when there isn't an audience around that is sympathetic to their side, so that any time there is a moment of near self reflection, one of the peanut gallery will jump in, insult you to much cheering, and derail the discussion. I honestly have never finished a conversation with a dyed in the wool conservative, but I've had lots of really great discussions with atheists, advocates for gay marriage, and even feminists.

Having you talk about self reflection is almost funny, really. Maybe you should spend a little time and consider where your own hostilities, prejudices, and sympathies lie.

Just found out Feminist Frequency's latest crowdfunding venture is $25,000 for them to set up a Discord chat which is a free to set up and $35,000 for a VIRTUAL talk to schools about feminism.

$35000 for a Skype call and a chat room. Truly she is a woman of integrity and not at all exploiting her zealots.

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm sure the Charlottesville protests could have been easily broken up without violence if only you had been there, talking to one shirtless neonazi in a group of 50.

...you mean the one where they were just walking down the street with Home Depot tiki torches?

Yeah, man, big threat there. Oh Lord, how did we survive a bunch of guys in khakis and polos chanting with tiki torches. Damn. CLOSE CALL!

A bunch of donkey-caves whining about a loser monument. A loser monument that went into a museum where it could generate revenue from people wanting to see it and be protected from future vandalism. If you're really actually concerned about this sort of monument.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Just found out Feminist Frequency's latest crowdfunding venture is $25,000 for them to set up a Discord chat which is a free to set up and $35,000 for a VIRTUAL talk to schools about feminism.

$35000 for a Skype call and a chat room. Truly she is a woman of integrity and not at all exploiting her zealots.

Stupid people and their money are often temporary relationships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
Having you talk about self reflection is almost funny, really. Maybe you should spend a little time and consider where your own hostilities, prejudices, and sympathies lie.

I like how your only response is to do the exact thing he was talking about.

Wow, this thread is an epic clusterfeth of whataboutism, black and white fallacy, and strawmen to put Wickerman to shame. "Not the bees!"

Usually I have to go into the OT for this kind of gakposting.

Also, LOL:

A discord chat. She set up a discord chat.

Oh, the trolls are gonna have a blast with this one. Of course, that's probably what she wants to farm 'threats' and 'harassment'. I wonder how many socks she's had made for this purpose?

You know, the last time someone pulled something like this- Bullyhunters- we found that the 'harassers' were just fake accounts used by the people at Bullyhunters.

the_scotsman wrote:
Yes, I'm sure that when you try to have a discussion convincing people who hold extreme political views on the side of the spectrum you more commonly agree with are much, much less apt to just resort to crowd pleasing tribalism when you approach them in a place where they know they are surrounded by their team.

Not like this. I mean, I like arguing on the internet. I do it all the time. I do it for fun. I set a goal for myself to write 1,000 words a day, and I'll tell you, when I get into a good discussion, I can do 10x that easily. I've had good discussions with a lot of people about a lot of things, even things that I otherwise agree with but am playing the devil's advocate, and I've never seen anything like the way the progressive crowd operates.

Hell, I burned a US flag, posted a picture of me doing it, and the proceeded to have an email conversation with an ex-marine that lasted for weeks - and it was cordial and polite, though he started off very heated at first.

I think part of it is that the progressive crowd is obsessed with the concept of power. They seek it out and seek to undermine it when they don't have - both on a conscious and subconscious level. Because of this, winning arguments is less about making the best point or persuading your opponent, but about exploiting power to disable or disallow their opponent.

A normal political argument tends to follow a very specific path of escalation. Initial points are made and argued, but eventually it sort of boils down to repeating talking points, talking over each other, the people actually having the discussion get tired and sort of fade off, leaving on the trolls and extremists who eventually discuss Nazis, and then a moderator shuts the thread down. When talking with a progressive, in a progressive environment (I've never managed to get one on one debates), doesn't go like that. It starts with the talking points, moves to ridicule, and then rather than the thread being shut down, everyone who disagrees is given a temporary ban while the progressives continue the thread, saying all their talking points to unanimous agreement and making fun of the people who get banned. It's so weird.

I'm sure the Charlottesville protests could have been easily broken up without violence if only you had been there, talking to one shirtless neonazi in a group of 50.

Oh, there's about a thousand things that could've broken up that protest without violence, but I'd rather not return to the Nazi well after we so aptly managed to bring the conversation back to something interesting.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
Having you talk about self reflection is almost funny, really. Maybe you should spend a little time and consider where your own hostilities, prejudices, and sympathies lie.

I like how your only response is to do the exact thing he was talking about.

Not really? If your argument against a group of people is so generalized it can literally be flipped around by replacing words with the opposite, it's not much of an argument.

I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

 feeder wrote:
Wow, this thread is an epic clusterfeth of whataboutism, black and white fallacy, and strawmen to put Wickerman to shame. "Not the bees!"

Usually I have to go into the OT for this kind of gakposting.

Hey, I tried bringing it back around to having something to do with gaming. Not much of a bite there.

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

Did you not know the only reasonable reaction to seeing a nazi is to scream in their face and punch them?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Second, don't put words in my mouth. The examples were religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and holocaust deniers.

Third, the context was obviously in the case of progressive vs conservative values. It wasn't a situation in which, say, you find yourself talking to a random guy on the bus, have a decent conversation (edit: about something innocous and common, like the weather or the performance of a sports team), and then when he gets up to leave you see the big "KKK 4 LIFE" imprint on the back of his shirt.

 infinite_array wrote:
Hey, I tried bringing it back around to having something to do with gaming. Not much of a bite there.

Same, and I may have misread your other statement- so there's that.

But hey, Anita has a discord. I wonder if there will be 'discussion' there.

 infinite_array wrote:
Having you talk about self reflection is almost funny, really. Maybe you should spend a little time and consider where your own hostilities, prejudices, and sympathies lie.

I've had discussions with atheists and gay marriage advocates from the other side too. I love a good debate. It gives me an excuse to learn about things and expand my world view. Maybe you noticed that every time someone posted a study in this thread, I actually went and read it? And I've had wonderful discussions with Trump supporters, Tea Party members, conspiracy theorists, anarchists, and lots more. I don't have to agree with someone to respect them or understand them.

Heck, I'm pretty darn liberal. In most issues, social, economic, and political, I'm generally on the same side as the progressive movement. I disagree with them pretty fundamentally on a few things, not because I disagree with the premise but with the implementation. And it is because we 95% agree that I want to have an honest discussion with them the most. I want to know how we can both believe that racism is bad, but end up coming out on two completely different ends of the spectrum on how it is to be dealt with. I want to know how the left went from the part of basic rights and liberties to the one that is currently trying to take them away. It wasn't too long ago that we were all boycotting Chick-fil-a in unification, but now they are calling people like me a Nazi and trying to take away my freedoms simply for disagreeing? That's a discussion I want to have. But progressives will not have that discussion for some reason.

 infinite_array wrote:
First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Okay, so- what if I told you that there are quite a few people that still exist today that, no matter how much you disagree with them- or even if they are objectively wrong- that it is still possible to have a discussion with them, ask open-ended questions back and forth, and 'agree to disagree' and walk away without getting super-heated and trying to harm one another?

I can have conversations with Muslims- a religion I disagree with- and be respectful to a respectful person. I've encountered bigots that are the same- and I openly and clearly disagreed with their world view. Also, Communists.

I 'sympathize' with none of them, or rather- at least not their beliefs. Though, I can sympathize with someone who believes that they have been wronged or persecuted- though I may disagree that they have actually been wronged or persecuted: "I'm sorry you felt that way", at a minimum. Empathy, to some degree, is perfectly fine. But that doesn't mean I 'sympathize' with their argument, but rather I can understand the range of emotions they have experienced based on having felt a similar way about something completely different or even opposite.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Second, don't put words in my mouth. The examples were religious fundamentalists, advocates against gay marriage, and holocaust deniers.

Third, the context was obviously in the case of progressive vs conservative values. It wasn't a situation in which, say, you find yourself talking to a random guy on the bus, have a decent conversation (edit: about something innocous and common, like the weather or the performance of a sports team), and then when he gets up to leave you see the big "KKK 4 LIFE" imprint on the back of his shirt.

But again, having a normal discussion about values with a nazi does not require kicking and sceaming.

Edit: fun mental image in my head if Neville Chamberlain screaming "YOU'RE A FETHING WHITE MALE" at Hitler while throwing a big baby tantrum on the floor.

 Sim-Life wrote:
But again, having a normal discussion about values with a nazi does not require kicking and sceaming.

In fact, if you're dealing with what most people are calling 'Nazis' - just a racist /pol/ troll... that's EXACTLY what they want you to do. It's like eating steak in front of a vegan to them.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I mean, really. At what point does someone have to stop and think, hey, maybe the reason I'm having such great conversations with these people is because I agree with them, and not because what they're saying is factually true or morally superior?

Are you actually sitting here and insinuating that if someone can have a calm, reasonable, and polite conversation with an extremist- that it's because they may actually be a Nazi?

I've read two things on Dakka that have made me go "Holy SH** that is insane", and the other one was a guy making crying noises at a poker tournament so a woman would lactate uncontrollably.

This statement is the other one.

Well done, sir, well done.

Careful guys Peregrine the troll is going to do his evil leftist technique of getting a thread shut down by posting offensive off topic things to attempt to shut down discussion.

Because he knows he won't be banned.

Peregrine is the one we need to worry about doing that.

the_scotsman wrote:
Careful guys Peregrine the troll is going to do his evil leftist technique of getting a thread shut down by posting offensive off topic things to attempt to shut down discussion.

Because he knows he won't be banned.

Peregrine is the one we need to worry about doing that.

Oh, I'm loving this conversation and hope it continues for weeks. You don't have to worry about that from me.

Dismantling someone's argument is not the same as advocating literal murder and name-calling, but nice try. I give you a 5 out of 10 at the Strawman Olympics.

There's a discussion here, and you're more than welcome to participate. Tell me specifically where you disagree with me.

 infinite_array wrote:
First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Extremists are people too. They are driven by the same basic needs for belonging, comfort, safety, and happiness that we all are. And if you talk with one, you'll quickly realize that their odious views are a direct response to those needs not being met. It's very easy to see how, if you grew up in the same environment or shared the same experiences, you could be tempted by the same ideology. In fact, that's why I have these discussions - to make sure that I'm not an extremist myself. It's always better to get understanding from everywhere it is offered.

Third, the context was obviously in the case of progressive vs conservative values.

I'm not conservative or progressive, and thus don't see the world in such a limited way. I used to hate conservatives very much, but over the past two decades of talking with a bunch of people over the internet, I've really come to understand their world view much more. For instance, understanding the difference between a culture of honor and a culture of dignity really sort of exposes the chief insecurities at the heart of the liberal-conservative divide, and knowing what fundamental insecurities drive them, it is easy to see how they might arrive at different conclusions to the same problems.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Careful guys Peregrine the troll is going to do his evil leftist technique of getting a thread shut down by posting offensive off topic things to attempt to shut down discussion.

Because he knows he won't be banned.

Peregrine is the one we need to worry about doing that.

Oh, I'm loving this conversation and hope it continues for weeks. You don't have to worry about that from me.

Dismantling someone's argument is not the same as advocating literal murder and name-calling, but nice try. I give you a 5 out of 10 at the Strawman Olympics.

There's a discussion here, and you're more than welcome to participate. Tell me specifically where you disagree with me.

Mostly referring to the little "uncontrollable lactation" anecdote. That sounds like the kind of thing you throw into a thread to try and ping moderation and get the last word.

the_scotsman wrote:
Mostly referring to the little "uncontrollable lactation" anecdote. That sounds like the kind of thing you throw into a thread to try and ping moderation and get the last word.

Oh, no- it was actually in this thread, I believe. I could be mistaken.

Lemme see if I can find it.

the_scotsman wrote:
Mostly referring to the little "uncontrollable lactation" anecdote. That sounds like the kind of thing you throw into a thread to try and ping moderation and get the last word.

That video was posted earlier in this thread, a few dozen pages ago.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
First, I should apologize, since I should have said "sympathize with" rather than "agree with."

Extremists are people too. They are driven by the same basic needs for belonging, comfort, safety, and happiness that we all are. And if you talk with one, you'll quickly realize that their odious views are a direct response to those needs not being met. It's very easy to see how, if you grew up in the same environment or shared the same experiences, you could be tempted by the same ideology. In fact, that's why I have these discussions - to make sure that I'm not an extremist myself. It's always better to get understanding from everywhere it is offered.

Third, the context was obviously in the case of progressive vs conservative values.

I'm not conservative or progressive, and thus don't see the world in such a limited way. I used to hate conservatives very much, but over the past two decades of talking with a bunch of people over the internet, I've really come to understand their world view much more. For instance, understanding the difference between a culture of honor and a culture of dignity really sort of exposes the chief insecurities at the heart of the liberal-conservative divide, and knowing what fundamental insecurities drive them, it is easy to see how they might arrive at different conclusions to the same problems.

I don't want to seem like I'm being instructive, then, but maybe you'd be better served if you used a term other than "progressives"? It's a term generally used for a wide and growing segment of the more liberal side of the population. I'm not sure what might better used to describe people like Sarkeesian and others who do tend to overuse certain terms (Fringe Left?), but "Progressive" certainly isn't it.

I also feel like I wouldn't have misunderstood your position if you hadn't had compared the supposed epistemological ills of "progressives" to three populations that are generally considered hard right leaning. If you had said, "Progressives can't keep up an arguments, but I've had great conversations with religious fundamentalists, atheists, advocates against gay rights, and trans-rights activists," then I would have had a better handle of your positions.

Here it is. One of the most baffling things I've ever read and seen in my entire life.

I'm not joking, this is like a climax from a Jojo's Bizarre Adventure episode.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?

This actually happened in a poker tournament. One female competitor was wearing a very low cut top and took the lead. In response one of the male competitors start making crying baby noises to trigger her body into a postpartum breastfeeding reflex to make her lactate and she lost her lead. It was weird.

https://www.pokertube.com/video/celebrity-poker-showdown-s05-ep02--part-2

Around 22mins.

But yeah, we need to focus on Sarkeesian and the stuff surrounding her, I'll give you that.

Do you think she'll actually speak to detractors in her Discord, and do you see why people are skeptical of her after raising that kind of money?

I mean, it's like me saying, "Give me money so I can start a Facebook account".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Here it is. One of the most baffling things I've ever read and seen in my entire life.

I'm not joking, this is like a climax from a Jojo's Bizarre Adventure episode.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OTOH, it goes both ways, with some women wearing low-cut tops to distract their opponent... Should a male opponent complain that he's being harassed by sight of ample decolletage before him?

This actually happened in a poker tournament. One female competitor was wearing a very low cut top and took the lead. In response one of the male competitors start making crying baby noises to trigger her body into a postpartum breastfeeding reflex to make her lactate and she lost her lead. It was weird.

https://www.pokertube.com/video/celebrity-poker-showdown-s05-ep02--part-2

Around 22mins.

But yeah, we need to focus on Sarkeesian and the stuff surrounding her, I'll give you that.

Do you think she'll actually speak to detractors in her Discord, and do you see why people are skeptical of her after raising that kind of money?

I mean, it's like me saying, "Give me money so I can start a Facebook account".

Her Discord will definitely be a heavily moderated hugbox. I doubt she'll even take part in it. I can't imagine her ego would allow her to talk on a one-to-one level with the lower plebians.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Her Discord will definitely be a heavily moderated hugbox. I doubt she'll even take part in it. I can't imagine her ego would allow her to talk on a one-to-one level with the lower plebians.

Well, like I've said before- demonstrably, she doesn't do well if she isn't reading her script. I honestly think she's just baiting trolls. And the sad thing is... people will go for it hook, line, and sinker. If not, I'm sure dozens of suspiciously brand-new accounts will manifest just to post some pretty blatant and absurd threats. Sort of like Brianna Wu's threats that all oddly seemed to revolve around having sex with her and pleasuring oneself to her images.

I'd love to see her have a sit-down conversation with someone, even a moderate, and debate her position and findings. But actual activists want to do that, not people who are selling a product. Why give someone an opportunity to make your product look defective?

 infinite_array wrote:

I don't want to seem like I'm being instructive, then, but maybe you'd be better served if you used a term other than "progressives"? It's a term generally used for a wide and growing segment of the more liberal side of the population. I'm not sure what might better used to describe people like Sarkeesian and others who do tend to overuse certain terms (Fringe Left?), but "Progressive" certainly isn't it.

Seemed like a better option than SJW. I'm definitely talking about a very specific subsection of the left that is unified in a specific ideology of diversity and oppression. I think SJW is too reductionist, too combative, and too dismissive. They self identify as progressives, at least. I'm not sure what term to use to describe them otherwise.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Seemed like a better option than SJW. I'm definitely talking about a very specific subsection of the left that is unified in a specific ideology of diversity and oppression. I think SJW is too reductionist, too combative, and too dismissive. They self identify as progressives, at least. I'm not sure what term to use to describe them otherwise.

If you're deliberately trying to speak to the negative, I've heard "The Outrage Brigade". You could even use it interchangeably- there's just as much Right Wing Outrage Brigade as there is Left Wing.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Her Discord will definitely be a heavily moderated hugbox. I doubt she'll even take part in it. I can't imagine her ego would allow her to talk on a one-to-one level with the lower plebians.

Well, like I've said before- demonstrably, she doesn't do well if she isn't reading her script. I honestly think she's just baiting trolls. And the sad thing is... people will go for it hook, line, and sinker. If not, I'm sure dozens of suspiciously brand-new accounts will manifest just to post some pretty blatant and absurd threats. Sort of like Brianna Wu's threats that all oddly seemed to revolve around having sex with her and pleasuring oneself to her images.

I'd love to see her have a sit-down conversation with someone, even a moderate, and debate her position and findings. But actual activists want to do that, not people who are selling a product. Why give someone an opportunity to make your product look defective?

I wouldn't expect much to any actual engagement. I expect it will be a space for her and those of like mind to her. I expect that some from the internet will go there to poke and see what happens, which I see as a poor tactic. it will only adds to her strength, as well as here financial gain, by making her seem like a victim. (It's about perception)
Just think many are good people gave her money to set up a free server. They did that because of who they think she is. Take the fuel away from the fire. All she really has is the power given to her.


On the topic of her speaking there. So what, let her tell people who see thing the way she does what the went there to hear.
I'm remembering the Henry Rollins track, Liar. "I tell you things you already know so you can say I really agree with you so much." That's all her speaking event is to me.

 warhead01 wrote:
I wouldn't expect much to any actual engagement. I expect it will be a space for her and those of like mind to her. I expect that some from the internet will go there to poke and see what happens, which I see as a poor tactic. it will only adds to her strength, as well as here financial gain, by making her seem like a victim. (It's about perception).

I'm hoping, honestly- that it becomes quite the lol-farm for people. Individuals will infiltrate, collect posts, and use them for their own ends. It'll be... interesting.

Just think many are good people gave her money to set up a free server. They did that because of who they think she is. Take the fuel away from the fire. All she really has is the power given to her.

Quite so. But while those who gave her money may have good intentions, I would probably not consider them the brightest bunch. In truth, I think it's fair to say you don't want her to speak, but it's a losing battle as long as people are attacking her.

But, fortunately for us... Discord has a pretty reliable means to deal with harassment. And illegal things passed through a discord can actually be traced more easily. So those 'threats', if they're valid- we'll know soon.

We've had 45 pages of people talking about Nazis and some great red Piller chat. Surely this is done now

Well I still have got no suggestion about prominent female industry veterans that could be in that panel.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Well I still have got no suggestion about prominent female industry veterans that could be in that panel.

Elisa Teague and Liz Spain would be my first two. Not sure if they've been there before.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I wouldn't expect much to any actual engagement. I expect it will be a space for her and those of like mind to her. I expect that some from the internet will go there to poke and see what happens, which I see as a poor tactic. it will only adds to her strength, as well as here financial gain, by making her seem like a victim. (It's about perception).

I'm hoping, honestly- that it becomes quite the lol-farm for people. Individuals will infiltrate, collect posts, and use them for their own ends. It'll be... interesting.

Just think many are good people gave her money to set up a free server. They did that because of who they think she is. Take the fuel away from the fire. All she really has is the power given to her.

Quite so. But while those who gave her money may have good intentions, I would probably not consider them the brightest bunch. In truth, I think it's fair to say you don't want her to speak, but it's a losing battle as long as people are attacking her.

But, fortunately for us... Discord has a pretty reliable means to deal with harassment. And illegal things passed through a discord can actually be traced more easily. So those 'threats', if they're valid- we'll know soon.

Yes, interesting
As in the Chinese proverb I'm sure.

I think there's a bit more to it that how bright they are. How busy are they how much time do they have , did they just hear something that sounded good to them.There's a thing like that going on that the media exploits with sound bites, same same.
Have you heard of yuri bezmenov? That's a fun one.


I've looked at the convention FB page and it seems you have to pay entry and for a spot at other events. I would have no money to spend on an event I don't wish to attend.
Other people are paying to hear her say things she says that they want to hear. It's economics and she's a capitalist.
I'm struggling to phrase what I want to say about if I want her to peak or not.
She has the right to speak. I have the right to not listen or attend. (I feel this is still inadequate but it is what it is.)
If she were unable to speak I wouldn't cry about it.

What you say about discord servers is very good to hear.

 warhead01 wrote:
What you say about discord servers is very good to hear.

Yes. Now, this has two positive effects:

1- It makes it so that if people ARE harassing her and making threats, they can be swiftly dealt with. Authorities can be given information and threats can be dealt with legally. Absolutely no sane person, hate her or love her, should take issue with this.

2- It makes it so when she makes statements about the threats, people can ask what action was taken and what the results are and there should be something come of that. Unless she elects to take Fem40k's "It's not for your vouyerism" as a cop-out.

On all other points I agree. People are essentially paying for her to validate their feelings, stroke their egos, and reassure them that they're in a bad scary evil world and that Mama 'Nita is here to take care of them. A sucker is born every minute, and just like I told the stripper I dated: I can't be mad if some idiot throws their money at something that isn't genuine. By all means, let them throw heaps of their money at her... and in the end, they'll have to walk out those doors with all of those shoddy ideas in their minds... and then, out there- they'll have to actually stare reality in the face. Hopefully, they'll know better than to find a demagogue to soothe them afterward.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Without getting too much into US politics, we've seen people double down on their tribalism when informed and ignore some truly heinous gak their candidates do. They even brag about voting specifically to hurt the other side, the one warning them. Your approach just doesn't work.

Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where the average person who has never been one of the untermenschen on the extermination list just doesn't get it, not on a personal level. This goes back to the earlier discussion about how homophobia just doesn't seem like the most important issue when you have the option to opt out of being affected by it. But for the people with the targets on their backs they can't get rid of, it feels a lot more like a life and death issue.

Did you just play the "you've never been oppressed" card on a Celt?

Do people tell you to climb into an oven?

The oppression you have experienced is different, and I don't know what it was like. If you tell me someone is acting to put you and yours in the ground, I'll believe you. But I do know what it is like to have people threaten me or casually bring up their cabal theories or state that Jews can't be trusted, or that I am good with money all because of my ancestry. I know there are groups of people who would gladly stomp my face if they were sure they wouldn't go to jail for it, and they have told me so. It makes the idea of stopping Nazis before they have the profile to protect each other all the more urgent.

So you're playing the "my oppression is more valid than yours" card now? No, nobody tells me to climb into an oven but if me and my partner cross the border and go into Belfast I hear a lot of colourful language that I can't repeat here. There are other forms of oppression and violence on other races or groups that don't involve nazis.

No, I said I was ignorant of your experiences with oppression. I really don't have any idea what you have to deal with. I ordered my sentences poorly, and I came across badly.

However, I also am trying to get across what I've heard and seen and why I feel like waiting until Nazis are so normalized as to be in power before fighting back is very dangerous. For the vulnerable, it may already be too late by then.

While I'm not at Peregrine's level of advocating preemptive violence, I do believe the nazis need to be shut down hard (without escalating to force unless in self defense) as soon as they make themselves known.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
While I'm not at Peregrine's level of advocating preemptive violence, I do believe the nazis need to be shut down hard (without escalating to force unless in self defense) as soon as they make themselves known.

And this, my friend- is why we WANT them to have freedom of speech. Better they're out in the open and visible than hiding. Because the hidden ones are your neighbor, your kids' school bus driver, the local cop, the judge, your insurance agent...

Shut them down with ridicule, counter them with what is correct. Don't fight them- because at the end of the day, they can be Nazis all day long, but the moment you assault them? You get to go to prison with all the other actual Nazis that will use your bodily orifices for their own gratification. I don't care how tough you are, if you think you're going to do well in prison against White Supremacists... well, all I can say is you better hope someone else takes you in other than the 'Brotherhood'. I have an elder cousin in corrections and he can tell horror stories.

Well that's probably enough, we are well a d truly off the rails now.