Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dutch tolerate everything

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Her opinions are dangerously outmoded and outdated. She has likely been brainwashed by her crazy parents and clergy. People like her are stopping thousands of people from recieving the same basic rights as everyone else.

She should feel deeply ashamed of herself. What a pitiful excuse for humanity.

But have her (again 14 year old girl) spine ripped out and shoved up her anus...

Perfectly reasonable response. Bravo sir, bravo.

Let's tone it down a bit, shall we? -Mannahnin

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Her opinions are dangerously outmoded and outdated. She has likely been brainwashed by her crazy parents and clergy. People like her are stopping thousands of people from recieving the same basic rights as everyone else.

She should feel deeply ashamed of herself. What a pitiful excuse for humanity.

Squiggy...

That's a bit much...

There's a study I saw recently that the majority of Americans at 51% believe gays should be able to Marry... we're getting there.

That response will likely force those who oppose it to double-down because you're attacking them personally.

For the record, I'm for marriages for gays. I just wouldn't advocate guys to marry unless they have kidz .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

There you go again. That's intolerance there too...

 whembly wrote:
There you go again. That's intolerance there too...

Hey, if he wants to murder a 14 year old girl in some fashion that highlights an anal fixation, who are you to call him intolerant?

Stop being intolerant.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

So they have the moral imperative to retaliate. Which means you've just justified the bombings of gay clubs, bravo.

For the record, some of the most decent people I know are homophobes/racist.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Her opinions are dangerously outmoded and outdated. She has likely been brainwashed by her crazy parents and clergy. People like her are stopping thousands of people from recieving the same basic rights as everyone else.

She should feel deeply ashamed of herself. What a pitiful excuse for humanity.

don't civil partnerships have the same legal ramifications as a marriage??

They're a half arsed excuse to help protect the ignorant festering religious masses and their stupid doctrine. Also many of the advantages of marriage (survival benefits etc) are not covered by civil unions.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

So the government should perform executions on people you disagree with, I don't see anything going wrong with this. But then again you're 13 so maybe I should be excusing you for some of your naivety.

I think we can all agree that we strongly deprecate troll trolling, intolerance of tolerance, and nasty nazis.

Therefore there is no point continuing the thread.

Oh come on! I hadn't even posted in it yet !!!

On topic, the thread title is stupid, and you'd have to explain to me why we can't be critical of tolerance, even in preference of alterity.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

So the government should perform executions on people you disagree with, I don't see anything going wrong with this. But then again you're 13 so maybe I should be excusing you for some of your naivety.

I wish I was still 13...

I'm 16. And incredibly violent.

I mean, why should it surprise anyone that those that subscribe to an absolutist version of morality doesn't believe that relativist morals are valid?

And fact is, as someone who spends a crapload of time in the philosophy department of his University, there are such a thing as relativist Nazis, which is what I suspect they are talking about with the tolerance nazis. Of course I don't agree with what they direct the critic at...

Of course, half of this thread is about the fact that OP failed to realize that people use the term Nazi in a different context here, so...

Tolerance is not a virtue in itself.

We should really stop calling people Nazis and just talk about what we are really thinking. Calling someone a Nazi really poor way to get your point across in that it never gets your point across. You know unless we are talking about actual nazis, then we can call them what they are.

nomotog wrote:
We should really stop calling people Nazis and just talk about what we are really thinking. Calling someone a Nazi really poor way to get your point across in that it never gets your point across. You know unless we are talking about actual nazis, then we can call them what they are.

Plus it trivializes the events of WWII.

nomotog wrote:
We should really stop calling people Nazis and just talk about what we are really thinking. Calling someone a Nazi really poor way to get your point across in that it never gets your point across. You know unless we are talking about actual nazis, then we can call them what they are.

It's a negative term that convey well the meaning of being ridiculously authoritative about things that are personnal. It fills the role it's supposed to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

nomotog wrote:
We should really stop calling people Nazis and just talk about what we are really thinking. Calling someone a Nazi really poor way to get your point across in that it never gets your point across. You know unless we are talking about actual nazis, then we can call them what they are.

Plus it trivializes the events of WWII.

I don't see people complaining that the use of the term 'laconic' trivializes the battle of Thermopyles...

So just to be clear, you are in favor of people calling each other Nazi?

Advocating violence against real people is not allowed on Dakka.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Yes, it is. What is a useless little piece of barely sapient garbage like her contributing to humanity by staying alive? People like that are vermin, and should be treated as such.

The time is long gone to fight this tide of filth with logic and reason. Hate must be fought with hate. Slaughter them all.

So the government should perform executions on people you disagree with, I don't see anything going wrong with this. But then again you're 13 so maybe I should be excusing you for some of your naivety.

I wish I was still 13...

I'm 16. And incredibly violent.

*edited because the previous image was offensive, apparently.*

Of course you are.

Not to each other's faces, it's important to remain polite, but it's a term that conveys appropriatly the meaning it's supposed to.

When I jokingly call my collegue a fem-nazi, or a grammar-nazi, they 100% know that I refer to their propension to jump on everything that seems anti-feminist or incorrect grammatically, not that they are fascists...

Also, I'd avoid it in political debates...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Advocating violence against real people is not allowed on Dakka.

Have I stepped over a line I haven't seen?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


I don't see people complaining that the use of the term 'laconic' trivializes the battle of Thermopyles...

Except no one uses or even knows what the term "laconic" means unlike the word "Nazi".

I would like to see a relativistic Nazi.

Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Mannahnin, it was an exaggeration but in all seriousness I'm not familiar with the word and I would imagine a lot of English speaking people aren't either was the point I was trying to make.

I'm 16. And incredibly violent.

Choked on my carrot cake on this. Your perception of violence is centered around you. Incredible violence that involves two grps of people who are trying to kill each other by whatever means possible is not violent. Its the determination to kill the bad guy with whatever capability you have at your finger tips. Whats violence is how you manage to opt the bad guy out. Either a small arms fire, antitank round, A10 strike, arty strike etc etc.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Both describe an attitude that is abstracted from how we represent a group of people. Both of those groups are famous for killing a crapton of people. People sensitivities hit the wall upon hearing Nazis because 'it trivialize the horror they committed', but when you use 'laconic', people appreciate the extent of your vocabulary without caring about the horrors committed in Laconia.

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Not to each other's faces, it's important to remain polite, but it's a term that conveys appropriatly the meaning it's supposed to.

When I jokingly call my collegue a fem-nazi, or a grammar-nazi, they 100% know that I refer to their propension to jump on everything that seems anti-feminist or incorrect grammatically, not that they are fascists...

Also, I'd avoid it in political debates...

I can support that. Still would rather explain my thinking.

Isn't it funny that the one place we shouldn't talk about Nazis is in politics. It would be like in 20 years no one can use the word republican in a debate.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


I don't see people complaining that the use of the term 'laconic' trivializes the battle of Thermopyles...

Except no one uses or even knows what the term "laconic" means unlike the word "Nazi".

Actually can someone explain what laconic means and how it relates to Thermopyles?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Mannahnin, it was an exaggeration but in all seriousness I'm not familiar with the word and I would imagine a lot of English speaking people aren't either was the point I was trying to make.

The internet was invented to allow people who are not familiar with words to look them up quickly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laconic

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Both describe an attitude that is abstracted from how we represent a group of people. Both of those groups are famous for killing a crapton of people. People sensitivities hit the wall upon hearing Nazis because 'it trivialize the horror they committed', but when you use 'laconic', people appreciate the extent of your vocabulary without caring about the horrors committed in Laconia.

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

I hope your aware of how funny that statement is.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would like to see a relativistic Nazi.

Nazism and Communism both subscribed to moral relativism. Just not the tolerant kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nomotog wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Of course we use "laconic".

I don't think it's a good comparison, though.

Both describe an attitude that is abstracted from how we represent a group of people. Both of those groups are famous for killing a crapton of people. People sensitivities hit the wall upon hearing Nazis because 'it trivialize the horror they committed', but when you use 'laconic', people appreciate the extent of your vocabulary without caring about the horrors committed in Laconia.

The difference being, obviously, the time line. Which, in the long run, doesn't mean anything.

I hope your aware of how funny that statement is.

No, please explicitate the nature of your hilarity.