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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts.

That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.

Sorry, just so we're clear - the social contract is Article 1 of the UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

That is the simple core concept. Are you saying that it is acceptable that it is okay to not follow this contract?

Tiberias wrote:See I generally totally agree with you, but free speech really is a difficult topic. You say the line is drawn the moment someone implies that people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control. Ok, on the surface I absolutely agree with that, but what falls under "implying"? In my opinion the devil really lies within the details here and that is I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) is what some people were objecting to your point. Is painting a skull that resembles a totenkopf used by the nazis enough that someone crosses that line and automatically implies that this person thinks some people are lesser because of reasons beyond their control? Maybe, and if they do they should be called out for it, but you need to first engage them and consider the context.

Absolutely on board with context - and that context can also come from the response to being called out.

So, for example, someone accused of doing something racist can respond in several ways - one of those being to apologise, reflect on their miscommunication, elaborate their intent, and take on board the context that they should have been aware of. Another response could be to double down and blame "the loony left" for their own actions.
As I'm sure you can see, one of these is not like the other.

I'm not suggesting immediate "cancelling", is what I'm saying. But if someone's response to being called out for questionable actions is to suddenly go on the aggressive and not even consider their own errors, you can be damn sure my opinion of them will plummet.

Then I think there was just a misunderstanding or miscommunication with some other users you were conversing with and we can leave the topic behin with this. We have established that playing 40k does not encourage hatred. There are problematic parts of the fandom. If you encounter them, engage them positively, try to educate them about 40k actually being a warning against fascism and if they dont want to listen or don't care avoid them or remove them from your game group if you feel uncomfortable around them. If someone has potentially problematic iconography on his/her models, ask for context first, then either clear up misunderstandings or call them out on their bs.

I really think that clears up most points of contention.

Slipspace wrote:
No. The statement literally calls out people who are prejudiced, hateful or abusive. A more correct summary of the statement is Warhammer is for everyone, except the prejudiced, the hateful or the abusive. Seems fine to me.

And who gets to define "the prejudiced, the hateful or the abusive"? You? Me? The UN?

When you add qualifiers to blanket statements, it ceases to be a blanket statement. I have no issue with GW deciding they don't want boogymen of the week to play their game, I have issue with them dancing around the issue.

Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.

Nurglitch wrote:
Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.

The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."

soviet13 wrote:
How many people with swastikas all over their GW army mean it as a reference to Polynesian buddhists rather than a reference to nazis for shock value and/or support for fascism? We all know the answer to this one.

having a nazi army doesn't mean you support nazism/fascism. It means that either you play a historical wargame or you simply enjoy the aesthetic aspect of the army.

 Cothonian wrote:
No, I do not think 40k encourages hatred.

I don't really see the point on dwelling on such things. Seems to be a waste of energy.

Why do people clamour for thread closure when it consists of largely reasonable discussion and no issues?

SolarCross wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Are we not all agreed that genocide is bad?

Not all genocides get equal air time though. Rwanda? Armenia? Cambodia? Korea? Even the ongoing genocides in Communist China against the Falun Gong and Uighars are memory holed... If they were white that would be a different story perhaps.

Oh, agreed, they don't all the get the attention they deserve, especially the Uighur genocide.

But they are all bad.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Or, perchance, are you implying that people opposed to fascism are pro-Soviet communist regime?

That's also possible.

Well, I think that's a ridiculous implication.

Irkjoe wrote:In the US hate speech doesn't exist

Well, there's your problem.

What you are saying is that you want to use the force of government read threat of death, to suppress the rights it only exists to protect, all in order to push your own politics.

Just to clarify, if someone says they're going to shoot the President, or perhaps fly a plane into something - you believe that the government shouldn't do anything until the gun is fired, or controls taken?

After all, it's "just speech".

Karol wrote:So let me get this straight for simple people like me. You think that people should think and act, as if equality was a thing, and not just a thing, but a good thing, when we have no example of a place where it works on any level of sociaty starting with the family and ending with the international community?

Uh, yes. Consider reading the UDHR, first article. I actually reference it earlier.

Russia and China were and will never be known for their equality, yet they are powerful countries a lot more powerful then most countries that claim to want equality.

Yeah, and I'm pretty happy calling the Russian and Chinese governments out for this human rights violations.

Just because other people get away with doing it isn't an excuse for others to ignore it. Otherwise, what, you think all crime should be legal because some people aren't punished for it?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:again you assume that everyone has the same social contract. Considering how many philosophical schools there are alone in regards to the social contracts.

That said a good meassure indeed is the point were some people start espousing views detrimental to the status of other citizens.

Sorry, just so we're clear - the social contract is Article 1 of the UDHR: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

That is the simple core concept. Are you saying that it is acceptable that it is okay to not follow this contract?

Considering that the UDHR is / was created by an institution that also can be considered to have been dominated with a massive eurocentrism/ western powergroup with a questionable trackrecord itself, yes, i indeed could criticise it for the inherent bias found within it.

Point in case to the "could" .

Like i said you can dislike it all you want but the universalism is not really applicable and there are valid reasons to question it.

I'm not asking you to question the entire UDHR though. I'm asking you if you question that first article. I'm asking if ANYONE questions that first article - that all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Is that a questionable belief? Can you justify a group that does not believe in that?

Karol wrote:

That is intersting because my people remember Stalin attacking us alongside the nazis,mass murdering polish citizents and sending poles to siberian death camps as early as winter 1939. And we kind of a had a military pakt with the british and the french to help us in case of an attack from the west or the east. And Stalin didn't become an ally of the west way until 1941.

And Hitler then immediately invaded France, Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands, [insert minor Western Europe countries], and attempted to invade the UK while attacking its colonial possessions on Africa. The Nazis aren't exactly famous for only attacking Poland. Not to say the Soviets weren't murdering donkey-caves, but the Nazis were bigger on the whole murdering thing. The discovering of the extermination camps at the end of the war only further cemented the Nazis' reputation as literally worse than the Devil in the Western mindset.

 catbarf wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Just a cheeky Paradox of Intolerance for you.

FWIW, Popper's own resolution to his 'paradox of tolerance' is that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance until there is literally no other choice but violence to resist a takeover. He argues that for a society to be tolerant, it is necessary for them to engage intolerance solely through argument and public opinion for as long as possible.

Having read The Open Society And Its Enemies, I find it very odd how often Popper's critique of Plato's benevolent despotism (that unlimited tolerance leads to intolerance winning) is cited, but his actual in-text resolution (tolerate intolerance as long as possible) is left out, to imply that his conclusion is that intolerance should not be tolerated at all.

So... I don't know if you really want to be bringing up the paradox of tolerance here, because referencing Popper to argue that hateful speech should be met with action is like citing Marx to argue that the free market should be deregulated. He was pretty firmly on the 'just debate them in the Marketplace Of Ideas' side of this issue.

In any case, saying that speech is tantamount to action is pretty far out there; I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of free speech at all, so from the outset that's a pretty authoritarian way of looking at things. Maybe we're just getting too in-the-weeds about ideals- I don't think open racists, fascists, or other forms of bigots should be tolerated in gaming groups, and I don't think maintaining standards for acceptable conduct constitutes a slippery slope.

[

Thank you for pointing this out. It grates me endlessly that poppers tolerance paradox is rolled out in these situations, 1: incorrectly, which you address here, and 2: as if it's some objective standard that we must adhere to, and not a philosophical enquiry that still requires deeper probing.

I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole earlier but I'm glad you did haha.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.

The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."

That's kind of my point, there's plenty of racists out there strongly believing that they're not racist because they're interpreting it as just another slur. And they're going to keep being racists because they don't think they are.

40k should have remained satirical instead of playing it straight for 27 years.

As a side note I've been racking my brain to come up with a way to create visual cues that my marines and other imperial forces without a shadow of doubt represent something very bad. It's hard to do sadly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.

The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."

This.
Spend even 5 minutes on social media.
The second someone can’t win an argument with a valid point they resort to slurs.
The easiest one for them to find generally comes down to colour.

Calling someone racist for a racist comment is justified. (And racism is not acceptable for any reason)
Calling someone a racist with no basis other than you can’t think of anything else is again, not acceptable.

It comes down to the individual and how they act.
Someone will naturally get offended if they are branded as something that they are not.
That is a natural and expected response.

I could randomly select someone on this forum and call them a thief and a liar.
Their response would be defensive and likely, angry/upset.
If I have no basis for this, it makes it no better than a slur.


Moral of the story; some people have a tendency to be dicks and say whatever they need to for them to feel they have won.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! 794924 11016517 wrote:

Between believing something is a human right and achieving it for a general population are miles in governance.
reality is at most shaped by the sphere of ideas. and morals / ethics are primarily in the ideal sphere.

So let me get this straight for simple people like me. You think that people should think and act, as if equality was a thing, and not just a thing, but a good thing, when we have no example of a place where it works on any level of sociaty starting with the family and ending with the international community? that is reglious type of belief, worse we can't really check if any of the existing religions is right, but very much can check if inequality works in favour of certain people, groups or whole countries or civilisations. Russia and China were and will never be known for their equality, yet they are powerful countries a lot more powerful then most countries that claim to want equality.

Equality before the law, yes.

As for china and russia beeing powerfull. See there's a thing called ideology, sometimes beliefs. Such beliefs f.e. equality before the law, non corrupt officals, separation of power, democracy, are just words in an internet forum about toy soldiers.
And sometimes they start a fire, in many ways the words and associated interpretations of them and the values attributed to them become power, a soft power if you want. Soft power is to use a more applicable term, legitimacy.
A state, or any type of institutionalised goverment for the most part relies upon soft power, because it is cheap, contrary to states which seem to lack legitimacy or the attribution of it torwards it's institutions. These states have to use hard power, or repression to maintain their positon.

Both russia and China are immensly powerfull indeed, but their power is brittle, based upon a harsh hand of repression in the case of russia , and a legitimising promise of increased wealth for china. You see however, they have to act even more excessive torwards their citizens when some things get awry or when they feel concern, like putin recently. Or china attempting to silence ciriticism torwards their new mao 2.0, especially party internal. Because Ideas are in many ways also like a plague, and both countries have had experiences with some of these ideas.
And in the case of china , have an actual democratic paragon as one of it's modern founding fathers in Dr. Sun.

Democracies otoh, don't require these forcefull methods, governments fall if they lose legitimacy far easier and therefore the trust of the voters. It's why corruption is for governments in democratic states an issue that can topple it and then get's replaced, whilest these autocratic nations can seemingly stomach higher rates, in truth they still errode legimitacy and all they do is have a higher pressure for when the pressure cooker inevitably explodes. Remember though corruption beeing one exemple of something that can errode away legitimacy, there are other sources f.e. Unpopular wars, targeting minorities, etc.

 ik0ner wrote:
As a side note I've been racking my brain to come up with a way to create visual cues that my marines and other imperial forces without a shadow of doubt represent something very bad. It's hard to do sadly.

You could use a variation of the symbology used by very bad real life regimes.
Wait no, that would make you a supporter of those regimes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

catbarf wrote:FWIW, Popper's own resolution to his 'paradox of tolerance' is that a tolerant society should tolerate intolerance until there is literally no other choice but violence to resist a takeover. He argues that for a society to be tolerant, it is necessary for them to engage intolerance solely through argument and public opinion for as long as possible.

Having read The Open Society And Its Enemies, I find it very odd how often Popper's critique of Plato's benevolent despotism (that unlimited tolerance leads to intolerance winning) is cited, but his actual in-text resolution (tolerate intolerance as long as possible) is left out, to imply that his conclusion is that intolerance should not be tolerated at all.

So... I don't know if you really want to be bringing up the paradox of tolerance here, because referencing Popper to argue that hateful speech should be met with action is like citing Marx to argue that the free market should be deregulated. He was pretty firmly on the 'just debate them in the Marketplace Of Ideas' side of this issue.

In any case, saying that speech is tantamount to action is pretty far out there; I don't see how that can be reconciled with the idea of free speech at all, so from the outset that's a pretty authoritarian way of looking at things. Maybe we're just getting too in-the-weeds about ideals- I don't think open racists, fascists, or other forms of bigots should be tolerated in gaming groups, and I don't think maintaining standards for acceptable conduct constitutes a slippery slope.

I feel like I've mentioned it enough, but I have been very clear on "engage in discussion first". That doesn't mean I support the right to hatespeech, however.

The totenkopf is a specific type of skull-and-crossbones that one really can not replicate unknowingly. If someone has an actual death's-head on their model, it's almost guaranteed that they know exactly what they were doing. Same way if someone draws a straight-armed right-facing swastika canted 45 degrees, you know for a fact that they aren't innocently replicating a Buddhist symbol of luck; they've chosen the specific variant that represents hate.

Edit: Oh yeah, that's a totenkopf for sure. The appearance of the skull angled to the side is an atypical presentation and a dead giveaway. In situations like this I'm inclined to give benefit of the doubt if the person seems to recognize what they've done- if they're cagey about it or fall back on 'it's just a skull', that's suspicious.

Yup, agreed. There are definitely cues on if that's really as innocent as someone claims, and it's usually their reaction to it that prompts be biggest understanding about that person's intentions.

Is Reece a fascist? Doubtful. Were they acting under entirely benevolent intentions and had no idea what they were doing? Also very doubtful.

For what it's worth, the totenkopf is for sure a little more obscure than other classic symbols we recognize, and it isn't like there's an infinite number of ways to paint a skull + crossbones when you're having it looking to the side. It's a bad coincidence but it definitely doesn't seem intentional and for sure not one to get up in arms about.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.

The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."

100% agreed with that. People are quick to jump to insults of all kind when presented with differing opinions. And lets not forget that everyone assumes that everyone else on the internet is a white male apparently. Even if <insert ethnicity here> people say something that goes against the grain, they'll be labeled racists. (A black person criticizing BLM for example)

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 ik0ner wrote:
As a side note I've been racking my brain to come up with a way to create visual cues that my marines and other imperial forces without a shadow of doubt represent something very bad. It's hard to do sadly.

You could use a variation of the symbology used by very bad real life regimes.
Wait no, that would make you a supporter of those regimes.

I think I've missed something from earlier in the thread?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

SolarCross wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Are we not all agreed that genocide is bad?

Not all genocides get equal air time though. Rwanda? Armenia? Cambodia? Korea? Even the ongoing genocides in Communist China against the Falun Gong and Uighars are memory holed... If they were white that would be a different story perhaps.

Oh, agreed, they don't all the get the attention they deserve, especially the Uighur genocide.

But they are all bad.

So you will boycott goods from China in protest?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

SolarCross wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Or, perchance, are you implying that people opposed to fascism are pro-Soviet communist regime?

That's also possible.

Well, I think that's a ridiculous implication.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

John Prins wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm for fascists getting lost from my community. I'm for an inclusive community where not one member holds racist, sexist, bigoted views.

Is that a problem?

You're still telling me what you're against rather than what you're for.

No, I'm pretty sure I made my "what I'm for" very clear - an inclusive community. Fascists violate that principle.

Then you DON'T want an inclusive community, you want an exclusive one - that excludes fascists, sexists and bigots. Inclusive isn't necessarily good and exclusion isn't necessarily bad.

Right. So why, when fascists oppose free speech and liberty (you know, the freedom and liberty of people they deem "lesser" than them) do you let them? It's not a violation of free speech to silence someone who threatens the freedoms of others, because they've already demonstrated their lack of respect for free speech and liberty.

If you defend my right to defend myself, then why do you oppose my wish to stand against fascism?

Straw man. I don't oppose your wish to oppose fascism, what I'm not doing is SUPPORTING you because I don't KNOW what YOU consider to be fascism.

Screaming 'I hate fascists' is NOT carte blanche to target people. Prove to me someone/thing is fascist if you want my support. Heck, tell me you think someone/thing is fascist and I'll investigate for myself.

You're acting like the racists and fascists haven't broken the social contract you describe. They have. So what do you do about people who *do* break that social contract?

Again, first you have to prove to me racism or fascism. You don't get to shout it and I take it as gospel. Second, the first thing I do is vote (democracy) for people who support my ideals/goals. So that they enact laws and hire police and lawyers to enforce the laws. If they're not doing these things, I protest. Lawfully. Only in the extreme breakdown of the system do I consider violence. Note we may differ on what we consider the extreme breakdown of the system, and what reformation of the system is ideal.

Just because someone else is opposed to fascism doesn't mean they're like them though

True. But by the same token, someone saying they're opposed to fascism doesn't mean they have GOOD INTENT either. That's why I want more information.

For example, the BLM movement in the USA. I agree, that black lives do indeed matter and that police shoot far too many black people by being trigger happy idiots. The BLM organization, however, is expressly Marxist. So I can support the BLM movement, but cannot support the BLM organization. Similarly with Antifa. Yes, fascism is bad. That doesn't make Antifa, or any anti-fascist, necessarily good.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

For what it's worth, the totenkopf is for sure a little more obscure than other classic symbols we recognize, and it isn't like there's an infinite number of ways to paint a skull + crossbones when you're having it looking to the side. It's a bad coincidence but it definitely doesn't seem intentional and for sure not one to get up in arms about.

i litterally never saw that symbol before today.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Is Reece a fascist? Doubtful. Were they acting under entirely benevolent intentions and had no idea what they were doing? Also very doubtful.

well he could have been looking for a skull a bones motif. found the WWI version, which had very little detail, checked the dragoon version . there is really nice picture of Victoria Louisa wearing what is called the Totten kopff uniform. But that one is kind of a big and cartoonish, and then he finds the SA, and later SS insignia used by Waffen SS Totenkopff, and it has this nice details , including the cracked skull and look 3d and nice, so he coppies that what is more esthetic. Kind of hard to diss nazi uniforms on an esthetical level, when they were designed by Hugo Boss.

Equality before the law, yes.

But it doesn't work like that. Anywhere. As I said women get lower sentances for same crimes. Same with important or pretty looking people. If me and a model stood in front of a youth court, he is getting social work hours and I get 3 years in the juvy. Heck all it takes to come from the wrong district, or the judge to be member of a group or minority or group that doesn't like your people. Good Luck getting a "equal" treatment as a gypsy in a eastern european country or as a catholic in northern irland.

Rihgu wrote:
Yea, calling Sgt_Smudge a fascist is the exact sort of defensive tactic we see from actual fascists, and is not a good look.

Way to miss the actual point.

Do I seriously think Sgt_Smudge is a fascist? No.

However, he has openly supported authoritarian policies to remove certain groups from society, and has demonstrated a severe ignorance of history in assuming that the authoritarian measures he calls for today will never be used against him or anyone he cares about.

My point wasn't that he is actually a fascist. My point is that in the society he seems to want to create, all it would take is one accusation (whether true or false) to bring ruin (or worse) to a person's life.

He won't be able to find employment outside of gulags (you wouldn't employ a fascist, would you?).

He wouldn't be allowed to join any clubs or hobbies (as we've already established in this thread).

He wouldn't even be allowed to defend himself from the accusation, because it would involve giving a fascist a platform not just for speech but also for action, which would be reprehensible.


And all this is assuming that the accusation is not taken a step further. I don't want to blow your mind here, but a lot of the people arrested by thought-police in authoritarian societies aren't actually guilty. But while Sgt_Smudge may not be a fascist, you'd be surprised what people will confess to when you lock them in a cell, beat them, burn them, pull out their nails one by one etc.


Perhaps, like him, you think that this will never happen. In which case, feel free to continue pursuing increasingly authoritarian governments. Just don't be surprised if you wake up one day and realise that the utopia you've helped bring about looks an awful lot like the fascist regime you were trying to stop.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


i litterally never saw that symbol before today.

I actualy laughed and I don't know why. Confused.

. Similarly with Antifa. Yes, fascism is bad. That doesn't make Antifa, or any anti-fascist, necessarily good.

Antifa achivments in my country go as follows, at least after 1989. Setting fire to two churchs, destruction of private and public property durning riots every 1st of may, beating up a priest durning mass, storming a church durning mass durning corona to put it all on social media. I really hope that other countries antifas are different, and not for the worse.

Heck healthcare is a human right, well at least here, and in the US it comes with the suffix of it is a human right, if you pay for it.

This old gem. A great deal of ignorance implicit in that statement. I grew up poor as dirt (in the U.S.), and couldn't pay for much of anything (especially after my parents got divorced and it was my single mom talking care of 2 kids and a deadbeat dad who didn't pay support/alimony), and yet I never wanted for things like healthcare. Even though we couldn't pay for it. But yeah - it's definitely not something you can get in the U.S. unless you're rich.

Doesn't seem like you live in the U.S.? Maybe do some research before you repeat something you heard on tv lol

Karol wrote:

Equality before the law, yes.

But it doesn't work like that. Anywhere. As I said women get lower sentances for same crimes. Same with important or pretty looking people. If me and a model stood in front of a youth court, he is getting social work hours and I get 3 years in the juvy. Heck all it takes to come from the wrong district, or the judge to be member of a group or minority or group that doesn't like your people. Good Luck getting a "equal" treatment as a gypsy in a eastern european country or as a catholic in northern irland.

Now i don't think it is entirely as bleak as you bring on about. And like i explained with the legitimacy exemple, pull that too often , especially when a population beliefs that "SHOULD" be the the standards and watch sooner rather then later the fireworks.

 vipoid wrote:


Perhaps, like him, you think that this will never happen. In which case, feel free to continue pursuing increasingly authoritarian governments. Just don't be surprised if you wake up one day and realise that the utopia you've helped bring about looks an awful lot like the fascist regime you were trying to stop.

But friend he wants to do it for the good of everyone, while the fasists what and who ever they maybe are doing it to be evil. It is litteraly the same thing soviets said to us durning the 1920 war.

These issues come down more to authoritarianism Vs liberalism rather than left Vs right. I find nowadays that a lot of 'left' leaning be kind types are very authoritarian when it comes to the practical application of their ideas. Their opinions must be forced on others, or those others must be punished or have things removed if they refuse the ideology... Liberals would oppose this fundamentally. Everyone thinks their ideas are the ideas everyone else should hold, the difference is whether one believes they should be forced on others or not.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Something I've found is that people take being called a racist as a slur against their character instead of a warning to examine their bad habits and correct them. I wish I wasn't racist, and I'm trying to work on it, but as Eric Lang suggests in the link in my signature, we're really soaking in it.

The problem is that the term "racist" is only ever used as a slur, not a descriptor. I've been called racist for eating curry before, because I am not ethnically Indian. Turns out, being called something you're not tends to make people angry. To paraphrase Syndrome, "When everything is racist, nothing will be."

100% agreed with that. People are quick to jump to insults of all kind when presented with differing opinions. And lets not forget that everyone assumes that everyone else on the internet is a white male apparently. Even if <insert ethnicity here> people say something that goes against the grain, they'll be labeled racists. (A black person criticizing BLM for example)

It's fascinating that Eric Lang is Black, and in that twitter thread I linked to he points out how, even as a Black man, he has been racists and how it's something he needs to continually work on. I'm racist, and it's not something I'm particularly proud of, but it's something I'm working on. But the point stands, when you point out that someone is racist they take it as an insult and will perform any mental gymnastics to avoid engaging with the notion that they are in fact racist and that it is something they need to work on. As a former coach I shouldn't be too surprised, as getting athletes interested in their own performance to take advice was a long, tedious business; that anyone should take a stranger's advice is wildly out of the realm of expectation. As Principal Skinner from the Simpsons says: "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."

If anyone labels me a racist I should say "Yes, I am racist, and I'm working on it. How can I rephase/rethink/repeat what I had said without being racist about it? And maybe I shouldn't have said or done that thing in the first place, or perhaps there was something else I could have done.

Maybe if you think of it less like being labelled an 'donkey-cave' and more like being labelled 'out-of-shape' as something that you are even if you're pretty sure you are not. It's not a great analogy, but I'm trying to point at the notion of us all, me included, having lots of room to improve when it comes to racism.

Not Online!!! 794924 11016584 wrote:

Now i don't think it is entirely as bleak as you bring on about. And like i explained with the legitimacy exemple, pull that too often , especially when a population beliefs that "SHOULD" be the the standards and watch sooner rather then later the fireworks.

I am too stupid to work with potential or possibilities. I can barely grasp the world as it is for real. All I know that working on an assumption that is only theoretical, and isn't really used in practics, is a dangerous thing to do. Not that people don't try it. I have an older step sister that discovered at 18 that night on train stations there in deed are people that rob others. And my mom had arguments about it with her for over 10 years, practicaly as far as I can remember, that going to the station at night is not a good idea. She had to go to the psychologist for half a year after that, and unlike me she was normal all her life.


Ah and as someone who isn't smart or good looking, I would not mind a world where potentialy people all equal. I just don't think that will ever happen.