Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


i litterally never saw that symbol before today.

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

Tycho wrote:

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

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
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.

Nurglitch wrote:

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.

Karol wrote:
Only thing we learn about Canada in our lessens is the persecution of polish people by Candian Ukrainians since XIXth century, and split of the greek ortodox church after the visit of galician greek ortodox bishop in 1912 and an attempt on his life. And the history of terrorist movment in Quebec and how they were supported by Cubans and the Soviets.

But sitll I don't think I laughed, because you saw it for the first time, because schools. Nazis in practicaly every movie run around with those on their caps, specialy considering that Toten Kopff maned the death camps,and I don't think there are many western people that didn't see Shindlers List. I just don't know why I laughed. very strange. Well time to sleep.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Me saying that i disapprove of the looting and burning that were conducted during the BLM protests (not accusing BLM protesters of doing these things) was enough to be labeled a racist. I fail to see how this is a racist statement.

 Tyran wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
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.

Depends on which Left bubbles you are frequenting. The so called Dirtbag Left is very authoritarian, most Far-Left groups are.

Liberals meanwhile are still Left, but tend be more on the liberalism spectrum as their name implies.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I think liberals occupy the political centre, both up/down and left/right. My political compass test puts me almost dead centre, very slightly lib right. I feel like the term 'liberal' has taken on a negative connotation these days, often used by people on the right to insult those more left leaning, but classical liberalism as it emerged from the enlightenment is still the best and most balanced political system in my opinion, so I'm doing my bit to reclaim that term.

 vipoid wrote:

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.

snipped

 CommunistNapkin wrote:
Yes, there is quite a large difference between classic liberalism and modern American liberalism.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
That's because capital BLM use the same clever equivocation as antifa that I mentioned earlier. You can't criticize them for being a political pressure group under the flimsy guise of a civil rights movement without that fallacy being rolled out .

Not Online!!! wrote:
Since when are liberals on the left?

What? i am dealing with a constantly confused party system that has to constantly deal with angry people telling the government NO or YES and DO XYZ.

Irkjoe wrote:@Sgt_Smudge
Threats and calling for violence are not speech.

SolarCross wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

Then it's probably true. Fascism is dead, the last serious fascist was Fransisco Franco of Spain who was out of power by 1975. Communism however is a live threat to the whole world because China, DPRK and Cuba still exist. Consequently anyone whipping up hysteria about brown shirts under the beds is probably on team Communism and playing psyops for them.

John Prins wrote: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.

Only in the extreme breakdown of the system do I consider violence.

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.

The BLM organization, however, is expressly Marxist.

vipoid wrote:

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.

Nurglitch wrote:
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.

queen_annes_revenge wrote: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.

Karol wrote:I would not mind a world where potentialy people all equal. I just don't think that will ever happen.

Rihgu wrote:Nobody has advocated for a single accusation being all that's required to label somebody a fascist.

 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)

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's a make believe game of little plastic toy soldiers. Ya'll are reading too much into it.

the_scotsman wrote:Boy howdy, it sure is a trip to see just how much "thing affects my tiny bubble" impacts the severity with which people engage with a given topic.

Almost 2 months ago I was working at a poll booth where nearly every hour on the hour we had a threat called in, an instance of drive-by verbal intimidation, or a report that people were getting as close as they could and unloading guns into the pavement all in an effort to stop the people who weren't the color they liked from having themselves a democratic election.

Regardless of the outcome of that election: They did succeed. We only managed to stay open for roughly 2/3 of the time we were supposed to that day because legally the police stationed at the polling station had to investigate the threats.

We have elected members to our national congress who openly espouse the belief that a child molesting satanist cult that tortures and eats the children they kidnap has taken full control of the government, and the only solution is for every member of the opposing political party to be rounded up and put to death in an event they call the Night of the R-I mean the Storm, they call it the Storm this time.

But no, obviously "The Twitterati" is the authoritarian threat to freedom du jour, because it's something that might affect you in the form of *checks notes* GW not making miniature plastic women hot enough. Really makes you feel like you're living in a simulation and nothing is real.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


i litterally never saw that symbol before today.

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

Canada's history classes seem to be overfocused on its own history (if i have to learn one more time about French+Algonquiens VS english+Iroquois.....).
We didn't learn about the various divisions of the nazi army, it was mostly just "nazi invaded poland, nazi's had concentration camps, nazi's got rekt in the end, hitler suicide in bunker. OH, and did you know that Canada used to be Upper-Canada and Lower-Canada???

I had heard of the deaths hand (outside school), just never say their symbol before (or i might have seen it but not realised it was anything more than a crossbone).

 Bosskelot wrote:
Hoping that people will "get the joke" is not a guaranteed thing, as I said in my post back on page 5-6 using 4chan and incels as an example. This doesn't mean 40k will turn people into fascists*, but it will certainly appeal to them unless GW and the Community makes it clearer that the IoM is not a thing to emulate or admire. And the issue there is that GW themselves are basically doing nothing to address that whatsoever.

People earlier in this thread talk about how "obvious" it is that the Imperium is terrible and the bad guy, but I will bet good money you're all making these assumptions based on lore and background you read 20+ years ago. Try opening up and reading the 9th Edition Rulebook sometime and having a read of the lore. Sure, you can say it's written from an Imperial perspective, but there is no hint of irony or critique in it what presents, there are no smoking guns of "everything you just read is a load of bs". It is all presented as immutable and objective fact. The Imperium is justified in everything it does because of Apocalyptic Race War, Xenos are all to be exterminated and never to be trusted because of ancestral misdeeds and their inferiority to the superior Human form, the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to submit to worship of the Emperor completely and utterly and ask no questions. Nowhere is this more apparent in the lore for Marines, in both rulebook and Codex, where the negative aspects of them are completely downplayed and the usages of words like "Hero" and "Heroics" and "Defenders of Humanity" have increased tenfold. And this isn't even getting into the meta discussion surrounding Marines, where marketing on streams and Warcom will absolutely not address their problematic elements whatsoever. And of course it won't, because it's marketing, but it's basically the first thing people see and what they remember most. Hell, just look at how they market anything else; they're not afraid to address the scary or evil aspects of those things. Necrons are rightly treated as being evil and scary and that's a big selling point!

This thread is actually a perfect example of some not getting the joke or irony and the bringing up of Guilliman earlier encapsulates it perfectly. I won't repeat what others said about Guilliman's return and his portrayal being the most obvious example of turning the IoM into the good guys and how problematic that is, but in this very thread we've had people claiming that the tragedy of 40k IoM is how it fell from the lofty idealistic heights of the 30k Imperium. If you honestly believe that then congratulations you didn't "get the joke" and you didn't pick up on the "obvious" message. The Imperium of 10,000 years ago is just as vile and monstrous with the only differences being a slightly more efficient bureaucracy for 30k and the religious ideals of 40k being worn openly, rather than hidden behind some flimsy bs about the Imperial Truth (which in its entire structure is intensely religious and apes religious iconography and methods constantly anyway). If your skin didn't fething crawl in Horus Rising when Sindermann is giving a religious sermon that basically consists of saying "we're right because we're right and that means we are justified in anything we do" then yeah, I dunno. Or how about later in those early books with the Interex and how they live peacefully and in harmony with Aliens and how all of our PoV characters are disgusted and repulsed by it.



*Although in recent years I've seen an uptick of younger kids playing games in GW stores loudly and gleefully exclaiming how they're going to "purge the filthy xenos!" Which does make me a little uncomfortable I'm not gonna lie.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge 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.

Then it's probably true. Fascism is dead, the last serious fascist was Fransisco Franco of Spain who was out of power by 1975. Communism however is a live threat to the whole world because China, DPRK and Cuba still exist. Consequently anyone whipping up hysteria about brown shirts under the beds is probably on team Communism and playing psyops for them.

Alternatively, you're more than happy to ignore neo-Nazis and rising fascist actions and opinions.
That's also possible, I'm sure.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Don't even get me started on the dumb asses that believe QAnon STILL, even though our dear leader could save the election for himself if he used the Trump card (heh) of the wealth of info he would supposedly have.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Irkjoe wrote:@Sgt_Smudge
Threats and calling for violence are not speech.

But why not? I'm just speaking them.

Or have you figured out what I'm saying?