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.
2015/10/09 20:05:02
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: You're the one moving goalposts. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich. What has been argued is that armed resistance to genocide is preferable to meekly accepting ones fight and willing walking to your doom. You're the one arguing that it is pointless to fight back when people are trying to kill you unless you're guaranteed to win. That's absurd. It's better to fight and have a very slight chance of surviving than surrendering and being guaranteed to die.
Fact, it is harder to kill armed people who resist than unarmed people who don't resist. If more Jews had been armed it would have been more difficult to kill them and the history of the holocaust would be different. If somebody is trying to kill me I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.
Except we know it wouldn't have worked because it didn't work. I think people tend to forget that there was an armed and organized Jewish resistance. Saying anything else is just spouting counterfactual history and is entirely stupid and pointless. Most importantly, it's speculative.
I mean fething seriously people, it took nearly the entire military might of the three most powerful nations on Earth to crush the Third Reich. As awesome as it would have been, the minority population of Jews in Germany would not have stopped the German propaganda and war machine from spreading across Europe.
Do we really need to keep talking about illogical what-ifs?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/10/09 20:07:35
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich.
That's exactly what Carson suggested and it's utterly amazing how quickly the 'history' of this thread shifted to completely ignore that and start arguing a different but related nonsensical point.
Prestor Jon wrote: Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich.
That's exactly what Carson suggested and it's utterly amazing how quickly the 'history' of this thread shifted to completely ignore that and start arguing a different but related nonsensical point.
.
Carson said:
“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,”
Is this the quote you referring to? Did I miss something?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/09 20:11:36
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Prestor Jon wrote: You're the one moving goalposts. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich. What has been argued is that armed resistance to genocide is preferable to meekly accepting ones fight and willing walking to your doom. You're the one arguing that it is pointless to fight back when people are trying to kill you unless you're guaranteed to win. That's absurd. It's better to fight and have a very slight chance of surviving than surrendering and being guaranteed to die.
Fact, it is harder to kill armed people who resist than unarmed people who don't resist. If more Jews had been armed it would have been more difficult to kill them and the history of the holocaust would be different. If somebody is trying to kill me I'm going to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.
Except we know it wouldn't have worked because it didn't work. I think people tend to forget that there was an armed and organized Jewish resistance. Saying anything else is just spouting counterfactual history and is entirely stupid and pointless. Most importantly, it's speculative.
I mean fething seriously people, it took nearly the entire military might of the three most powerful nations on Earth to crush the Third Reich. As awesome as it would have been, the minority population of Jews in Germany would not have stopped the German propaganda and war machine from spreading across Europe.
Do we really need to keep talking about illogical what-ifs?
What didn't work? They chose to resist, they resisted. Just because they didn't defeat Germany single handedly doesn't mean they should have meekly surrendered and let the Germans torture them to death in the camps. Resisting the people waging genocidal pogroms against you is a good thing. Making it as difficult as possible on the regime to destroy a people is a good thing. An armed Jewish populace would have been able to fight back harder and history would be different, not radically different, but I think it's safe to say most Jews would have rather have had the holocaust resemble the Alamo than Auschwitz. Resistance itself is a worthwhile act, regardless of the eventual outcome.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2015/10/09 20:48:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This argument falls into one degree of lunacy to me.
A common argument is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people... also, Criminals can get away with killing using knives! or bombs!"
Yet, couldn't you say the exact same line in regards to say, that ludicrous holocaust argument?
Surely, a resisting populace could just use knives or make bombs! Weapons don't resist evil governments, people resist evil governments!
---
Of course, it's ludicrous. There's no cases of armed uprisings in a home country by a minority actually doing anything appreciable. Revolutions against a 'tyranical government' within home territory always comes from within the government or military itself... and are very often not any better.
2015/10/09 21:04:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Just because they didn't defeat Germany single handedly doesn't mean they should have meekly surrendered and let the Germans torture them to death in the camps.
There it is, the single most disgusting thing you could have possibly said. Can I fill out my victim blaming square on Dakka bingo now?
Resisting the people waging genocidal pogroms against you is a good thing. Making it as difficult as possible on the regime to destroy a people is a good thing.
You know what's even better? Not having genocidal pogroms. Lack of gun control doesn't cause that. Since you don't seem to understand the point I'm making, it isn't a pro-gun control argument... It's a anti-bull gak argument.
An armed Jewish populace would have been able to fight back harder and history would be different, not radically different, but I think it's safe to say most Jews would have rather have had the holocaust resemble the Alamo than Auschwitz. Resistance itself is a worthwhile act, regardless of the eventual outcome.
See the above point about counterfactual history and think about what you wrote.
After you do that, go read a book about the Holocaust. Or go the Holocaust Museum. Or to a concentration camp. If you do any (or all) of those things, and you can still sit there and think to yourself, "You know what would have made this suck less? Guns," congratulations, you're slightly more educated but still wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/09 21:31:56
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/10/09 21:12:10
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Just because they didn't defeat Germany single handedly doesn't mean they should have meekly surrendered and let the Germans torture them to death in the camps.
There it is, the single most disgusting thing you could have possibly said. Can I fill out my victim blaming square on Dakka bingo now?
Resisting the people waging genocidal pogroms against you is a good thing. Making it as difficult as possible on the regime to destroy a people is a good thing.
You know what's even better? Not having genocidal pogroms. Lack of gun control doesn't cause that. Since you don't seem to understand the point I'm making, it isn't a pro-gun control argument... It's a anti-bull gak argument.
An armed Jewish populace would have been able to fight back harder and history would be different, not radically different, but I think it's safe to say most Jews would have rather have had the holocaust resemble the Alamo than Auschwitz. Resistance itself is a worthwhile act, regardless of the eventual outcome.
See the above point about counterfactual history and think what you wrote.
After you do that, go read a book about the Holocaust. Or go the Holocaust Museum. Or to a concentration camp. If you do any (or all) of those things, and you can still sit there and think to yourself, "You know what would have made this suck less? Guns," congratulations, you're slightly more educated but still wrong.
This. There was absolutely nothing that the Jews could do to prevent what the Nazis inflicted on them, short of every single one of them getting on boats to the UK/USA before Hitler came to power.
If every Jew had resisted, every Jew would have died. It was those "meek" jews who "allowed" themselves to be deported to the camps, and who were lucky enough to be strong enough, who survived, not the ones who fought with weapons. When faced with an enemy whose only objective is your complete extermination, survival is victory, not ineffective armed resistance.
Anybody saying otherwise is spitting in the face of the millions of people who died.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/09 21:17:32
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/10/09 21:12:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
We do know that every armed resistance by Jewish people resulted in massive retaliation where everybody involved died as well as their families, friends, and often the entire ghetto.
We also know that not everybody who didn't resist ended up dead.
And that is the main reason why the majority of Jews didn't launch an armed resistance against the Nazis. Not because of gun control, not because "they quietly resigned themselves to be killed", not because they weren't as brave as every internet hero on this board, not because of any of that.
Because what they saw was "resist and you will definitely die, use your skills and lay low and try to survive and maybe you are one of the few lucky ones". And that is what the majority of them did.
But hey, continue to use the holocaust to score political points I guess, who cares about dead Jews.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/09 21:13:41
2015/10/09 21:24:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This is the difference between fantasy, and cruel, statistical reality that lies at the core of a number of the arguments about gun availability and use.
In the fantasy scenario, a heroic individual goes and saves the day from greater disaster thanks to the responsible use of a tool.
In real life, less than 3% of large-scale shootings is stopped by a 'good guy' shooter, in a country with 800% the rate of large-scale shootings than any other developed country on earth. Likewise, if you're personally attacked, the 'bad guy' always has the initiative and will almost certainly screw you, gun or not.
--
In fantasy, gun control won't have any effect since bad guys break laws and it's as simple as that.
In real life, reduced gun availabilty drives up cost to get and find weapons, even illegally, and produces additional negatives to the profitability of violent crime.
--
Finally, for this example
In Fantasy, thousands of oppressed Jews get out rifles and overthrow the third reich.
In Real Life, resistance is impossible at a coordinated large scale in a home country and has never resulted in defeating the despot without substantial support within the government and/or military itself already. Nazi Germany, as evil as it was, was an internally stable structure and mass resistance would have little effect.
2015/10/09 21:25:17
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well I found this interesting, not sure if anyone else will: "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians)
Prestor Jon wrote: . Nobody in this thread is suggesting that armed civilian Jews would have defeated the combined military might of the Third Reich. What has been argued is that armed resistance to genocide is preferable to meekly accepting ones fight and willing walking to your doom. You're the one arguing that it is pointless to fight back when people are trying to kill you unless you're guaranteed to win. That's absurd.
Of course that's an absurd argument, which is why I didn't make it, even though you're pretending I did.
Prestor Jon wrote: Fact, it is harder to kill armed people who resist than unarmed people who don't resist. If more Jews had been armed it would have been more difficult to kill them and the history of the holocaust would be different.
So, this was my point, which was perhaps more nuanced that I thought. Yes, it's harder to kill armed people, obviously. But in the specific example we're talking about , not significantly so. You (and Carson) are arguing the history of the holocaust would be different; he specifically said "the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished..." No, it wouldn't have, not at all. it wouldn't mattered at all, because when it did happen, it didn't matter at all, really. When you have a population of around 65,000 civilians, and they manage to kill 20 people and injure a few hundred, that's not going to "greatly diminish goals" if you scale that up fivefold. It's by any definition a totally non-event that means nothing whatsoever.
Prestor Jon wrote: What didn't work? They chose to resist, they resisted. Just because they didn't defeat Germany single handedly doesn't mean they should have meekly surrendered and let the Germans torture them to death in the camps.
Except, again, no one was suggesting that they shouldn't have fought at all. We simply pointed out that when civilians fight a highly advanced army, it matters literally not at all. Carson is using his example as one of the classical underpinnings of gun rights in the US: that we need an armed populace in case we need to overthrow tyranny. It's a laughable, stupid, childish idea, a power fantasy writ large. No, civilians aren't going to overthrow an advanced army of suddenly tyranny starts happening. They're going to get killed in wild ratios, like thousands to one. Should they resist? Of course, if your choice is marching into a death camp or fighting, you literally have nothing to lose.
But we should pull up our collective big boy pants and stop fantasizing about Red Dawn scenarios.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Guys, can we switch this conversation to the gun thread, I don't want this to be locked.
Man, I tried. You saw it! But no, there were "lessons to be learned here", so I wanted to at least keep this string running long enough to determine what those lessons were.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/09 21:38:02
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2015/10/09 21:52:00
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Or, you know, there's this incredibly stupid thing he said recently:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/09 22:19:48
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/10/09 22:22:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Did anyone else read about Kasich's response to someone who didn't like his proposed cuts to social security benefits? He basically said "get over it".
There's someone who just list the senior vote.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/10/09 22:34:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Of course, no way in hell will Cruz be the GOP nominee for President, anyway. People like me who would honestly consider voting for Jeb (and maybe Rubio) over Hillary will run screaming into Hillary's comforting arms if Cruz were to get the nomination. And I'd like to think the GOP leadership is smart enough to know that.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/10/10 14:43:00
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Of course, no way in hell will Cruz be the GOP nominee for President, anyway. People like me who would honestly consider voting for Jeb (and maybe Rubio) over Hillary will run screaming into Hillary's comforting arms if Cruz were to get the nomination. And I'd like to think the GOP leadership is smart enough to know that.
Cruz won't get the nomination... at best, he'd be a VP pick, but if Rubio's the top ticket, I can see him go outside of the current lineup (or maybe tap Fiorina).
Cruz/Fiorina: Now that's a ticket!
Still won't beat a Hillary/Warren ticket though...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/10 14:43:22
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/10 15:11:28
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Still won't beat a Hillary/Warren ticket though...
You really think Clinton would pick Warren or Warren would accept? I don't see it. If Biden were to get in, he would be a fool not to pick her, but I see Clinton wanting to own the first female spotlight herself.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/10/10 15:44:43
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/10 15:48:53
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/10/10 16:24:32
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yep, let's face it, with the mobilization that Sanders has had, if he's the nominee, I very much see him winning. If Clinton gets the nod, I see her choosing a good solid VP and then going on to win due to R incompetence. If Biden steps into the game and gets the nod, I also see him getting a strong VP, and moving his gak from wherever the VP lives to where the Pres. lives in the WH.
Absolutely NONE of the current Republican candidates are any good, and I honestly hope they are prepared for the fallout that will be seen as "their" fault.
2015/10/10 21:19:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Still won't beat a Hillary/Warren ticket though...
You really think Clinton would pick Warren or Warren would accept? I don't see it. If Biden were to get in, he would be a fool not to pick her, but I see Clinton wanting to own the first female spotlight herself.
Agreed on Biden... totally.
However, a Clinton/Warren ticket would be nigh unbeatable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/10 21:19:59
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/10 21:27:15
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.
Cruz/Fiorina is not a solid ticket. I know you love Fiorina, but she doesn't bring much to the table. Indeed the main component of her public image, her business record, is as much of a liability as it is a strength.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/10/10 21:37:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.
That's true, I would and I will.
Plus, if a Republican wins, we all lose.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/10 21:39:28
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2015/10/10 21:39:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.
Cruz/Fiorina is not a solid ticket. I know you love Fiorina, but she doesn't bring much to the table. Indeed the main component of her public image, her business record, is as much of a liability as it is a strength.
OKay... I'm going to "ask" you something.
What would be a solid ticket then?
???/Rubio or Rubio/???
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/10 21:46:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
At the moment the GOP doesn't seem to have one, but in the general Rubio/Bush is likely the most electable option. It avoids the "dynasty" claims, while still pulling in Bush's money and networks. At least if we only consider potential Presidential candidates for the VP slot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/10 21:48:39
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/10/10 21:46:41
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.
I absolutely would for anyone running currently, yes. You see it as me just being a partisan liberal, but the truth is, as a moderate, I honest believe this is the worst electoral lineup of my lifetime. There is no permutation of currently available assclowns that are workable. Maybe Lindsey Graham, but he has no chance.
While as I'm not a Republican, none of these guys are my ideal candidate, nonetheless here are some of the Republicans I would like to have seen: Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Mitt Romney, or Susan Collins. But, alas, we throw elections with the lineup we have, not the one we wish we had.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
