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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Years of playing Wolfenstein and Medal of Honor has taught me it's A-OK to indiscriminately gun down Nazis.

Do you want robot Hitler? Because condoning this guy is how we get robot Hitler.

So now you're advocating killing people you feel are Nazis? Wow.

Don't blame me, blame the video game industry! I've been manipulated to think that shooting Nazis is the way forwards!

Edit: I don't "feel" he is a Nazi. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and the other ducks give it the duck salute, it's definitely a Nazi, er, duck.

I'm just, wow. Is that what liberals stand for in your country? Killing people for speaking? Who's the real Nazi here?

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm just, wow. Is that what liberals stand for in your country? Killing people for speaking? Who's the real Nazi here?

Come on Frazz. You regularly call for the genocide of the Cat Lovers. You have no high horse here.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm just, wow. Is that what liberals stand for in your country? Killing people for speaking? Who's the real Nazi here?

Come on Frazz. You regularly call for the genocide of the Cat Lovers. You have no high horse here.

Well thats because they aren't real people. They're hollow inside.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm just, wow. Is that what liberals stand for in your country? Killing people for speaking? Who's the real Nazi here?

Much as the Trump supporters call for, please don't paint with such a broad brush.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm just, wow. Is that what liberals stand for in your country? Killing people for speaking? Who's the real Nazi here?

Come on Frazz. You regularly call for the genocide of the Cat Lovers. You have no high horse here.

Well thats because they aren't real people. They're hollow inside.

Now you understand my point of view. I knew we'd get there in the end. I feel better having taken this journey with you Frazz. I think we've both learned something.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm just, wow. Is that what liberals stand for in your country? Killing people for speaking? Who's the real Nazi here?

Come on Frazz. You regularly call for the genocide of the Cat Lovers. You have no high horse here.

Well thats because they aren't real people. They're hollow inside.

Now you understand my point of view. I knew we'd get there in the end. I feel better having taken this journey with you Frazz. I think we've both learned something.

You could have just said Nazis like cats.

And speaking of why HRC lost:
University lowers flag to half mast after election, hilarity ensues.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/11/22/hampshire-college-amherst-stops-flying-flags/

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm just, wow. Is that what liberals stand for in your country? Killing people for speaking? Who's the real Nazi here?

Come on Frazz. You regularly call for the genocide of the Cat Lovers. You have no high horse here.

Well thats because they aren't real people. They're hollow inside.

Contrary to popular belief, we have not had our innards scooped out and replaced with catnip. That fate is reserved for those who oppose the Meowvolution.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/23/hampshire-college-removes-american-flag/

The article isn't quite correct.

 whembly wrote:
Huge news in New York:
http://observer.com/2016/11/andrew-cuomos-top-aides-and-donors-indicted-on-corruption-charges/

Preet Bharara is maintaining his reputation as the honey badger of corruption investigations and who's not afraid to do his job.

It's been an interesting time here in NY. Cumo has gone from 60%+ approval to being universally hated. The primaries are something to really look at this time around.

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/23/hampshire-college-removes-american-flag/

The article isn't quite correct.

Appears correct per Snopes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
politics of a different sort:
http://kxan.com/2016/11/23/woman-accused-of-shooting-boyfriend-who-rubbed-pizza-in-her-face/
:

I just hope nobody who is talking about how wrong it is to hurt people for speaking ever says anything like "if I were in Germany in the 1930s I wouldn't have let Hitler into power", because you've just stated that you would.

 Peregrine wrote:
I just hope nobody who is talking about how wrong it is to hurt people for speaking ever says anything like "if I were in Germany in the 1930s I wouldn't have let Hitler into power", because you've just stated that you would.

Your argument is what we call . We have the First Amendment here and a tradition of freedom of speech. If people don't like it, I suggest they take a long walk off a short pier.




(get the irony? )

 Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is what we call . We have the First Amendment here and a tradition of freedom of speech. If people don't like it, I suggest they take a long walk off a short pier.

Like I said, just don't claim that you would have stopped the Nazis, because you wouldn't have. You would have told everyone how freedom of speech is important, we should never hurt someone just because we disagree with their ideas, and of course we should respect the outcome of the election that put them in power.

 Frazzled wrote:

So now you're advocating killing people you feel are Nazis? Wow.

I think he's condoning killing '*actual* Nazis.... which I am... unsurprisingly.... wildly OK with.

NOT Nazis.




Nazis.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Your argument is what we call . We have the First Amendment here and a tradition of freedom of speech. If people don't like it, I suggest they take a long walk off a short pier.

Like I said, just don't claim that you would have stopped the Nazis, because you wouldn't have. You would have told everyone how freedom of speech is important, we should never hurt someone just because we disagree with their ideas, and of course we should respect the outcome of the election that put them in power.

Thats cool with me. Your argument holds no merit in an actual Republic, vs. a dictatorship. Following your logic everyone who is or has ever been a member of the communist party and the Nazi party must be killed.

Who's next? Neo Nazis are kind of Nazis. Socialists are just a kit and a caboodle from commies all the Bernistas -up against the wall (sounds like you have to take yourself out).

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think he's condoning killing '*actual* Nazis.... which I am... unsurprisingly.... wildly OK with.

And pointing out the absurdity of the common "internet tough guy" thing where people say Nazism could never happen here, and how if they had been in Germany in the 1930s they would have punched Hitler to death to stop all the horrors of Nazism. But, judging by their opinions on the Nazis and assorted white supremacists of 2016, what they'd actually be doing in 1930s Germany is talking about the need for civility and respect for freedom of speech while denouncing the resistance for their use of violence.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


NOT Nazis.

I think we should all sit back and talk about how damn glorious this is XD

Surely that is something we can all agree on!

Frazzled wrote:Following your logic everyone who is or has ever been a member of the .... the Nazi party must be killed.

There are some countries, including democracies, that was actually a thing in, if you recall.

Peregrine wrote:

And pointing out the absurdity of the common "internet tough guy" thing where people say Nazism could never happen here.

Hermann Göring wrote:Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Nazism can happen anywhere at any time. Vigilance is the only real defense.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think he's condoning killing '*actual* Nazis.... which I am... unsurprisingly.... wildly OK with.

And pointing out the absurdity of the common "internet tough guy" thing where people say Nazism could never happen here, and how if they had been in Germany in the 1930s they would have punched Hitler to death to stop all the horrors of Nazism. But, judging by their opinions on the Nazis and assorted white supremacists of 2016, what they'd actually be doing in 1930s Germany is talking about the need for civility and respect for freedom of speech while denouncing the resistance for their use of violence.

Like how Mark Wahlberg would have stopped 9/11?

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nikki Haley going to be UN ambassador.
http://kxan.com/2016/11/23/ap-sources-trump-taps-gov-nikki-haley-for-ambassador-to-un/

That's a great pick in my opinion.

Probably the best one yet.

Why, though?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think he's condoning killing '*actual* Nazis.... which I am... unsurprisingly.... wildly OK with.

And pointing out the absurdity of the common "internet tough guy" thing where people say Nazism could never happen here, and how if they had been in Germany in the 1930s they would have punched Hitler to death to stop all the horrors of Nazism. But, judging by their opinions on the Nazis and assorted white supremacists of 2016, what they'd actually be doing in 1930s Germany is talking about the need for civility and respect for freedom of speech while denouncing the resistance for their use of violence.

Like how Mark Wahlberg would have stopped 9/11?

Although he plays a convincing porn star, his real life persona is one of woeful insecurity. Poor Marky Mark. he used to give us Good Vibrations

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Hermann Göring wrote:Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

This is a great quote, and it is not without its irony.

Comparing Hitler to Trump is a tad......overboard, don't you think? I mean, yes, there are certain parallels and truths, but only to a mild degree.


Not to sound too weird, but before the REALLY bad stuff happened Hitler did pull his country out of an economic mess, improve their infrastructure, make them a world power, and make them united. If Trump managed to do that I'd be happy. Just let me know when he starts sending people to internment camps and I'll take up arms with the rest of you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think he's condoning killing '*actual* Nazis.... which I am... unsurprisingly.... wildly OK with.

And pointing out the absurdity of the common "internet tough guy" thing where people say Nazism could never happen here, and how if they had been in Germany in the 1930s they would have punched Hitler to death to stop all the horrors of Nazism. But, judging by their opinions on the Nazis and assorted white supremacists of 2016, what they'd actually be doing in 1930s Germany is talking about the need for civility and respect for freedom of speech while denouncing the resistance for their use of violence.

No. Vigilante murder is never excusable if we're going to live in a society with rule of law. Freedom of speech, the free and open exchange of ideas is a foundational principle of a free society, there is no straw man conditional argument to be made about hypothetically killing Hitler. The freedom to think/say what you want means that some people will think/say bad things. That's ok, that's part of the price of freedom. The preponderance of people thinking/saying good things keeps the bad things at bay. Education and exposure to different people and ideas humanize people and makes it difficult to turn people on each other.
If people really honestly equate Trump with Hitler then we need to keep the Electoral College. A primary cause for Hamilton's push to use Electors and states instead of a straight up popular vote was to put more safeguards in place against demagogues because they tend to be really good at winning popularity contests.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Comparing Hitler to Trump is a tad......overboard, don't you think? I mean, yes, there are certain parallels and truths, but only to a mild degree.

I still stand by my comparison to Huey Long, the closest America ever came to actually electing a real fascist..

And lets be honest. When you use terms like extreme vetting and building walls to keep out "not-Americans" and wait until after you're elected to disavow actual Nazi's, you've kind of opened yourself up to be compared to Hitler.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Comparing Hitler to Trump is a tad......overboard, don't you think? I mean, yes, there are certain parallels and truths, but only to a mild degree.

Yeah, Hitler was a good public speaker, was very intelligent, and had a definite plan.

Not to sound too weird, but before the REALLY bad stuff happened Hitler did pull his country out of an economic mess, improve their infrastructure, make them a world power, and make them united.

Not really. The German economy was thoroughly fethed, before the war stated, and while it was going. He made it a bit better, but it was still fethed. He literally invaded countries as to not default on debt. And there were massive shortages of goods, from military to civilian, even before the war started. The whole structure of the economy was also a fething mess. It wasn't until after the war that the German economy was rebuilt (because the allied powers realized that reparations just created this conflict in the first place).

If Trump managed to do that I'd be happy. Just let me know when he starts sending people to internment camps and I'll take up arms with the rest of you.

Well, I mean they have already mentioned stuff like a Muslim registry, so it's not too far off.

 Peregrine wrote:
I suppose that's a point, if all you're concerned about is new district boundaries then you can take a single set of voting data from the most recent election and see how different lines would divide it. But the inability to handle with the existing serious gerrymandering problems we have makes it a test of fairly limited value.

It means that there is now a test, whereas previously there was nothing. And over time it will lead to reform, if re-destricting cannot exceed present unfairness, then over time you will get a steady reduction as each new set of boundaries comes in less unfair than what had existed previously.

It's hardly an instant solution to all problems, but it will stop the problem getting worse, as had been happening, and will start moving things (slowly) in the other direction.

Failing to work for parties that don't win (state or national level) seats is the whole point. If you assume that every party is equal under the law then you'll find that there is significant "gerrymandering" for, say, the republican party vs. the libertarian party. The simple test only works if you declare that any party which fails to win seats has failed because it is not a legitimate party, not because it is temporarily unpopular or has been too successfully gerrymandered against. And that's a problem.

Yeah, I can see how the test would get pretty wonky if there three strong parties. But given that isn't the case in many places, it seems a fairly minor concern.

The "wasted votes" model says that this is a heavily gerrymandered solution. The democrats have a much higher percentage of "wasted" votes, and the only way to solve it is to split up the city into sections, each paired with some republican-leaning rural areas. Now the state's representatives are no longer associated with any sensible region of the state, and have to represent the likely-conflicting interests of their rural and urban voters. And of course it only gets worse if you try to reach parity in "wasted" votes instead of reducing the disparity. To do that you'd have to make a special republican-majority district out of some of the 50/50 rural area, gerrymandering some weird arbitrary shape to get the math right. Now instead of having "natural" district shapes and letting the voters decide you've essentially had the two major parties split up the state so that each side is entitled to half the seats. IOW, you've made the problem worse.

That's a fair example, and illustrates a good point. If this test was used as you described, I can see it leading to many problems. But the test won't be used as an absolute test, merely one element of many considered by a court. And as I understand it, it would only apply to new district maps. So in your example the unfairness test would only be evidence of an unfair electoral map if, for instance, a new redistricting chopped up that city district to spread it out among surrounding 50-50 districts to swing them all to be 60-40 districts and so give Democrats a massive electoral advantage.

I think you raise some genuine concerns, and I can't say for certain that the test will be applied as I've said (at this point we don't even know if the test will be accepted by the Supreme Court, let alone how they might apply it). All we know at this stage is that a court looked at the Wisconsin redistricting, and used the increased unfairness shown by that model as part of their reason for rejecting the new districts.

Prestor Jon wrote:

No. Vigilante murder is never excusable if we're going to live in a society with rule of law. .

And if a man maketh his own society unfree? If he maketh the law that his word alone is law? If there be no way to bring him to justice, for the law makes him immune to prosecution for deeds that all men might agree are crimes, might it not be an act of justice, and indeed, for the greater good of all, that this person be struck down?



It's fine to talk of the rule of law in free societies when one merely forgets that those societies were made free in defiance of the rule of law.

As far as shooting Hitler goes, it wouldn't work. To actually prevent Hitler, you need to stop Bismark in the 19th Century, rather than Hitler in the 20th, to prevent WW2 and its dark spectrum of bones.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not really. The German economy was thoroughly fethed, before the war stated, and while it was going. He made it a bit better, but it was still fethed. He literally invaded countries as to not default on debt. And there were massive shortages of goods, from military to civilian, even before the war started. The whole structure of the economy was also a fething mess. It wasn't until after the war that the German economy was rebuilt (because the allied powers realized that reparations just created this conflict in the first place).

History expansion; Germany's economy actually didn't improve much under Hitler. Kristallnacht is famous as an act of racist oppression, but it was also an economic attack. It helped forced non-Germans out of the economy, leaving German businesses to pick up the slack and start making more money (similar things happened in the US with the Atlanta Race Riot and during Japanese Internment). When you start taking possession of people's homes, valuables, and their teeth fillings, and you can make your economy look a lot better than it actually is. Then you just invade a few neighbors and start defrauding their people for your own people's benefit. Not that it makes your people much better of, but it lets you maintain the illusion to the rest of the world.