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.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No we don't agree. No, it is not a straw man. That is exactly what you are doing, advocating violence against people who hold views you consider descipable but who haven't otherwise committed actions that justify violence.
It's a straw man because you're ignoring the difference between "people who haven't committed genocide yet" and "people who do not want to commit genocide". There are a great many people who hold views I consider despicable, but I don't consider violence against them to be acceptable. But, again, we are talking about literal Nazis here, not a mere difference of opinion.
You say these people want to perform genocide and are planning to, I say prove it.
What more proof do you need than his own words saying "genocide is the solution"?
Where are the death camp blue prints? Where are the internal party memos? Where are the construction material purchase orders? Where are the death camp guard training facilities? Where are the stockpiles of guns and poison gas? Those are ACTIONS, steps taken to fulfill that goal which justify the use of violence to prevent it being carried out.
And those ACTIONS are way past the point where Nazis should have been dealt with. You don't wait until the mass murder has started to think about maybe doing something about the Nazi problem. If having Nazis get punched in the face until they are too terrified to speak about their beliefs is what it takes to prevent us from getting to the point where people are building death camps then I am perfectly fine with that use of violence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 06:35:12
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Unlike you Peregrine, I do not want to live in a society where the State or anybody else has the right or the ability to murder people for what they say and think. Because that IS Fascism, regardless of which end of the political spectrum it lies on. Have you heard of the political horseshoe theory? Because you are the walking talking living embodiment of it.
"In a coat of gold or a coat of red a lion still has claws..."
I'm done with this fething lunacy. I need to sleep.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/24 06:55:22
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No we don't agree. No, it is not a straw man. That is exactly what you are doing, advocating violence against people who hold views you consider descipable but who haven't otherwise committed actions that justify violence.
It's a straw man because you're ignoring the difference between "people who haven't committed genocide yet" and "people who do not want to commit genocide". There are a great many people who hold views I consider despicable, but I don't consider violence against them to be acceptable. But, again, we are talking about literal Nazis here, not a mere difference of opinion.
But once you go "okay it's fine against this group" then eventually it's "fine against this and bit wider group" and then "fine against this and that and yet another group" until we come into "it's fine against republicans/Democrats/whatever party you dislike who are threat to america".
Tyranny NEVER begins big. It begins gradually. It starts sneakily. It starts with making people being used at small evils until they are ready for large evils. That's how nazi's started. What you are proposing is precisely what nazi's did...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Unlike you Peregrine, I do not want to live in a society where the State or anybody else has the right of the ability to murder people for what they say and think.
And this is what you don't get: it's not about what they say and think, it's a matter of self defense. Using violence to stop Nazis is acceptable because the last time Nazis got into power the result was genocide, genocide that was only ended once we finally stopped appeasing the Nazis and started killing them. There is no peaceful coexistence with someone whose goal is the mass murder of millions, if not billions, of innocent victims. The only thing preventing another horrifying evil is the fact that Nazis are kept out of power, whatever it takes. And I would greatly prefer to live in a world where some Nazis suffered violence even if it wasn't absolutely necessary than one in which we said "it isn't legal to stop them" as the Nazis got into power again and resumed their genocidal plans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: But once you go "okay it's fine against this group" then eventually it's "fine against this and bit wider group" and then "fine against this and that and yet another group" until we come into "it's fine against republicans/Democrats/whatever party you dislike who are threat to america".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 06:49:18
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Unlike you Peregrine, I do not want to live in a society where the State or anybody else has the right of the ability to murder people for what they say and think.
And this is what you don't get: it's not about what they say and think, it's a matter of self defense. Using violence to stop Nazis is acceptable because the last time Nazis got into power the result was genocide, genocide that was only ended once we finally stopped appeasing the Nazis and started killing them. There is no peaceful coexistence with someone whose goal is the mass murder of millions, if not billions, of innocent victims. The only thing preventing another horrifying evil is the fact that Nazis are kept out of power, whatever it takes. And I would greatly prefer to live in a world where some Nazis suffered violence even if it wasn't absolutely necessary than one in which we said "it isn't legal to stop them" as the Nazis got into power again and resumed their genocidal plans.
Next you are proposing pre-emptive violence against slightly better group than nazi's. Then when that's okay then slightly better than that. Eventually you are fine against pre-emptive violence against anybody who is against your idea even when they aren't doing anything violently.
Peregrine wrote: So far. If we get to the point of actually building death camps and murdering people then we've failed badly by missing our opportunity to crush the Nazis earlier. Learn from history, don't let Nazism be acceptable, ever.
You've building this weird kind of logic where if you don't use violence against someone now when they're just using words, then you become incapable of using violence against them later if they start taking actions. This is obviously wrong and utterly contrived. It is an invention by you purely because you like the idea of using violence against some other people.
But even ignoring the importance of open debate in a functioning democracy, on an immediate, anti-nazi level shifting over from debate to violence is a really stupid decision for anyone who isn't a nazi. Nazis don't win with debates - their arguments are utterly, exceptionally horrible. But nazis are actually pretty good at violence. Before Hitler took power the movement grew largely through shows of force, mostly against the socialists. There was a long series of street battles, and the nazis owned that gak, they belted hell out of the socialists. Crazy, angry racists are people you want to take on in a battle of minds, not fists.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The slippery slope is how the Nazis got into power. They didn't start out in the 1920s by openly calling for genocide. They tested the waters, pushed the boundaries, broke social taboos and then pressed on with progressively worse actions and views. Slippery slopes are not automatically a fallacy.
I do not want violence to be normalized no matter which group its used against, because one day that will backfire and be used against us. It weakens a free society, when you start permitting violence against certain designated groups in society. You're breaking social taboos, and setting a precedent. NEVER set a precedent that you don't want to be used against you.
Today its Nazis.
Tomorrow, it'll be Muslims.
Peregrine is using the same arguments that are used by so called 'Islamophobes.' "Its self-defense!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 07:13:56
First of I mean this in the most straightforward way possible. This isn't about spite or anger or anything, it's just about discussion.
Can we either put Whembly, Peregrine, etc on ignore, or just not respond to them unless they are in the realm of sanity? Huge sections of this thread are responses to a handful of posters pointing out the same errors in logic over and over to no avail. It's to the point where the discussion isn't politics so much as vainly attempting to correct their views on politics. Of course when someone comes in with something illogical it makes sense to point out the flaws and such, but there are a handful of posters who end up dominating this thread though sheer repetition of the same bad logic over and over. It's been explained, the evidence has been laid out, and the case has been proven dozens of times but certain individuals simply refuse to be budged and I think we should just accept that and move on rather than sidelining things so often.
Or in other words, it's one thing to engage a person with radically different views in a discussion, but quite another to continue trying after that person has proven to be talking at you rather than with you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 07:21:13
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Peregrine is using the same arguments that are used by so called 'Islamophobes.' "Its self-defense!"
It's not the same argument at all. Islamophobes are saying it about people who are saying "we aren't violent, we don't want to hurt anyone" based on the violent actions of a tiny minority of extremists. People in favor of violence against Nazis are advocating it against people who are saying "we are violent, we want to exterminate anyone who doesn't fit our standards of racial purity". To be Muslim is not inherently to be violent. To be a Nazi is. The only non-violent Nazis are those who are not yet powerful enough to use violence in pursuit of horrifying evil.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: You've building this weird kind of logic where if you don't use violence against someone now when they're just using words, then you become incapable of using violence against them later if they start taking actions. This is obviously wrong and utterly contrived. It is an invention by you purely because you like the idea of using violence against some other people.
The issue is that if you let Nazis get to the point of actually committing mass murder or other acts of violence it's probably too late to stop them without a foreign power stepping in. By that point the Nazis have the support of the majority and the power of the state available to defend themselves. You can try to use violence but you probably aren't going to succeed, much like internal resistance in Nazi Germany failed and only defeat in war (at the cost of millions of lives) managed to stop the slaughter.
But even ignoring the importance of open debate in a functioning democracy, on an immediate, anti-nazi level shifting over from debate to violence is a really stupid decision for anyone who isn't a nazi. Nazis don't win with debates - their arguments are utterly, exceptionally horrible. But nazis are actually pretty good at violence. Before Hitler took power the movement grew largely through shows of force, mostly against the socialists. There was a long series of street battles, and the nazis owned that gak, they belted hell out of the socialists. Crazy, angry racists are people you want to take on in a battle of minds, not fists.
This may be true of history, especially if you let the Nazis grow to a point where they have enough numbers to win. If the price of not letting them get organized to that point is Nazis getting punched in the face until they're too afraid to speak in public then that's a price I'm willing to pay.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/24 07:32:31
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Unfortunately his actions are legal under US law, much like Hitler's were legal under German law.
Nope, many of Hitler's actions weren't legal. The SA were formed early in Hitler's rise to power to attack political enemies, which you may note is illegal. Hitler then attempted his Beer Hall Putsch, they captured government buildings and 20 people died. Coups are pretty damn illegal, and Hitler ended up doing five years for high treason.
The issue with Hitler's rise to power isn't that he committed no crimes, the issue is with how ridiculously lenient the authorities were. There was no political will to pursue the acts of violence undertaken by Nazi thugs up the chain of command. And after the coup, Hitler managed to have the NDSAP made legal again after his release from prison, because he really, really promised he'd be lawful from now on. The Nazis kept using violence, but efforts to penalize the Nazis through the courts for their continued violence and intimidation was minimal.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: The issue with Hitler's rise to power isn't that he committed no crimes, the issue is with how ridiculously lenient the authorities were. There was no political will to pursue the acts of violence undertaken by Nazi thugs up the chain of command. And after the coup, Hitler managed to have the NDSAP made legal again after his release from prison, because he really, really promised he'd be lawful from now on. The Nazis kept using violence, but efforts to penalize the Nazis through the courts for their continued violence and intimidation was minimal.
This is true, there were acts that were technically illegal, but de facto legal because the state accepted them. Whatever the academic debate on the legality of Hitler's actions may be the practical situation was that you couldn't call the police and have Hitler arrested for murder over the death camps. Any solution to the Nazis had to come outside the law, either by internal resistance illegally killing Nazis and retaking the country or by external invasion and conquest destroying the Nazi military and government.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 07:52:22
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
NinthMusketeer wrote: First of I mean this in the most straightforward way possible. This isn't about spite or anger or anything, it's just about discussion.
Can we either put Whembly, Peregrine, etc on ignore, or just not respond to them unless they are in the realm of sanity? Huge sections of this thread are responses to a handful of posters pointing out the same errors in logic over and over to no avail. It's to the point where the discussion isn't politics so much as vainly attempting to correct their views on politics. Of course when someone comes in with something illogical it makes sense to point out the flaws and such, but there are a handful of posters who end up dominating this thread though sheer repetition of the same bad logic over and over. It's been explained, the evidence has been laid out, and the case has been proven dozens of times but certain individuals simply refuse to be budged and I think we should just accept that and move on rather than sidelining things so often.
Or in other words, it's one thing to engage a person with radically different views in a discussion, but quite another to continue trying after that person has proven to be talking at you rather than with you.
It seems at least as disruptive as a rule 1 violation. I'd much prefer to be called a fethtard than be forced to engage in Groundhog Day hell.
This thread is for US politics discussion. At the moment we're being bogged down way too much in one or two things which are barely related. So let's end these particular tangents:
-is it right to kill to stop the theoretical rise of a new Hitler
-should we put other users on ignore
-at what point is it ok to punch a nazi
Thanks
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
Edit - it was a nazi post, so per mod request it is gone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 08:10:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether the husbands and wives of gay city employees in Houston deserve spousal benefits, a surprising and rare about-face spurred by pressure from Gov. Greg Abbott and dozens of other top Republicans.
"No city employee — whether heterosexual or homosexual — has a 'fundamental right' to receive employee benefits for his or her spouse," reads the lawsuit against Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. "It is perfectly constitutional for the government to offer benefits or subsidies to some married couples while withholding those benefits from others."
... ..separate but equal has worked so well in the past.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
Yeah what's next? Offer them based on political belief? Religion? Eye color? Slippery slope that one. Why one married couple should be allowed but not other?
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
Yeah what's next? Offer them based on political belief? Religion? Eye color? Slippery slope that one. Why one married couple should be allowed but not other?
Next thing you know our entire society will be structured by height
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 10:39:46
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
Yeah what's next? Offer them based on political belief? Religion? Eye color? Slippery slope that one. Why one married couple should be allowed but not other?
Republicans. Nothing but trouble.
I don't see how this legal argument survives judicial scrutiny. At the same time, the city is offering this to all spouses so I don't even see where the suing party has requisite interest to bring a suit.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Jehan-reznor wrote: Violence is never the answer, especially if you claim the moral high ground, then you are just a hypocrite.
To the contrary, if you look at politics throughout history you will notice that violence has been the answer A LOT of times. We still like to think that we live in "the end of history" so that doesn't apply to us, but I think people are gonna have rude awakening regarding that in the coming decades.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 12:27:53
Jehan-reznor wrote: Violence is never the answer, especially if you claim the moral high ground, then you are just a hypocrite.
To the contrary, if you look at politics throughout history you will notice that violence has been the answer A LOT of times. We still like to think that we live in "the end of history" so that doesn't apply to us, but I think people are gonna have rude awakening regarding that the coming decades.
And invariably it has created new problems.
Violence doesn't solve answers. It just changes them into new one. Like current refugee and terrorism problems. Bush&co tried to solve problem with bombs and we got just new problem instead
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
But then it is Texas (hide me from Frazzled...)
Evidently the State of Texas doesn't adhere to any discrimination laws... It'd take one lawyer to say "swap the word gay for black, etc" to have the thing dropped.
Though the history of equal rights would infer that it won't be as simple as that, and god, if it somehow goes through then that's an awful president to set.
"Don't tell me violence doesn't solve anything. Look at Carthage."
And if we really want to get philosophical about it;
“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence.”
Within Heinlein's (fascist Heinlein, not hippy Heinlein ) conception of politics, he reverses Clausewitz's maxim "war is the continuation of politics through other means" to categorize the state as an inherently violent force. The electorate in a democratic system cannot absolve itself of violent action by its very nature, not can the state wield power irresponsibly and without limit least the system collapse on itself (which ironically just swing the whole thing into a circle of violence ain't that depressing?). So go grab yourself a copy of Starship Troopers (you only need to read like... half of it), and for further reading I suggest Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth as a useful counter point, because a mod kindly asked for an end to discussions concerning the morality and supremacy of violent action that have nothing to really do with US Politics
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: Evidently the State of Texas doesn't adhere to any discrimination laws... It'd take one lawyer to say "swap the word gay for black, etc" to have the thing dropped.
Damn it would be nice if it were that easy, but it probably won't be XD
And I say that for the same reason a football fan gets up for a beer on the third down; the superstitious hope that it'll all work out in the end
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 12:57:10
... TBf you don't see many people trying to get into North Korea so maybe it's part of a rebranding exercise.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
But then it is Texas (hide me from Frazzled...)
Evidently the State of Texas doesn't adhere to any discrimination laws... It'd take one lawyer to say "swap the word gay for black, etc" to have the thing dropped.
Though the history of equal rights would infer that it won't be as simple as that, and god, if it somehow goes through then that's an awful president to set.
Evidently you're...wrong else there wouldn't be lawsuits about it now would there.
But you are correct. GLBT is not a protected category.
Its an interesting legal argument as there are situation where more benefits are effectively given, but I don't think it will hold in court. This impacts a whole variety of issues, not just their weird thing about targeting "Dem Gayz" so expect it will get rocked back quickly. Even if not, nothing keeping the employer from voluntarily providing benefits which most majors do now (example-Apple providing LBGT spousal benefits before marriage was legal).
Strange though as to get to this they would have had to have solved all the other problems yet there still seem to be some.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether the husbands and wives of gay city employees in Houston deserve spousal benefits, a surprising and rare about-face spurred by pressure from Gov. Greg Abbott and dozens of other top Republicans.
"No city employee — whether heterosexual or homosexual — has a 'fundamental right' to receive employee benefits for his or her spouse," reads the lawsuit against Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. "It is perfectly constitutional for the government to offer benefits or subsidies to some married couples while withholding those benefits from others."
... ..separate but equal has worked so well in the past.
Very disappointed that Turner is supporting this discrimination, but I imagine it is in response to the political backlash against the HERO ordinance (centered around, you guessed it, bathrooms....). And while the former mayor certainly seemed to only be concerned with LGBT issues at the expense of other major concerns, I don't see the logic in spending resources defending this position. You see, Houston has serious financial issues, including pension liabilities, under maintained infrastructure (roads) and huge bills from capital expenditures (like the Superbowl).
Which seems to be a common theme in modern American politics- ignoring the nitty gritty stuff like budgets and financial issues, then clashing on peripheral social policies (like bathroom legislation).
I don't think one can deny that whilst the handover hasn't been THE END OF THE WORLD !!! nigh on instantaneously as some of the more...err..... enthusiastic ... people would've had you believe , it's also true that some of the things that have happened don't appear to be well or at times at all , thought out.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
... people would've had you believe , it's also true that some of the things that have happened don't appear to be well or at times at all , thought out.