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: You're Swedish right? Do they actually have Swedish meatballs in Sweden or is it really just a Narn thing?
Oh, we got them all right.
We just call them meatballs though. Similar to how Germans call a german suplex a suplex and Americans call american football football
What's a "Narn thing"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/22 19:40:52
Do we have a Swedish 2nd Amendment Advocate. Also...Swedish meatballs, real or imagined?
There are meatballs made according to Swedish recipes. Minced meat (pork and beef mix), onions, eggs, some kinda bread crumbs, salt and pepper and maybe a few other spices. That might qualify. I don't know what American Swedish meatballs are. For better or for worse.
As for the 2nd amendment... *shrug* Sure, arm the workers. That's fine with me. But at the same time it's a bad idea to have guns around since they're mostly just going to increase the risk of accidents. So, y'know. A complicated general issue that gets easier the more you specify precisely what is meant and covered.
So, was watching a load of Extra History episodes on youtube and came across one about the Gracchus brothers of Ancient Rome and started to realise it was eerily familiar, specifically the stuff described from 3:35 onwards.
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.
Rosebuddy wrote:[
I think that the primary defence the US has against such a scenario is its citizenry, not its institutions.
Well, isn;t that a terrifying thought.
Is this where I post a brief summary of "It Can't Happen Here?"
I know some US citizens. There are those who very definitely know which side their bread is buttered on in regards to gak going down.
jasper76 wrote: Back to my original point. If Rosebuddy truly believes the following statement he made, he should also be for the banning of "antifa" activists.
Not if what I want is an anarchist democracy. Like, I know why a liberal democracy is more worried about the anarchists than the fascists and of course know that it will do more materially to fight anarchists. I just know which side I'm on.
Well, I hope the dream you have of an "anarchist democracy" is a pleasant one. In the meantime, please do refrain from trying to force your fantasy utopia on the rest of us through violence, mayhem, and destruction. That'd be great.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/22 19:50:04
Fascism (in general use): extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
Emphasis mine.
Facism normally entails more than just being intolerant of other views and has strong authoritarian, nationalist, and other components.
Being intolerant is not in and of itself facism. There's all sorts of stuff society is generally intolerant of. Murder, rape, theft, direct threats or exhortations to violence, etc. Most people generally find intolerance acceptable at some level. The question is always where that line is drawn and for what reasons.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Frazzled wrote: You're Swedish right? Do they actually have Swedish meatballs in Sweden or is it really just a Narn thing?
Oh, we got them all right.
We just call them meatballs though. Similar to how Germans call a german suplex a suplex and Americans call american football football
-"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!
jasper76 wrote: Anarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive. Democracy is a system that forces the will of the majority on everyone.
Not necessarily (depends on what kind of anarchy we're talking about).
Anarchy is politically poorly defined. There are systems of collectivist anarchy that are democratic in nature and function like a confederation. Anarchy is kind of Republic's darker and edgier cousin. It's very broad and constitutes basically any rejection of traditional models of hierarchy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So, was watching a load of Extra History episodes on youtube and came across one about the Gracchus brothers of Ancient Rome and started to realise it was eerily familiar, specifically the stuff described from 3:35 onwards.
This is why the ruling elites always learn the clasics. The same tricks can be used over and over again!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
jasper76 wrote: Anarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive. Democracy is a system that forces the will of the majority on everyone.
Not necessarily (depends on what kind of anarchy we're talking about).
Anarchy is politically poorly defined. There are systems of collectivist anarchy that are democratic in nature and function like a confederation. Anarchy is kind of Republic's darker and edgier cousin. It's very broad and constitutes basically any rejection of traditional models of hierarchy.
Yeah, I edited my post after realizing that anarchy is a pet phrase that means different things to different people.
Anyways, I've had enough for today about groups that are actively trying to destroy our system of government.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/22 19:53:00
jasper76 wrote: Anarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive. Democracy is a system that forces the will of the majority on everyone.
Not necessarily (depends on what kind of anarchy we're talking about).
Anarchy is politically poorly defined. There are systems of collectivist anarchy that are democratic in nature and function like a confederation. Anarchy is kind of Republic's darker and edgier cousin. It's very broad and constitutes basically any rejection of traditional models of hierarchy.
Anarchy is the total absence of rule of law. So yeah, an anarchist democracy is a complete oxymoron. If someone ever tells you they are an anarchist or support/hope for anarchy, punch them in the stomach and take everything they have on their person. Show them what their "governmental system" will give them.
jasper76 wrote: Anarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive. Democracy is a system that forces the will of the majority on everyone.
Not necessarily (depends on what kind of anarchy we're talking about).
Anarchy is politically poorly defined. There are systems of collectivist anarchy that are democratic in nature and function like a confederation. Anarchy is kind of Republic's darker and edgier cousin. It's very broad and constitutes basically any rejection of traditional models of hierarchy.
Anarchy is the total absence of rule of law. So yeah, an anarchist democracy is a complete oxymoron. If someone ever tells you they are an anarchist or support/hope for anarchy, punch them in the stomach and take everything they have on their person. Show them what their "governmental system" will give them.
Anarchism belongs in the "neat idea, bad practice" pile of ideas, along with libertarianism, communism, and theocracy.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
This is a misnomer. The most extreme forms of anarchism posit such, but there is for example Social Anarchism, which is simply the rejection of centralized government at any level. "Popular democracy for all problems" kind of thing. And no ownership of capital. Everyone has to share
I mean that's pretty ridiculous in its own way. Good luck running a country of 300+ million on popular democracy. That's why you should instead endorse Communal Anarchism! Nothing higher than local level government anywhere. If two (or more) communities want to work together that's a okay but they all have to agree to it mutually and in a non-binding manner!
If someone ever tells you they are an anarchist or support/hope for anarchy, punch them in the stomach and take everything they have on their person.
So wait. I'm confused now. Who am I allowed to punch and not punch because I'm getting mixed messages.
If someone ever tells you they are an anarchist or support/hope for anarchy, punch them in the stomach and take everything they have on their person.
So wait. I'm confused now. Who am I allowed to punch and not punch because I'm getting mixed messages.
I think the point being made is that if people who want pure anarchy were actually exposed to it (in this case, by getting punched and robbed without any repercussions for the attacker), they might learn the lesson that they'd be eaten alive if they actually had to endure life in the kind of system they are promoting.
But maybe I should let Just Tony speak for himself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/22 23:34:21
Except anarchy doesn't really posit that. If I lived in an anarchy that lacked criminal charges for assault and battery my response to being punched could include punching back, beating with baseball bat, or just blowing the guys brains out (because if there ain't no criminal justice system everyone's just gonna handle that gak like hollywood cowboys). Which some anarchists might say is a more natural form of justice. I say that's how you get Hatfields and McCoys
LordofHats wrote: Except anarchy doesn't really posit that. If I lived in an anarchy that lacked criminal charges for assault and battery my response to being punched could include punching back, beating with baseball bat, or just blowing the guys brains out (because if there ain't no criminal justice system everyone's just gonna handle that gak like hollywood cowboys). Which some anarchists might say is a more natural form of justice. I say that's how you get Hatfields and McCoys
That's why anarchy is such a pernicious concept. Only the strong would survive. Everyone else would get eaten alive.
I dunno....maybe there are twisted caveman sadists who actually want a system like that.
Libertarianism is anarchism for those who don't like punk rock.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Except (for the third time) few forms of anarchism posit a system with no rules. They reject hierarchy models of governance, not all governance. That's a misnomer created around the same time we were black listing people as communists with little thought given to anything Anarchists actually say and they say a lot of different things. Anarchism gets hit really hard with the "horseshoe effect", in that forms of it exist on both sides of the left-right political spectrum.
If you want to argue against something understand what it is.
LordofHats wrote: Except (for the third time) few forms of anarchism posit a system with no rules. They reject hierarchy models of governance, not all governance. That's a misnomer created around the same time we were black listing people as communists with little thought given to anything Anarchists actually say and they say a lot of different things. Anarchism gets hit really hard with the "horseshoe effect", in that forms of it exist on both sides of the left-right political spectrum.
If you want to argue against something understand what it is.
I do, it's libertarianism with a better soundtrack
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
sebster wrote: Is there a term in science for running an experiment, getting the wrong results and then pretending you never ran an experiment and carrying on regardless? That's not a rhetorical question, is there such a term?
Not that I am aware of, most bunk scientific hypotheses which are found to be unsupported by experiment will typically be changed into some new form which now predicts that specific thing but not something else which will be measured and they change again, and so on.
So they evolve over time, changing to appear like they satisfy experimental conditions but only as tacked on bits afterwards rather than as a direct consequence of the science behind the initial model, rather than just flat out ignoring them.
Where I work, the term for something similar is "dry labbing", which means you just make up the results without actually doing the lab tests.
Hmm, that works for stuff like the Laffer Curve, which appeared with claims of large amounts of research, but was never anything more than a single highly contrived graph.
But what about studies were research was done, and when the results were not what the researcher wanted they just decided to ignore the study entirely? I know this goes on, lots of dodgy labs do research for companies promising them they'll produce results 'proving' their products helps lose weight or reduce wrinkles or whatever. Just wondering if this has a name.
By all means call a racist a racist, but nation with a 1st amendment like yours, has to allow a racist to hold racist views, however distasteful you and I find them to be.
Without free speech, even free speech you disagree with, the free society is dead.
A democracy can't allow people to organise to end it and exterminate minorities, tho. This is a major flaw of liberal democracy. Once plotting mass murder becomes just another position to hold, liberalism has no defense against fascists taking power. After all, they have a right to their opinion and stopping people from having an opinion is what nazis do, so that would be immoral.
If you believe this to be true for whatever you define as the "alt-right", which appears in your case to be limited to neo-Nazis, I hope you also apply this to the fascist "antifa" agitators who show up to left-wing protests in masks, assault their detractors, destroy public and private property, and do not hold back in their views that our entire system of government should be toppled.
If they advocate for ethnic cleansing or the superiority of one ethnicity over others then absolutely yes, of course! But by that time they have probably already been punched by some other antifa group for their strange interpretation of "equality".
If it looks like fascist, talks like a fascist, and acts like a fascist...
You have no idea what fascism is. Anarchists don't espouse the supremacy of races and nations, the might of the state or hatred of weakness and femininity. Quite the contrary. That's why they fight fascists, their ideological opposites.
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee." ~Nietzche
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – Karl Popper
LordofHats wrote: Except (for the third time) few forms of anarchism posit a system with no rules. They reject hierarchy models of governance, not all governance. That's a misnomer created around the same time we were black listing people as communists with little thought given to anything Anarchists actually say and they say a lot of different things. Anarchism gets hit really hard with the "horseshoe effect", in that forms of it exist on both sides of the left-right political spectrum.
If you want to argue against something understand what it is.
Degradation of the language...huge pet peeve of mine. There's no reason for people to have to redefine the term anarchy simply because other people have invented alternative pet definitions for the word.
It's really up to the person deviating from the common understanding to explain their pet meaning, rather than expecting the rest of us who already understand what anarchy means to research umpteen thousand degraded versions of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/22 23:57:17
Degradation of the language...huge pet peeve of mine.
Then you must be in perpetual frustration since language like the universe is always in a state of increasing entropy
There's no reason for people to have to redefine the term anarchy simply because other people have invented alternative pet definitions for the word.
Alternative fact; you, and most people in general, don't understand the word as well as you think you do. Hence my personal pet peeve; people posting high minded and obtuse arguments in opposition to something they don't understand. Anarchist thought goes back over 300 years to the Humanists (guess what else descends from the Humanists? That's right! Enlightenment democracy!). It's a rich literary and philosophical tradition. You can't really boil it down to this binary state you want to make it into.
SO I guess my point would be that ironically, maybe it you who is "degrading the language" by shoehorning a complex word into something simple. Stop degrading my language man!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/23 00:11:24
Degradation of the language...huge pet peeve of mine.
Then you must be in perpetual frustration since language like the universe is always in a state of increasing entropy
There's no reason for people to have to redefine the term anarchy simply because other people have invented alternative pet definitions for the word.
Alternative fact; you, and most people in general, don't understand the word as well as you think you do. Hence my personal pet peeve; people posting high minded and obtuse arguments in opposition to something they don't understand. Anarchist thought goes back over 300 years to the Humanists (guess what else descends from the Humanists? That's right! Enlightenment democracy!). It's a rich literary and philosophical tradition. You can't really boil it down to this binary state you want to make it into.
SO I guess my point would be that ironically, maybe it you who is "degrading the language" by shoehorning a complex word into something simple. Stop degrading my language man!
Gawd!....must I go to the dictionary to communicate with people on this board.
Nevermind. I know what the common definition of anarchy is. You know what the common definition of anarchy is. If you're not in the mood to explain your alternative to the common definition, that's fine by me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/23 00:15:31
Degradation of the language...huge pet peeve of mine.
Then you must be in perpetual frustration since language like the universe is always in a state of increasing entropy
There's no reason for people to have to redefine the term anarchy simply because other people have invented alternative pet definitions for the word.
Alternative fact; you, and most people in general, don't understand the word as well as you think you do. Hence my personal pet peeve; people posting high minded and obtuse arguments in opposition to something they don't understand. Anarchist thought goes back over 300 years to the Humanists (guess what else descends from the Humanists? That's right! Enlightenment democracy!). It's a rich literary and philosophical tradition. You can't really boil it down to this binary state you want to make it into.
SO I guess my point would be that ironically, maybe it you who is "degrading the language" by shoehorning a complex word into something simple. Stop degrading my language man!
Gawd!....must I go to the dictionary to communicate with people on this board.
Nevermind. I know what the common definition of anarchy is. You know what the common definition of anarchy is. If you're not in the mood to explain your alternative to the common definition, that's fine by me.
Jasper, if you can't argue without getting fussy about people using the political terms in a political discussion, maybe it's not for you, hmm?
Seriously, stop with this BS, debating you is incredibly infuriating.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
