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.
Da Boss wrote: Do you really think the media paints Palestinians as eternal victims? We must watch really different media.
Its the same tone as I'm seeing here. The Palestinians are either the downtrodden masses (throw in some pictures of screaming mothers), or freedom fighters standing up to a tyrant. Where every other instance of criticism against them is retorted by "but the Israelis made them do it".
It just seems weird that in other conflicts people are fine to criticise terrorists, though in this one its difficult not to jump on the victim blaming. "Palestians have been burning loads of Israeli land this past month". - "The Israelis did it first!", yeah, but that's whitewashing the issue and turning every discussion into "meh, eye for an eye" without addressing anything.
From the Israeli standpoint they're being attacked by a terrorist force whilst the world justifies the terrorist's actions. As I said earlier, this level of apologism wouldn't really fly if it were ISIS attacking Western cities.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/03 15:38:13
Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east.
Ignoring incredibly problematic language like ‘invasive species’, this Ashkenormative picture of Israeli Jews is very misleading. Only around a quarter of Israeli’s are Ashkenazi.
Most Mizrahi in Israel arrived post-independence.
The initial flows were very much European. The 1st to 5th Aliyahs were very much an European affair.
I know. This doesn’t make the statement I challenged any less misleading.
From the Israeli standpoint they're being attacked by a terrorist force whilst the world justifies the terrorist's actions. As I said earlier, this level of apologism wouldn't really fly if it were ISIS attacking Western cities.
That may be true from the Israeli standpoint, but that does not make it universally true. It's like saying that Donald Trump is the greatest president the US has ever known. It may be true to his followers, but it's not an actual objective truth.
Let me use a more extreme example from the past:
Nazis invade France, partisans fight an asymmetrical war against them. What groups like the Maquis did was, by the standards both then and now, absolutely 'terrorism'. So, when the Nazis slaughtered whole villages in what we now would call COIN, were they justified?
I mean, if the French had done that to English troops, surly the Allies would not have had such a high opinion of them.
See, when people perceive a group as being on their 'side' anything goes. Which, again, was my point earlier with the IRA. The US didn't see the IRA as an enemy and, in fact, a lot of Americans saw the Irish as an oppressed people, and thus morally had no issue with supporting terrorism, as they felt it was justified. On the flip side, the US also supports despotic regimes who oppress all sorts of people, and calls anyone who opposes those regimes 'terrorists' and oks the murder of their families with drone strikes, and Americans feel that's morally justified too.
Do you see the issue yet? It's not whether or not their actions are reprehensible, it's the perception that a group is an enemy. Not the reality of it, not how horrific their acts, just if they seem to be for us or against us. That's why the west loves Israel and it can do no wrong, and that's why the Arabs love Palestine and it can do no wrong. The issue really is in how people think.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Well, the West does pretty much rule the world...
But I agree that doesn't say anything about right or wrong.
Define pretty much. The West is currently dominant under the hegemony of the US, but it hardly has control of the world. If the West was honestly in total control/ruling the world, it would look a lot different.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Da Boss wrote: Do you really think the media paints Palestinians as eternal victims? We must watch really different media.
Its the same tone as I'm seeing here. The Palestinians are either the downtrodden masses (throw in some pictures of screaming mothers), or freedom fighters standing up to a tyrant. Where every other instance of criticism against them is retorted by "but the Israelis made them do it".
It just seems weird that in other conflicts people are fine to criticise terrorists, though in this one its difficult not to jump on the victim blaming. "Palestians have been burning loads of Israeli land this past month". - "The Israelis did it first!", yeah, but that's whitewashing the issue and turning every discussion into "meh, eye for an eye" without addressing anything.
From the Israeli standpoint they're being attacked by a terrorist force whilst the world justifies the terrorist's actions. As I said earlier, this level of apologism wouldn't really fly if it were ISIS attacking Western cities.
No of course not. Because we ('we' meaning Europeans) are a direct party in the conflict against ISIS. ISIS is our enemy, we don't want to justify their actions. But the Palestinians aren't our enemy, and neither is Israel. Europe is pretty impartial in that conflict, and so both sides get constant criticism, because where two fight, there is two to blame, and both sides are bad. If criticism for Israel seems more frequent, than that is due to the fact that people expect more from Israel, Israel being a democracy that has close ties with the West and having vastly more means at its disposal to facilitate an end to the conflict than the Palestinians do. Not to mention that Israel has the upper hand in the conflict and that its actions frequently cost massive amounts of Palestinian lives, making them objectively worse than the Palestinian actions, who are no longer capable of doing anything really bad to Israel anymore.
Well, the West does pretty much rule the world... But I agree that doesn't say anything about right or wrong.
Define pretty much. The West is currently dominant under the hegemony of the US, but it hardly has control of the world. If the West was honestly in total control/ruling the world, it would look a lot different.
Pretty much meaning that while Western countries may not rule the world directly, their wealth, influence and power are so vast that they can indirectly rule over virtually all other countries in the world. Not to mention that the international institutions, international laws, human rights and everything was also determined and imposed on the rest of the world by the West. And that is before going into how the West has in the past literally drawn the borders, installed governments, forced their religions and languages and determined and shaped pretty much everything for large parts of the world to their own benefit. Just look at how difficult governments that directly oppose the West are having it. Cuba, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea and plenty of others provide example enough. Also, ruling does not automatically mean being in total control. Total control over what they are ruling is pretty much the dream of every ruler and government I guess, but no ruler or government has ever managed to achieve that.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/06/03 19:35:11
Well, the West does pretty much rule the world...
But I agree that doesn't say anything about right or wrong.
Define pretty much. The West is currently dominant under the hegemony of the US, but it hardly has control of the world. If the West was honestly in total control/ruling the world, it would look a lot different.
Pretty much meaning that while Western countries may not rule the world directly, their wealth, influence and power are so vast that they can indirectly rule over virtually all other countries in the world. Not to mention that the international institutions, international laws, human rights and everything was also determined and imposed on the rest of the world by the West. And that is before going into how the West has in the past literally drawn the borders, installed governments, forced their religions and languages and determined and shaped pretty much everything for large parts of the world to their own benefit. Just look at how difficult governments that directly oppose the West are having it. Cuba, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea and plenty of others provide example enough. Also, ruling does not automatically mean being in total control. Total control over what they are ruling is pretty much the dream of every ruler and government I guess, but no ruler or government has ever managed to achieve that.
Which is not the same as the West being able to "rule the world at our discretion", hence simply untrue. If it was at our discretion those difficult governments wouldn't exist and a lot of those concepts you mention would go a lot farther.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/03 19:39:29
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
The media put out a picture of a random ex-IDF soldier and ran with the story that this American born Jew had accomplished her dream of going to Israel, only to shoot that medic. In reality she'd left the country two years ago.
Which is problematic as discussions on the subject have gone from their original "kill this American Jew, they're all evil!" to "oh, so it wasn't her. Big deal, she'd have done it given the opportunity". It really hurts your argument if when presented with a story being false you double down on the agenda that the false story was trying to perpetuate.
As with other fake stories, its falsity doesn't matter. Even after the truth comes out the public have already experienced the story, and many won't be following up on it. Instead they'll just roll over onto another story.
The media put out a picture of a random ex-IDF soldier and ran with the story that this American born Jew had accomplished her dream of going to Israel, only to shoot that medic. In reality she'd left the country two years ago.
Which is problematic as discussions on the subject have gone from their original "kill this American Jew, they're all evil!" to "oh, so it wasn't her. Big deal, she'd have done it given the opportunity". It really hurts your argument if when presented with a story being false you double down on the agenda that the false story was trying to perpetuate.
Well, it doesn't help your argument either when you don't get the facts from the article YOU personally, linked either.
What happened here was one American (not the media you seem to have an axe to grind with) doxed another and accused her of being the killer. Then the usual BS on facebook and reddit and twitter began, and the Media then assumed there was a story here. Turns out there wasn't.
But boy does it make the Palestinians look bad, so the pro Israel press runs it. Even though everyone actually involved was an American.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
So, then Germany was right to conquer France, then? I mean, they ruled you, so their view was better, so you were wrong to oppose them, then, correct? Same logic there.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/03 20:51:39
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
The media put out a picture of a random ex-IDF soldier and ran with the story that this American born Jew had accomplished her dream of going to Israel, only to shoot that medic. In reality she'd left the country two years ago.
Which is problematic as discussions on the subject have gone from their original "kill this American Jew, they're all evil!" to "oh, so it wasn't her. Big deal, she'd have done it given the opportunity". It really hurts your argument if when presented with a story being false you double down on the agenda that the false story was trying to perpetuate.
Well, it doesn't help your argument either when you don't get the facts from the article YOU personally, linked either.
What happened here was one American (not the media you seem to have an axe to grind with) doxed another and accused her of being the killer. Then the usual BS on facebook and reddit and twitter began, and the Media then assumed there was a story here. Turns out there wasn't.
But boy does it make the Palestinians look bad, so the pro Israel press runs it. Even though everyone actually involved was an American.
...Are you disputing my use of the word media here, or is there some other point of contention? I'm entirely confused, as I don't see anything in what you said which isn't reflected in my post. Maybe I should be choosing my words better, though the way you're leaping on my post seems like you're trying to start a dispute over nothing.
...Are you disputing my use of the word media here,
Yes, I really don't see a random person in the US doxing another random person in the US and accusing them of murder as 'the media' which has a somewhat larger implication.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Ah, ignoring my whole point that the issue was then picked up by others on social media and elsewhere who made into a larger thing rather than just a doxing incident among individuals? ...Or is it just that easy to ignore the point of the article regarding the parroting of stuff like "the story may be fake, but she's still guilty!".
Well, the West does pretty much rule the world... But I agree that doesn't say anything about right or wrong.
Define pretty much. The West is currently dominant under the hegemony of the US, but it hardly has control of the world. If the West was honestly in total control/ruling the world, it would look a lot different.
Pretty much meaning that while Western countries may not rule the world directly, their wealth, influence and power are so vast that they can indirectly rule over virtually all other countries in the world. Not to mention that the international institutions, international laws, human rights and everything was also determined and imposed on the rest of the world by the West. And that is before going into how the West has in the past literally drawn the borders, installed governments, forced their religions and languages and determined and shaped pretty much everything for large parts of the world to their own benefit. Just look at how difficult governments that directly oppose the West are having it. Cuba, Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea and plenty of others provide example enough. Also, ruling does not automatically mean being in total control. Total control over what they are ruling is pretty much the dream of every ruler and government I guess, but no ruler or government has ever managed to achieve that.
Which is not the same as the West being able to "rule the world at our discretion", hence simply untrue. If it was at our discretion those difficult governments wouldn't exist and a lot of those concepts you mention would go a lot farther.
We fully lead the world. We don't tell each citizen in the world when to poop and when to sleep, of course, if this is what you understood. I didn't mean that. In addition, this would be against our very own values that we spread all over the world. But, we are in a world that we shaped, for our own interest, and in which we hold all the cards. We don't need to destroy every regime on Earth, as long as they don't clearly threathen us, because this is coslty (in money and in men, unfortunately). No need to fix what isn't broken. Simple as that. And the Gaza / Israeli violences show it pretty clearly: people throw some rocks at Tsahal, and Tsahal kill them and noone even notice it. We can clearly see that when you are in the "good" side, you do pretty much as you want
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs. Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
So, then Germany was right to conquer France, then? I mean, they ruled you, so their view was better, so you were wrong to oppose them, then, correct? Same logic there.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs. Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
I don't think you know what fascism means, seriously. That's closer to "might make right" than fascism. And how is this anti intellectual (for whatever it means) and anti rational ? What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth and that we should share our wealth and that we will all live together friendly for ever with butterlfies and flowers, hand in hand ?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/03 23:28:25
House-bulldozing and field-burning is the typical collective punishment doled out from the Israeli side.
It really is just that difficult for people to discuss this topic without falling back on this eye for an eye nonsense.
Ultimately, yes it's bad, and the Palestinians should cut that sort of thing out. However, the fire kites have been mentioned before (I thought in this thread, though I may have been mistaken) and been mentioned or featured on just about every major news network. The issue is, the damage inflicted is negligible in terms of the stuff people care about (lives and homes), and among the great see of examples of horrible things all sides can point to, it's a minor talking point in the grand scheme of things. A wildfire in a nature reserve kicked off by teenage arsonists tends not to generate as much concern as 60 dead on a border wall.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/04 00:21:48
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.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth?
How did that go again...
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/04 01:09:01
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
godardc wrote: [
We fully lead the world. We don't tell each citizen in the world when to poop and when to sleep, of course, if this is what you understood. I didn't mean that. In addition, this would be against our very own values that we spread all over the world. But, we are in a world that we shaped, for our own interest, and in which we hold all the cards. We don't need to destroy every regime on Earth, as long as they don't clearly threathen us, because this is coslty (in money and in men, unfortunately). No need to fix what isn't broken. Simple as that.
And the Gaza / Israeli violences show it pretty clearly: people throw some rocks at Tsahal, and Tsahal kill them and noone even notice it. We can clearly see that when you are in the "good" side, you do pretty much as you want.
When you say things like "rule the world at our discretion" and "we hold all the cards", those two statements are easily proven to be false. If this was actually true there would be quite a few regime changes around the world. We hold a good number of cards, but by no means all, as demonstrated by the limited reach of Trump.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
I think a certain chosen people of Israel might like a word on "suffered the most."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/04 05:40:04
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Example: I see the Israelis as an invasive species of Europeans colonizing the middle east.
Ignoring incredibly problematic language like ‘invasive species’, this Ashkenormative picture of Israeli Jews is very misleading. Only around a quarter of Israeli’s are Ashkenazi.
Most Mizrahi in Israel arrived post-independence.
The initial flows were very much European. The 1st to 5th Aliyahs were very much an European affair.
I know. This doesn’t make the statement I challenged any less misleading.
Still it's an interesting thing to remark since the conversation goes on and off about the founding of the state of Israel.
House-bulldozing and field-burning is the typical collective punishment doled out from the Israeli side.
It really is just that difficult for people to discuss this topic without falling back on this eye for an eye nonsense.
Ultimately, yes it's bad, and the Palestinians should cut that sort of thing out. However, the fire kites have been mentioned before (I thought in this thread, though I may have been mistaken) and been mentioned or featured on just about every major news network. The issue is, the damage inflicted is negligible in terms of the stuff people care about (lives and homes), and among the great see of examples of horrible things all sides can point to, it's a minor talking point in the grand scheme of things. A wildfire in a nature reserve kicked off by teenage arsonists tends not to generate as much concern as 60 dead on a border wall.
Which was my point. Field burning is so common (and bipartisan) it's discussed every now and then but it hardly makes the news because there's much worse going on there to warrant anything other than local coverage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/04 06:36:58
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
I don't think you know what fascism means, seriously. That's closer to "might make right" than fascism. And how is this anti intellectual (for whatever it means) and anti rational ?
What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth and that we should share our wealth and that we will all live together friendly for ever with butterlfies and flowers, hand in hand ?
Don't take it from me, take it from Hitler:
Adolf friggin' Hitler, Mein Kampf pg. 240 wrote:
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people
ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a
culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
The "inexorable law" that gives the strong the "right to endure" and the inherent superiority of a culture that rules by virtue of force is pretty damn close to what you just said.
"Might makes right" is a cornerstone of fascist politics. The usage of force to further the interests of the desired class, whether that be through annexing more Lebensraum, seizing the economically important parts of China, or advocating the drowning of people in the Aegean, is fundamentally fascist.
It's anti-intellectual and anti-rational because it places the opinion of the person with the biggest stick above that of the person who actually has a clue what he or she is talking about. Look at the whole process with Galileo as an example; Galileo was objectively right, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. The Catholic church used its potential violence to supress Galileo, but that doesn't change the fact that he was objectively right anyway; "e pur si muove", as the saying goes.
The position that you advocate is thus not compatible with the scientific method. It's a throwback to an era when humanity was more narrow-minded, more brutish, and altogether less pleasant beings than today. It's monstrously authoritarian and only serves to let one group of people thrive at the expense of everyone else. It is an ideology of thugs and dictators and one that has only ever brought misery, fear, and hate for everyone who isn't part of the favoured clique of whatever brand of fascism was en vogue at the time. Nazi Germany is a perfect, schoolbook example: "Jüdische Physik" was disparaged as depraved and degenerate. That didn't stop it from making Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappear in fireballs.
You claim to be against corruption, and yet you espouse an ideology that inevitably leads to cronyism, patronage and the extinguishing of meritocracy. When might makes right, it doesn't matter if you're much better at your job than someone else if that person has the right connections to the people with the might.
As for my opinion on the subject, I'm an adherent of constructivism and constructionism. Reality becomes, to an extent, what we make of it. When we make of reality one where we insist that might makes right, we throw away the potential of the scientific method and rationalism which is the single biggest driver of human prosperity since the 1600s. We throw away meritocracy. We throw away basic decency and empathy. We give up all hope of even trying to improve and instead just kill everyone who we don't like.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
I think the Polish probably suffered the most. Not to undermine their plight which was truely horrific - Russians also gained the most from WW2 and took advantage of the situation...Just like Israel did when they were invaded.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/04 17:57:36
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
No, I was implying that he was starting to smell like a Russian troll pretending to be French. Since pretty much every actual Frenchman I've ever met would have responded pretty negatively to the idea of just letting the Nazis rule over France, no matter how many lives it cost. Mind you, most of said Frenchmen also fought in WW2, so there may be a connection there.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Are you implying Russians were collaborators? How dare you! It was the Russians who fought the hardest of all people against the Nazis, and who suffered the most.
No, I was implying that he was starting to smell like a Russian troll pretending to be French. Since pretty much every actual Frenchman I've ever met would have responded pretty negatively to the idea of just letting the Nazis rule over France, no matter how many lives it cost. Mind you, most of said Frenchmen also fought in WW2, so there may be a connection there.
Being opposed to nazi rule and standing up to nazi rule are two different things. Even Pétain, the national hero of Verdun surrendered to the Nazis, and led Vichy France for the Nazis. The French today even recognize that the Résistance was little more than propaganda to make themselves feel better about capitulating. The actual Résistance was prone to attacking other resistance groups instead of the nazis because they were more concerned with their own power base than with dislodging the nazis, it was so bad the allies stopped supplying them with guns.
Calling godard a collaborator is extremely unfair to his character.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/05 00:27:39
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs. Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
I don't think you know what fascism means, seriously. That's closer to "might make right" than fascism. And how is this anti intellectual (for whatever it means) and anti rational ? What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth and that we should share our wealth and that we will all live together friendly for ever with butterlfies and flowers, hand in hand ?
Don't take it from me, take it from Hitler:
Adolf friggin' Hitler, Mein Kampf pg. 240 wrote: The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
The "inexorable law" that gives the strong the "right to endure" and the inherent superiority of a culture that rules by virtue of force is pretty damn close to what you just said.
"Might makes right" is a cornerstone of fascist politics. The usage of force to further the interests of the desired class, whether that be through annexing more Lebensraum, seizing the economically important parts of China, or advocating the drowning of people in the Aegean, is fundamentally fascist.
It's anti-intellectual and anti-rational because it places the opinion of the person with the biggest stick above that of the person who actually has a clue what he or she is talking about. Look at the whole process with Galileo as an example; Galileo was objectively right, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. The Catholic church used its potential violence to supress Galileo, but that doesn't change the fact that he was objectively right anyway; "e pur si muove", as the saying goes.
The position that you advocate is thus not compatible with the scientific method. It's a throwback to an era when humanity was more narrow-minded, more brutish, and altogether less pleasant beings than today. It's monstrously authoritarian and only serves to let one group of people thrive at the expense of everyone else. It is an ideology of thugs and dictators and one that has only ever brought misery, fear, and hate for everyone who isn't part of the favoured clique of whatever brand of fascism was en vogue at the time. Nazi Germany is a perfect, schoolbook example: "Jüdische Physik" was disparaged as depraved and degenerate. That didn't stop it from making Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappear in fireballs.
You claim to be against corruption, and yet you espouse an ideology that inevitably leads to cronyism, patronage and the extinguishing of meritocracy. When might makes right, it doesn't matter if you're much better at your job than someone else if that person has the right connections to the people with the might.
As for my opinion on the subject, I'm an adherent of constructivism and constructionism. Reality becomes, to an extent, what we make of it. When we make of reality one where we insist that might makes right, we throw away the potential of the scientific method and rationalism which is the single biggest driver of human prosperity since the 1600s. We throw away meritocracy. We throw away basic decency and empathy. We give up all hope of even trying to improve and instead just kill everyone who we don't like.
The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.). Science IS might. Science is a wonderful thing, I even made a Science thread ! I am no believer, I am for freedom of research and Science, and this is why I am for the mightiest: it is always Science that win at the end. Taking others thing into consideration is the beggining of the end, the beggining of the waning, when stupid and weak people are equal to the good and bright men and cared as much as them. Might is the only thing able to protect us from thugs and dictators: look at your beloved WW2, when weak democraties tried to negociate with thug Germany, who bullied them hard Fascism and might make right IS meritocracy. ,Liberal democracies especially, care only for equality and NOT truth or meritocraty. I have never advocated for the killing of "the ones we don't like"....
You seem obsessed with WWII and Godwin points, sir. If you really want to know, If I were living under the Third Reich dominion, I wouldn't be stupid enough to oppose them and get my town destroyed.
WW2 is full of such good examples that everyone understands, it's hard to pass up. And good to know that your thankful town would slit your throat in the night for your collaborating. For someone supposedly French, you smell awfully Russian.
What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth?
How did that go again...
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence.
Ok that's nice, but/ why should I care about what a guy wrote in the declaration of independance of an other country so many years ago ? Lots of men wrote lots of things, and I don't think the thoughts of one man, you, me or he, to be more valuable just because he is famous.
To stay on subject, do you think we will, in our lifetime, see the end of this conflict ? If yes, how ? Frankly I don't think so
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/05 01:16:19
godardc wrote: Ok maybe, but there is an important point: we, The West, rule the world at our discretion, and not the Arabs.
Therefore, our view is the better, and then, the palestinian are wrong
That's pretty close to the definition of fascism. It's also anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and a thoroughly disgusting world-view, in my opinion.
I don't think you know what fascism means, seriously. That's closer to "might make right" than fascism. And how is this anti intellectual (for whatever it means) and anti rational ?
What is your opinion, that every people is created equal on Earth and that we should share our wealth and that we will all live together friendly for ever with butterlfies and flowers, hand in hand ?
Don't take it from me, take it from Hitler:
Adolf friggin' Hitler, Mein Kampf pg. 240 wrote:
The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people
ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a
culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.
He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.
The "inexorable law" that gives the strong the "right to endure" and the inherent superiority of a culture that rules by virtue of force is pretty damn close to what you just said.
"Might makes right" is a cornerstone of fascist politics. The usage of force to further the interests of the desired class, whether that be through annexing more Lebensraum, seizing the economically important parts of China, or advocating the drowning of people in the Aegean, is fundamentally fascist.
It's anti-intellectual and anti-rational because it places the opinion of the person with the biggest stick above that of the person who actually has a clue what he or she is talking about. Look at the whole process with Galileo as an example; Galileo was objectively right, the Earth does revolve around the Sun. The Catholic church used its potential violence to supress Galileo, but that doesn't change the fact that he was objectively right anyway; "e pur si muove", as the saying goes.
The position that you advocate is thus not compatible with the scientific method. It's a throwback to an era when humanity was more narrow-minded, more brutish, and altogether less pleasant beings than today. It's monstrously authoritarian and only serves to let one group of people thrive at the expense of everyone else. It is an ideology of thugs and dictators and one that has only ever brought misery, fear, and hate for everyone who isn't part of the favoured clique of whatever brand of fascism was en vogue at the time. Nazi Germany is a perfect, schoolbook example: "Jüdische Physik" was disparaged as depraved and degenerate. That didn't stop it from making Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappear in fireballs.
You claim to be against corruption, and yet you espouse an ideology that inevitably leads to cronyism, patronage and the extinguishing of meritocracy. When might makes right, it doesn't matter if you're much better at your job than someone else if that person has the right connections to the people with the might.
As for my opinion on the subject, I'm an adherent of constructivism and constructionism. Reality becomes, to an extent, what we make of it. When we make of reality one where we insist that might makes right, we throw away the potential of the scientific method and rationalism which is the single biggest driver of human prosperity since the 1600s. We throw away meritocracy. We throw away basic decency and empathy. We give up all hope of even trying to improve and instead just kill everyone who we don't like.
The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.). Science IS might. Science is a wonderful thing, I even made a Science thread ! I am no believer, I am for freedom of research and Science, and this is why I am for the mightiest: it is always Science that win at the end. Taking others thing into consideration is the beggining of the end, the beggining of the waning, when stupid and weak people are equal to the good and bright men and cared as much as them.
Might is the only thing able to protect us from thugs and dictators: look at your beloved WW2, when weak democraties tried to negociate with thug Germany, who bullied them hard Fascism and might make right IS meritocracy. ,Liberal democracies especially, care only for equality and NOT truth or meritocraty.
I have never advocated for the killing of "the ones we don't like"....
So how come the Fascists lost WW2? I'll answer my own question: because the democracies could shift gear and realize that their old ways of thinking didn't work anymore, leverage their diverse skillset and acceptance of diverging ideas, and leverage that to create a situation where they were more powerful than the Fascists. The Fascists, meanwhile, reaped huge successes at first when Blitzkrieg proved to be a really successful counter to the old strategies of the Allies, but collapsed once their strategies no longer worked, especially against Russia. Humanity's biggest strength is flexibility. Authoritarianism, "might makes right", and fascism throws that flexibility away because it forces people to always watch their back against backstabbers.
Plus, I already showed that "might makes right" is incompatible with meritocracy. Galileo was objectively right, the Catholic church suppressed him using their position of power. "Jüdisches Physik" was correct, Nazi Germany used their position of power to suppress it.
Might is important, as you mentioned, to protect us from those that would use it to bully their way to power, but, to use an old cliché, with great power comes great responsibility. There is no room for humility or self-reflection in a system goverened by brute force, and those two traits above all else are the cornerstones of the scientific theory: the recognition that no one, no matter how illustrious, is flawless. Not even the greatest scientific minds have all the answers in their fields. The more points of view we have to consider a problem from, the bigger the odds that we'll find a solution. Humanism and the scientific method go hand in hand; you cannot have one without the other. Why do you think the USA is world-leading in science? E pluribus unum.
Fascism could work if you had perfect knowledge of what constitutes strength and weakness, stupidity and brilliance, but as you do not it doesn't.
The strongest is, and always was, the most scientifically advanced (look at the glorious years of the Colonization, etc.). Science IS might. Science is a wonderful thing, I even made a Science thread ! I am no believer, I am for freedom of research and Science, and this is why I am for the mightiest: it is always Science that win at the end. Taking others thing into consideration is the beggining of the end, the beggining of the waning, when stupid and weak people are equal to the good and bright men and cared as much as them.
This is the crux of the issue. Who decides who is brilliant and who is stupid? Who is weak and who is strong? Those are just social constructs. Democracy draws its ultimate strength from the fact that there is no greater strength than the population of a country working in relative unison. The strength in a diverse set of minds, being able to consider any given situation from a multitude of angles and coming up with a solution based on those various considerations, is far superior to one that is homogenized and simply follows what it percieves to be "strong".
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
This is the crux of the issue. Who decides who is brilliant and who is stupid? Who is weak and who is strong? Those are just social constructs. Democracy draws its ultimate strength from the fact that there is no greater strength than the population of a country working in relative unison. The strength in a diverse set of minds, being able to consider any given situation from a multitude of angles and coming up with a solution based on those various considerations, is far superior to one that is homogenized and simply follows what it percieves to be "strong".
The above is intrinisically self-defeating as an argument, because it states 'strength' is subjective, before attempting to objectively state that democracy is the 'strongest' system.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a complete advocate of democracy as a system, but I don't buy into the concept that it's inherently a 'superior' or 'stronger' system on account of the fact that 'strength' in any situation is entirely relative to any given matter at hand. So to take the example of military 'strength you've postulated':-
So how come the Fascists lost WW2? I'll answer my own question: because the democracies could shift gear and realize that their old ways of thinking didn't work anymore, leverage their diverse skillset and acceptance of diverging ideas, and leverage that to create a situation where they were more powerful than the Fascists.
You're somewhat barking up the wrong tree. France was a democracy. It lost to Nazi Germany on the battlefield in World War 2. Being a democracy meant nothing in terms of 'strength', at that point.
You could try and argue that democracies are more likely to have stronger economies, but in 1870, the more democratic France was a strong economic power (and theoretically, a stronger military one too). It still lost to Prussia. The economic muscle didn't translate into an effective military muscle in sufficient time.
Equally, military muscle doesn't always mean much at all. Napoleon had a much stronger army than Great Britain did before he invaded Russia. Yet his military 'strength' on the ground meant nothing, because he couldn't move it from Point A to B and invade Britain. His 'strength' was of the wrong type for the goal he wished to accomplish. Hitler faced much the same problem.
The lesson to be learnt here is that vague conceptual 'strength' in potentia as it were, be it economic, military, political, or any other type, means absolutely nothing if it is inapplicable at the point of utility. Are democracies better at R&D? Possibly. I'm not sure. Yet the Soviet Union managed to achieve the ICBM , and modern day China is fast developing it's capabilities in STEM research without converting to being democracies. Certainly, it's not the case that only democracies can do these things, and it might well be possible that other efficiencies imposed by an autocratic system can compensate and give different 'strengths' in other fields to counterbalance any minor decrease in R&D efficiency. It's not something we should have assumptions over.
Stating "Authoritarianism, "might makes right", and fascism throws that flexibility away " and that "might makes right" is incompatible with meritocracy' isn't accurate. The machine underneath an autocracy can easily function in much the same way as if there were a bunch of people standing around casting votes. Democracy matters less then people think when it comes to the making of decisions and flexibility of power structures. If the people at the top of the system want to promote meritocracy throughout it, then meritocracy will be promoted. Meritocracy and democracy are not intrinsically linked concepts, far from it. Why?
Because in any given social hierarchy. you ultimately have people at the top giving orders. Having the ability to collectively remove some of them from office as a nation doesn't affect the fact that there is always people at the top. We work collectively as a species through a complex hierarchy. The means by which the people at the top reach that point is not necessarily relevant as to the social and cultural makeup underneath it. Sure, your meritocracy might not quite extend as far as the most powerful five people in the country, but then again, how many people ever get into those positions to begin with? Making appointments functon differently for that handful of positions doesn't have to affect how the many millions of positions underneath that are appointed, after all.
It's why you can have democracies with cast iron constitutions and institutions from the word go collapse into corrupt, inefficient dictatorships whilst places that literally have royal hangovers and no written constitutions still bumble along as reasonably effective democracies and institutions.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
