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.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).

Yeah, my country engaged in that evil fethery too. I'd like to think we learn from our mistakes though.

Huh? I thought Canadians were always nice (except ya'll burnt down the WhiteHouse at one time ).

Canada ain't nuthin ta feth wit

But, seriously... every country has some history that we're all ashamed of... what matters is that we don't repeat it.

Iceland? They seem pretty cool. Well there was that one time Bjork punched a dude.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.

JFC. . . did you sleep through every year of school history???? Literally every course that discusses how the Fascists in Germany and Italy came into power, and they all generally say the exact fething opposite of what you just did.

Sorry but that just doesn't vibe with the American Conservative myth that undercurrents of violent action make everything more free so obviously it can't possibly be true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 feeder wrote:
'Bama definitely benefitted from a cult of personality.

Only if we equate "people like him" with a cult of personality.

No, I think it was more pronounced than that. It wasn't constructed by state run media, but there was definitely "an idealized, heroic, and worshipful image of a leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise." He rode a wave of "Hope" and "Change" and "Feth Bush" to the presidency, for sure.

I mean, yeah it's not a textbook Cult of Personality, like with Mao, but I remember an atmosphere of overwhelming adulation.

I see what you mean but I think that is just Cult of Personality. The term has taken on a highly negative connotation, but the reality is every world leader who succeeds at all succeeds because they manage to project an image of themselves that their respective societies buy into. That we direct the term mostly at despots and dictators doesn't change that elected and benevolent leaders do the exact same thing in regards to how they present themselves to an audience. It might be subtler in a democratic state but it's still there.

I think the big difference is in how said leaders manage to do so without looking ridiculous. Putin's overt, and often comical, attempts to display and brag about how manliness are humorous. About as humorous as Trumps whole "deal maker" persona. They broach the uncanny valley in a way where they try to present a personality so much larger than life that it calls attention to its own absurdity. Obama might not have been the great hope of change his PR presented, but he managed to carry himself in a way that was professional and lighthearted a lot of the time without become bizarre. He fit into a traditional presentation of American Presidents going back to Washington in that way, so you could say that the Office of the Presidency in general has a sort of Cult built around it, with the various holders of that office generally presenting themselves as fitting into that role.

Greitens is gone

Wonder what changed, he looked set to fight it out.

EDIT: better link.

 d-usa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's your complaint?

That one MOD shut down the gun thread because it’s politics, and another one is now arguing that guns should stay out the politics thread.

I thought it was fairly self explanatory based on your post and Manchu’s posts.

Manchu wrote:Gun politics in the US is US politics. If you don't want to talk about gun politics in the US Politics thread, that's fine. But we are not having multiple US Politics threads much less a series of "monthly" threads of splinter topics.

 Manchu wrote:

The corollary is that the US Politics thread covers everything that could reasonably be considered US politics. Gun politics is not a corner case. To the contrary, no topic could possibly fall more squarely within the ambit of US politics generally..

The moderators will be happy to shut down all US politics threads if people are unable to conduct themselves appropriately.

 whembly wrote:

Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...

Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?

I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:

Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...

Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?

I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:

Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .

Meanwhile Trump can't help himself trying to get the crowd chanting Nobel, a Nobel Prize for doing... what?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's your complaint?

That one MOD shut down the gun thread because it’s politics, and another one is now arguing that guns should stay out the politics thread.

I thought it was fairly self explanatory based on your post and Manchu’s posts.

Manchu wrote:Gun politics in the US is US politics. If you don't want to talk about gun politics in the US Politics thread, that's fine. But we are not having multiple US Politics threads much less a series of "monthly" threads of splinter topics.

 Manchu wrote:

The corollary is that the US Politics thread covers everything that could reasonably be considered US politics. Gun politics is not a corner case. To the contrary, no topic could possibly fall more squarely within the ambit of US politics generally..

The moderators will be happy to shut down all US politics threads if people are unable to conduct themselves appropriately.

While that may be true and totally reasonable, it's also really not got anything to do with the question that was asked.

There is a serious disconnect apparent between moderators at this point. You have one moderator saying that all gun threads belong in US politics, and another moderator saying to keep gun discussion out of the US politic thread.

This is perhaps better suited in Nuts and Bolts; but as it lays currently, it's hard for users to follow the rules when they are explained in two diametrically opposed ways.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's your complaint?

That one MOD shut down the gun thread because it’s politics, and another one is now arguing that guns should stay out the politics thread.

I thought it was fairly self explanatory based on your post and Manchu’s posts.

Manchu wrote:Gun politics in the US is US politics. If you don't want to talk about gun politics in the US Politics thread, that's fine. But we are not having multiple US Politics threads much less a series of "monthly" threads of splinter topics.

 Manchu wrote:

The corollary is that the US Politics thread covers everything that could reasonably be considered US politics. Gun politics is not a corner case. To the contrary, no topic could possibly fall more squarely within the ambit of US politics generally..

The moderators will be happy to shut down all US politics threads if people are unable to conduct themselves appropriately.

Will the moderators be happy to answer the actual question?

Let’s try it as simple as possible:

MOD #1 shut down a gun thread because guns are politics and should be in the politics thread.
MOD #2 says guns should not be in the politics thread and should be in the gun thread.

Can we get some sort of agreement between the MODs who can then let us know which way they actually want this issue to be handled?

I’m really not trying to be a dick here. But less than a month ago I did exactly the thing you did: try to keep guns out of this thread. I made multiple mod alerts, which were ignored. I made a gun thread, which was locked because “guns are politics”. I made a thread in N&B to clarify, and it was made clear that yes, guns = politics.

And now it’s a 180 and “keep the guns out of here” is the message. I have no problem following the rules, but it helps to know what the rules are.

 d-usa wrote:

Will the moderators be happy to answer the actual question?

Let’s try it as simple as possible:

MOD #1 shut down a gun thread because guns are politics and should be in the politics thread.
MOD #2 says guns should not be in the politics thread and should be in the gun thread.

Can we get some sort of agreement between the MODs who can then let us know which way they actually want this issue to be handled?

I'm guessing the Mods had a discussion behind the scenes in the time between your 'offending' thread and the Santa Fe thread and we are going with #2.

Well, the last ruling was that current event threads are still okay, but gun politics are to be discussed in gun politics.

The Hitler myth doesn’t really have much to do with Santa Fe.

But either way, just some actual clarity would be nice.

Yeah I don't care which way we're doing it, but I don't currently understand how it's supposed to be done.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah I don't care which way we're doing it, but I don't currently understand how it's supposed to be done.

Schrodinger's topic. It both is and isn't on topic until a mod sees it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Greitens is gone

Wonder what changed, he looked set to fight it out.

EDIT: better link.

Yup... they got him breaking the law using his charity roll for his campaign. Big no - no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...

Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?

I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:

Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .

...uh... did I write somewhere that he nominated himself? Or insinuated?? I agree, he kinda has to accept it.

All I'm saying is that this is numero uno case example of how much adulation Obama received. I don't think this is controversial.

Is it?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...

Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?

I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:

Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .

Meanwhile Trump can't help himself trying to get the crowd chanting Nobel, a Nobel Prize for doing... what?

Definitely a head scratcher... but, his ego demands it!

 d-usa wrote:
“Bro”, “homie”, “buddy”, I’m done with that crap.

Enjoy your Twitter culture and blog education. I tried to honestly engage despite the childish replies and constant repetition of the same gak over and over again after it gets explained over and over again.

Good riddance.

For those of you new to internet arguments, if your opponents throw up their hands like this, it means you just won.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Meanwhile Trump can't help himself trying to get the crowd chanting Nobel, a Nobel Prize for doing... what?

I can't help but think of Soviet leaders or dictators who awarded themselves chestfuls of medals.

For those of you new to internet arguments:

If you just piss everyone off and they quit, you “win”.

#winning

 d-usa wrote:
For those of you new to internet arguments:

If you just piss everyone off and they quit, you “win”.

#winning

Its not like any of us are actually expecting to change each others minds or opinions of things.

True.

The vast majority of discussions I have are not for the sake of changing the person I’m talking to. I do like the exchange of ideas, if both parties are participating honestly. And I do like to debate the viewpoints for the sake of others who may be reading.

But there is no point engaging people who, after three years, have refused to drop the stupid “brah” crap.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not like any of us are actually expecting to change each others minds or opinions of things.

It's uncommon but it does happen here sometimes.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
For those of you new to internet arguments:

If you just piss everyone off and they quit, you “win”.

#winning

Its not like any of us are actually expecting to change each others minds or opinions of things.

I change my opinion about things as I learn. I used to think flat tax was a good idea. I used to think everyone who is religious is a credulous moron.

Ideals that can't withstand scrutiny are not ideals worth holding.

My opinions on guns has evolved due to some posters on here. Now I just think the people that feel the need to have them are largely idiots rather than them being something that needs to be heavily restricted.

 d-usa wrote:
True.

The vast majority of discussions I have are not for the sake of changing the person I’m talking to. I do like the exchange of ideas, if both parties are participating honestly. And I do like to debate the viewpoints for the sake of others who may be reading.

But there is no point engaging people who, after three years, have refused to drop the stupid “brah” crap.

There's no point in engaging people who have a demonstrated inability to argue in good faith or based on fact. Further, there isn't even an argument to be won when it gets down to things, because insisting that a fiction is true isn't an argument. If someone throws up their hands and quits in face of that no one 'wins' because it wasn't an argument in the first place; that requires taking facts, logic, and counterarguments into account.

 Ouze wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not like any of us are actually expecting to change each others minds or opinions of things.

It's uncommon but it does happen here sometimes.

I have, in fact, changed my mind and my opinions on many things over time. However, it takes actual, verifiable facts and reasoned, intelligent arguments to do so.

 d-usa wrote:
True.

The vast majority of discussions I have are not for the sake of changing the person I’m talking to. I do like the exchange of ideas, if both parties are participating honestly. And I do like to debate the viewpoints for the sake of others who may be reading.

But there is no point engaging people who, after three years, have refused to drop the stupid “brah” crap.

Come on broseph lord of the brocean, why aren't you down with the brahzen language

 Ouze wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not like any of us are actually expecting to change each others minds or opinions of things.

It's uncommon but it does happen here sometimes.

True... I was actually on the fence on the death penalty and even abortion.

Discussions here (and likely me getting older) has changed my mind in full on opposition.

 skyth wrote:
My opinions on guns has evolved due to some posters on here. Now I just think the people that feel the need to have them are largely idiots rather than them being something that needs to be heavily restricted.

I've found I enjoy reading this thread more than commenting as some of the posters seem very knowledgeable and i enjoy seeing many points of view on topics. Having said that I have to say you're painting with a very broad brush.

 whembly wrote:

We've had this argument before... and yeah, it wouldn't change the result.

But, an armed populace *does* factor in whether or not one side wishes to conquer another side...and that's my point.

The USA has over 300 million private guns (that we know of). You don't think so Mussolini-wanna be would factor in that calculus whether or not he'd be successful?

That depends on whether Mr. Mussilini-wannabe thinks the guns will be used against him... or to back him up.

 whembly wrote:
Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.

whembly, all you did was repeat your previous assertion. That isn't discussion. It isn't even argument. It's just shouting words in to the void.

You claimed fascism wouldn't happen because too many US citizens are armed. I pointed out that is a false defence, because where fascism has occurred it has happened with the willing support of armed citizens - that people with the power to have arms are the people with the power to make fascism happen.

In response, you have to do something other than just blindly repeat that armed citizens can stop it.

If anything it's my kids and grandkinds paying the bill.

Cute dodge, but also not true. Republicans are already beating the drum for social security and healthcare cuts to pay for it.

Happens everytime some major bill get passed.

Hey look everyone, whembly is making gak up. PPACA's two decade deficit impact, after the 2015 revision to account for how the law was actually implemented, is a saving of $0.9tn to $1.1tn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
They were voted into power homie.... and they restricted gun ownership.

And here's this same piece of junk history, again. No, the Nazis didn't vote to restrict gun rights. They actually removed registration requirements on long arms, lowered the legal age for owning a gun, and dropped the requirement to register sales and purchases. They did stop Jews from owning guns, but that was just a formalisation of a process police were already undertaking.

So there's the actual facts of Nazis and firearms. I look forward to typing them out again in 6 to 12 months when you make that same false claim all over again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?

If you think that guns will stop a country from sliding in to fascism, why didn't the majority of Germans with their expanded gun rights do anything to stop Nazism?

Or is it exactly what I've already explained to you - the people with the power to make fascism happen are the people with the power to own all the guns. As such, if fascism starts happening then gun owners will not be part of the solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Right there with you. Once upon a time he used to make an effort, but not anymore. We'll see how long Sebster can continue to hold out.

Don't know how long I can go this time. Let's find out

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.

whembly, all you did was repeat your previous assertion. That isn't discussion. It isn't even argument. It's just shouting words in to the void.

You claimed fascism wouldn't happen because too many US citizens are armed. I pointed out that is a false defence, because where fascism has occurred it has happened with the willing support of armed citizens - that people with the power to have arms are the people with the power to make fascism happen.

In response, you have to do something other than just blindly repeat that armed citizens can stop it.

It is my firm belief that that the fascism we've seen in Europe is untennable to the US... partly because there's enough contrarian who would *try* to stop it.

That's my opinion...

Just like it's your opinion that if the US *could* go fascist some of the armed citizenry wouldn't oppose.

If anything it's my kids and grandkinds paying the bill.

Cute dodge, but also not true. Republicans are already beating the drum for social security and healthcare cuts to pay for it.

Happens everytime some major bill get passed.

Hey look everyone, whembly is making gak up. PPACA's two decade deficit impact, after the 2015 revision to account for how the law was actually implemented, is a saving of $0.9tn to $1.1tn.

Funny... the consumers don't see any of these savings...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
They were voted into power homie.... and they restricted gun ownership.

And here's this same piece of junk history, again. No, the Nazis didn't vote to restrict gun rights. They actually removed registration requirements on long arms, lowered the legal age for owning a gun, and dropped the requirement to register sales and purchases. They did stop Jews from owning guns, but that was just a formalisation of a process police were already undertaking.

So there's the actual facts of Nazis and firearms. I look forward to typing them out again in 6 to 12 months when you make that same false claim all over again.

I.ONLY.MADE.THE.POINT.THAT.THE.NAZI.STOPPED.JEWS.FROM.OWNING.GUNS.

I didn't make any point about Nazis, firearms and guncontrol.

Jesus, it's like ya'll don't read what I wrote and automatically assumes the worst. It's my own damn fault for being pithy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?

If you think that guns will stop a country from sliding in to fascism, why didn't the majority of Germans with their expanded gun rights do anything to stop Nazism?

So you're dodging too?

Or is it exactly what I've already explained to you - the people with the power to make fascism happen are the people with the power to own all the guns. As such, if fascism starts happening then gun owners will not be part of the solution.

Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.

 whembly wrote:
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?

Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.

Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.

All of that matches Trump perfectly.

However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?

Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.

Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.

All of that matches Trump perfectly.

However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.

Okay... that's pretty damn spot on.

Even the Nick Cage reference.