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.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
How many were there? 50?

Once again. They are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it.

500. During said rally they also killed someone and injured many others.

 Peregrine wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
How many were there? 50?

Once again. They are allowed to think whatever they want, as long as they don't act on it.

They are acting on it. They are organizing politically and attempting to gain power. The time to kill Nazis and stop them from committing genocide is before they start exterminating whole classes of people, not after they get into power and officially start murdering their victims. Learn the lesson from WWII, appeasing Nazis does not stop them. Listen to Captain America, killing Nazis is your civic duty.

Now I am going to really shake your boots: They are allowed to organize politically and it's ok that they attempt to gain power, as long as they do it within the present legal structure, ie form a party and join the election. If they start exterminating people then this is obviously illegal, they are criminals and they will be dealt with. but until they actually do it, they are innocent of anything you want them to be. You learn to live in the 21st century.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
They are allowed to organize politically and it's ok that they attempt to gain power

Then you and I simply disagree. There is nothing ok about attempting to commit genocide. No step in that direction is acceptable, period. If there is any credible threat of Nazis gaining power then it is morally acceptable to use any means necessary, up to and including shooting every Nazi until no more Nazis remain, to stop them from doing so.

If they start exterminating people then this is obviously illegal, they are criminals and they will be dealt with.

Do you not see the contradiction here? If Nazis are allowed into power and pass a law saying "the lesser races will now be exterminated" then it is no longer illegal and they are not criminals. By your own argument you are not justified in using violence to stop them because they are following all of the laws of the democratic country. If you want to stop Nazis then you need a moral understanding that goes beyond what is and isn't legal, and then you will understand why shooting Nazis is a moral virtue.

Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Do not care one bit. Democracy is of zero value if it permits Nazis to commit genocide.

 Peregrine wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Do not care one bit. Democracy is of zero value if it permits Nazis to commit genocide.

Ok so you really are a troll. Doritos was right. Have a nice day.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Do not care one bit. Democracy is of zero value if it permits Nazis to commit genocide.

Ok so you really are a troll. Doritos was right. Have a nice day.

Eeeeeeeeeehhh. I dunno. He's not the first person I've seen express this view. I mean look at the reaction people had to Trump being elected.

Anyway, let us close this tangent with a relevant reminder that comic books have always been political and it's absurd to complain about politics in comic books just because the politics in a particular book aren't your own.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

Same goes for extremists using similar methos on the other side of the aisle.

...So.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the moderator for Sarkeesian's section is Luke Crane, the Head of Games at Kickstarter (and author of the Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer RPGs).

I think having him, or even the current CEO or another head at Kickstarter, would make for a better discussion, since Kickstarter has had such a huge influence on the tabletop hobby - whether its expectations of what companies bring to Kickstarter, or even if they should be using Kickstarter at all.

 infinite_array wrote:
...So.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the moderator for Sarkeesian's section is Luke Crane, the Head of Games at Kickstarter (and author of the Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer RPGs).

I think having him, or even the current CEO or another head at Kickstarter, would make for a better discussion, since Kickstarter has had such a huge influence on the tabletop hobby - whether its expectations of what companies bring to Kickstarter, or even if they should be using Kickstarter at all.

Seems like a bit of a waste only to have Crane show up to moderate, he isn't slotted to speak any other time?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
...So.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the moderator for Sarkeesian's section is Luke Crane, the Head of Games at Kickstarter (and author of the Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer RPGs).

I think having him, or even the current CEO or another head at Kickstarter, would make for a better discussion, since Kickstarter has had such a huge influence on the tabletop hobby - whether its expectations of what companies bring to Kickstarter, or even if they should be using Kickstarter at all.

Seems like a bit of a waste only to have Crane show up to moderate, he isn't slotted to speak any other time?

Looks like he'll also be running a seminar on long running campaigns on Saturday. Will probably be worth a listen. Oh, and he'll been in a seminar about what heavy metal to listen to during games. Probably others.

And that reminds me that I need to find a Torchbearer group. It looks like a really interesting, if challenging, RPG.

Lol, appeals to democracy for letting an inherently undemocratic group take power? I feel this comic needs to be read again.

 Carnikang wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Democracy dakkagakker! Do you speak it?

Considering the political climate here in America, democracy is being threatened on a fundamental level. And theyre part of the movement, though not the entirety of it.

I agree with Peregrine, partially though. We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society. Shooting them may go too far, but letting them do as they please to gather and spew vile rhetoric is much too little.

This is exactly what you should do. Let them gather and speak, then counter their arguments with their own and make them look foolish and backwards in public or maybe even change some minds. If you're secure and informed well enough in your beliefs that should be easy enough to do. Driving them underground and forcibly silencing them feeds into their own victim complex, entrenching them further into their own radicalization. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

 infinite_array wrote:

Looks like he'll also be running a seminar on long running campaigns on Saturday. Will probably be worth a listen. Oh, and he'll been in a seminar about what heavy metal to listen to during games. Probably others.

And that reminds me that I need to find a Torchbearer group. It looks like a really interesting, if challenging, RPG.

That's pretty good. I don't know if the heavy metal one is all that relevant though

 Verviedi wrote:
Lol, appeals to democracy for letting an inherently undemocratic group take power? I feel this comic needs to be read again.

Spoiler:

So, whose job is it to determine whether a group is tolerant, and should be included in a tolerant, just society, or whether a group is intolerant, and should be evicted with intolerance by a tolerant, just society?

Do we put that decision with everyone, make it democratic? Don't have to follow that particular chain of logic too far into the history books to figure out that "everyone" is a pretty bad judge of character.

Do we pick one person as the Moral Avatar, maybe a small group of people, and make them in charge of figuring out which group to label as "intolerant" so we can eradicate them by force? An individual might be free of the biases of the overall populace, but they could bring their own.

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

Who do we consider a Nazi? People who go to Nazi rallies and wave flags, or who declare themselves as such?

Maybe.

But do you consider anyone else maybe a "secret nazi"? How about groups that you think might be secretly nazi fronts, or just as bad as nazis by another name?

 Peregrine wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I majorly disapprove changing established stuff to express politics, I do not mind creating new stuff.

Do you also disapprove of changing stuff for other reasons? I mean, it seems kind of absurd to complain about comic companies changing stuff when they regularly reboot their series every few years so they can sell a fresh round of origin stories and rehash the same old plots for the 340503450th time. The idea that comic book IP is some kind of sacred and unchanging story is just not reality. So if you're going to accept changes for all these other reasons what is wrong with making changes to a character's gender or whatever?

It's just like 40k and female marines. Every time the topic comes up there's an endless flame war over it and the thread gets locked, and people complain about how it would violate the fluff and be completely unacceptable. Then GW sees a potential market, introduces primaris marines that are at least as bad as a fluff violation, and people buy them in vast quantities.

See this what I like, a start for a great discussion.

There are two fundamental forces in a story or a character its core and the establishment.

"Core" is the core, the absolute fundamentals that you must keep in order you make anybody look at something and say yes, this is X, its a combination of visuals and character behaviour, people mistakenly emphasise on visuals because this is what people see, but behaviour is what will make or break the core, one may look like for example captain america, but if it behaves even remotely not like the captain america's core then the audience will cry foul.

Establishment on the other hand is a wider area than the core what has been established for the character, it is not essential, but it is what the audience expects from the character or setting, changing them is far more noticeable and needs great skills in crafting to make the audience accept the changes and for the most part changing them "just because" is impossible without an outrage, again in the same example there is no reason why captain America could not be female, or some other race but it is not what the audience expects from his establishment.

Mind you one off side stories that experiment with such ideas bypass this, as long as they respect the characters core, because the audience does not see them as main story but as a non canon experimentation.

I strongly dislike the constant rebooot of the American Superhero comics and that has distanced me from them, but until recently they managed to keep core and establishment relatively good, the recent comics from what I gather from the criticism either mess with characters core badly or change the Establishment for no other reason than to change it (seemingly to pass the writers agenda), this has created a lot of bad reaction.

Moving to GW and 40K I would say the reason why there is really no reaction to female stormcasts is because its a new IP and people do not care, new playground, new rules, GW has the freedom to create and people take the ride, personally I would cry foul if there were no female stormcasts by their fluff as the warhamer lore has established many female heroes.

On 40k it is more difficult, there is fundamentally nothing to the core of the space marine that is gender specific, but the establishment is that space marines are all male, regardless of excuses justifications and explanations it is against the establishment to have female space marines (excluding some chaos mutation I would guess) and there is no good justification to do them that would not look like an attempt to shove a female space marine, on the same token there is nothing in the sister of battle core that would make a sister female, but it is their establishment to be female, a male SoB would look as odd and out of place a s a female Space Marine.

Now I would argue the primaris are a violation of establishment and a good showcase of why you need really competent writers to change the establishment (personally I would have liked them to be brave say they wanted to make proper scale space marines with proper stats for Space marines and not do this nonsense) they are as far as I can see having a strong defence against them because they violate the established canon of 40k, I am not sure if it is at the same level as female space marines but it is quite high on the lore community it seems.

To sum it up
Core, never change it, if you do you get another character/ setting.
Establishment, play with it if it is a non canon one shot, have a really good excuse and a fantastic execution if you chose to do it as canon, better leave it alone.

I hope you found this interesting.

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyway, let us close this tangent with a relevant reminder that comic books have always been political and it's absurd to complain about politics in comic books just because the politics in a particular book aren't your own.

I agree with peregrine on this point, comics have always been parodies of the political times they were made in.

 Sim-Life wrote:


He goes on to say that you you should only silence the intolerant if they begin using force to silence the tolerant in order to preach their intolerance.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

" they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive"

Hmmm... doesn't that sounds like... "fake news"?

 Carnikang wrote:
We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society.

No, we should tolerate intolerance in a society built upon the principles of the freedom of expression and the open sharing of ideas.

Doesn't matter. Once the discussion starts discussing Hitler, it is pretty much over.

 Sim-Life wrote:


I love this comic because it exposes people who haven't done their own reading and just save things from Facebook, it takes only a small part of what Popper wrote and take it out of context. Popper said that intolerance should not be silenced and should be confronted in the court of public opinion.

He goes on to say that you you should only silence the intolerant if they begin using force to silence the tolerant in order to preach their intolerance.

Bingo. As Charles Bradlaugh said: "Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech".

EDIT: Geez, that comic really broke the quote tags.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Lol, appeals to democracy for letting an inherently undemocratic group take power? I feel this comic needs to be read again.

Spoiler:

I love this comic because it exposes people who haven't done their own reading and just save things from Facebook, it takes only a small part of what Popper wrote and take it out of context. Popper said that intolerance should not be silenced and should be confronted in the court of public opinion.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

He goes on to say that you you should only silence the intolerant if they begin using force to silence the tolerant in order to preach their intolerance.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Nazis cannot be countered by rational argument.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

-Jean-Paul Sartre

To not oppose Nazism is merely to condone it - it is to be the equivalent of the Social-Democratic party of the Weimar Republic - having such a flawed faith in Nazis meaning well that you gladly allow them into government and then get murdered when they legally dissolve democracy.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
...So.

I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the moderator for Sarkeesian's section is Luke Crane, the Head of Games at Kickstarter (and author of the Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, and Torchbearer RPGs).

I think having him, or even the current CEO or another head at Kickstarter, would make for a better discussion, since Kickstarter has had such a huge influence on the tabletop hobby - whether its expectations of what companies bring to Kickstarter, or even if they should be using Kickstarter at all.

Seems like a bit of a waste only to have Crane show up to moderate, he isn't slotted to speak any other time?

Looks like he'll also be running a seminar on long running campaigns on Saturday. Will probably be worth a listen. Oh, and he'll been in a seminar about what heavy metal to listen to during games. Probably others.

And that reminds me that I need to find a Torchbearer group. It looks like a really interesting, if challenging, RPG.

What is a moderator’s job for a panel? To keep the discussion on topic, and under time?

 Verviedi wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Lol, appeals to democracy for letting an inherently undemocratic group take power? I feel this comic needs to be read again.

Spoiler:

I love this comic because it exposes people who haven't done their own reading and just save things from Facebook, it takes only a small part of what Popper wrote and take it out of context. Popper said that intolerance should not be silenced and should be confronted in the court of public opinion.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

He goes on to say that you you should only silence the intolerant if they begin using force to silence the tolerant in order to preach their intolerance.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Nazis cannot be countered by rational argument.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

-Jean-Paul Sartre

To not oppose Nazism is merely to condone it - it is to be the equivalent of the Social-Democratic party of the Weimar Republic - having such a flawed faith in Nazis meaning well that you gladly allow them into government and then get murdered when they legally dissolve democracy.

I do not think you understand Sartre's point here...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:
We should not tolerate intolerance in an inclusive, tolerant, and diverse society.

No, we should tolerate intolerance in a society built upon the principles of the freedom of expression and the open sharing of ideas.

Doesn't matter. Once the discussion starts discussing Hitler, it is pretty much over.

Openly sharing ideas and expressing your views is fine. But being intolerant of a belief and actively trying to eradicate it isnt. That sort of intolerance does nothing for a society.

Bringing this all back around, being tolerant of 'feminist veiws' (already a contentious wording/topic here...) is alright until they start labeling those that dont agree with them as nazis or somesuch. When they start acting out and using silencing methods to remove opposition. Then it can become problematic for a tolerant society.

Again, having beliefs and opinions is fine, its how you act on them that labels you tolerant or intolerant, subjcting you to review.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

After all, the nazis didnt try to exterminate the jews because "Grr we're evil mustache twirling nazis and we hate them". They tried to exterminate them because the person they selected as the Moral Avatar of their society perceived them to be a group so abhorrent and threatening that they had to be ejected by force.

This is pretty much false, you really think Hitler was the only true believer and they just went with it because befehl ist befehl?

Nope. But nothing in the world is that simple. Suspicion of the motivations of Jews was pretty common, and with the help of propaganda from the top echelon it was pretty easy to take that common dislike and whip it up into hatred. And I'm sure the common reactions to *someone else* kicking out the Jews and *someone else* rounding up the Jews so they can't cause any more problems for Germany was pretty universally supported by the political majority to whom the strong individual leadership of Hitler appealed.

But I doubt any more than a vanishingly tiny minority of German citizens in the 1940s would be mentally ok with picking up a pistol and shooting a Jewish child. In fact we have clear and distinct evidence that this is the case and it's why the camps were designed the way they were.

If you asked me to put money on it I wouldn't even bet that Hitler would shoot a Jewish child with no hesitation. Everything is easier to agree with when either someone else is doing it, or when you get to feel like you're being forced to by orders from another.

It actually wasn't most Germans at the time couldn't care less about antisemitism or disliking the Jews. It was always a pretty small and decicated minority that was enabled by the majority to do these things. Why else would they feel the need to hide it before they got into power and then hide what they were actually doing? The Nazis never managed to whip the whole population up into hatred. Hell they even had to downplay it in elections because it proved so unpopular. A small minority acxomplished something the majority would have never agreed with in 33 but just went with by 1941ish. That is the risk, baby steps until you suddenly realize how far its gone.

And you would be surprised how vanishingly tiny the minority would be. We're talking at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands having participated in the actions that led to the deaths of people. There weren't just camps. And no, Hitler was a coward.

"to fail to oppose nazis sufficiently is to condone them"

do you want to take a look at this for a moment? Consider the common turnaround "Yeah and Communists too".

What the Other Team is referring to here when they say Communists is what you'd probably dispute and refer to as "stalinist dictatorships" but it is in fact true that the actions taken by that dictator were in the name of communism.

Here, you would like to be able to take the name, and in some instances the symbols, that were at one point used to justify terrible killings and oppression, to justify something that is obviously distinct and highly different from that ideology. And you'd probably like to not be summarily ejected from free discourse (where you'd probably explain the distinction between your actual ideals and the ideals of those that came before.)

Why is a different symbol and name held to a different standard here? Why is it so obviously necessary to allow and protect the users of one set of symbols and name that to fail to do so would make you an oppressor, and so obviously necessary to attack and destroy the users of another set of symbols and name that to fail to do so makes you an oppressor?

I would think (hope, honestly) that it's because it has nothing to do with the symbol, and instead the ideology. But then the question returns again to "how do you determine when someone is in fact so abhorrent that they do not deserve a place in a just society?" How do you root out your secret nazis and determine you're punching the people you should be punching?