Fascists are excluded from any debate from the get go, its not something we can have an opinion on. We had the debate and we decided its wrong and set out to not accept it. Period.
MFG
Ketraar
Trump
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
Well to be fair there should not be any discussion about anti-fascism, especially in any democratic country, more so in the US. As some dude I cant recall put it, we literately had a war about it and the whole world was involved.
Fascists are excluded from any debate from the get go, its not something we can have an opinion on. We had the debate and we decided its wrong and set out to not accept it. Period.
MFG
Ketraar
Fascists are excluded from any debate from the get go, its not something we can have an opinion on. We had the debate and we decided its wrong and set out to not accept it. Period.
MFG
Ketraar
-
BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
- I disagree, he came to power by virtue of false propaganda..pjknibbs wrote:In point of fact, Hitler only "came to power" in the first place after being legitimately elected by the populace. I don't think the two situations are exactly comparable, though--Hitler was able to do the stuff he did because the German people were so teed off with how badly they were treated by the Treaty of Versailles. America is not in the same situation and, as even this thread proves, there are plenty of Americans who wouldn't follow Trump into some sort of fascist state should he choose to go that way.eladan wrote: :EDIT: Incidentally, since you made a point about the US being a democracy, I'll risk Godwining the discussion by pointing out that Germany was a democracy before Hitler came to power.
- the same kind that Farage and Trump constantly spout..
- and therein, lies the danger..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! 
Yes but in terms of "those things were not obvious to the people *at the time*" well, we don't have that excuse any more, we have many many historical examples upon which to reflect and learn from . . . . arguably this was also true in 1920's Germany but that's a slightly unfair interpretation.pjknibbs wrote:The problem here is that we can look back at Germany in 1933 now and glibly spout all the things that were obviously going to cause problems in the near future. Unfortunately, those things were not obvious to the people *at the time*. It took six years and a couple of invasions before Britain declared war, and as late as September 1938 Neville Chamberlain was making his famous "Peace in our time" speech.
I'll also note there's a teensy, tiny difference between one nation declaring war on another, and people breaking other people's windows in the name of anti-fascism, which is what the original discussion was about?
The answer you've kind of given as being the case in that specific example (which I'll reiterate we shouldn't get hung up on) is: "When the ideology in question begins to seriously impact upon another state's (financial) interests". Which is would also be my assessment of that specific case and is definitely a place you could chose to draw said line. Personally however I think that as an answer leaves a lot to be desired.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD
People do not like "change."
They go to work, come home, eat dinner, help their 1.2 kids with their homework, watch their 1.45 televisions for .45 hours per day, walk or let out their .89 pets, have sex with their spouse 1.1 times a week, depending on what stage of their 12.8 years of marriage, sleep for 6.8 hours, wake up and have their 1.3 cups of coffee and go to work. They take 1.3 vacations a year, water their 1.4 yards... What's not to like?
There was a time when people didn't think they had power over their own lives and those who made decisions didn't pay much attention to what the common people wanted. Some guy would show up in town then tell everyone to grab their longbow and follow him, off to "war" because the King needs a new hot-tub. And, if they didn't want to? Their choice was to go to war or to get stuck in the belly with a sharp pointy thing until they stopped breathing. And, if they didn't like such choices, they were more than welcome to grab a pitchfork and take their grievances to the local lord, who'd stick them in the belly with sharp pointy things until they stopped breathing.
Then, people got the crazy idea to start writing things and reading them. Knowledge started to spread. Local lords found out they could make more money by taxing skilled laborers than dirt-grubbing peasants. Meanwhile, skilled laborers started accumulating wealth, too, in their own fashion. "Power" came into their hands. Little guys became bigger guys and "institutions" started to form. Before they knew it, some guys wrote a piece of paper that said "Somebody else besides the King matters." That idea grew.
Once people got the idea in their head that they had some measure of control over their own lives, once they could read a bulletin and find out what was happening over on the other side of the hill and once leaders figured out that they couldn't just make decisions with impunity, it became increasingly evident to everyone that if anyone wanted "change" they'd have to convince the "common people" that it was needed. After all, they went to their guild-controlled jobs, came back to their hovel, ate their 1.2 fish dinner, if they were lucky, played tiddlywinks with their kids, fed their .5 chickens, had sex with their spouse 2.5 times per week (times were good, back then) and went off to war 1.3 times per year, etc...
In the "Modern Age" across the majority of nations, regardless of the type of government they hold dear, if one wishes to induce change, it is critical that one first convince the "common people" that change is necessary. Nothing convinces the common people more surely than telling them that their 1.3 lives and what they've been used to for their 32.7 years is being... "threatened." After all, everyone likes their "way of life" to stay "their way."
Immigrants are threatening your way of life. Hate groups are threatening your way of life. Religions are threatening your way of life. Atheists are threatening your way of life. Politicians are threatening your way of life. Trade groups are threatening your way of life. The color "blue" is threatening your way of life. The color "red" is threatening your way of life.
In fact, the more unstable and under threat the common people feel their way of lives are, true or not, the easier it is to convince them that change is necessary and desirable.
And, they won't really care what direction that "change" takes them, just so long as it's either promised to be better than the dire threats they face today or it's at least different than the true horrors they faced yesterday.
There is no direction a nation of people won't go if the common people are convinced, through any means or method, that "change" is necessary. One can lead a peaceful, loving, people to war, enact genocide, cleanse the lands of "undesirables," revoke "freedoms", destroy whatever good principles or beliefs they may have held dear or convince them to adopt whatever standards one holds in front of their faces, not for the benefits that "change" will bring them, but for the promised relief of whatever "threat" one has convinced them exists.
A threatened people will do things none would have thought possible, even so far as "electing" unfit leaders that promise to save them from threats to their 1.3 ways of life.
If one wishes to know how, in the Modern Age, seemingly ridiculous things get done, genocides occur, racial cleansing becomes common, morons get elected, rights vanish, extremists become political leaders in a democracy, people in a constitutional republic become persecuted, hate groups rise in power and economic disparity increases when it could be easily relieved... Well, there's the lesson.
They go to work, come home, eat dinner, help their 1.2 kids with their homework, watch their 1.45 televisions for .45 hours per day, walk or let out their .89 pets, have sex with their spouse 1.1 times a week, depending on what stage of their 12.8 years of marriage, sleep for 6.8 hours, wake up and have their 1.3 cups of coffee and go to work. They take 1.3 vacations a year, water their 1.4 yards... What's not to like?
There was a time when people didn't think they had power over their own lives and those who made decisions didn't pay much attention to what the common people wanted. Some guy would show up in town then tell everyone to grab their longbow and follow him, off to "war" because the King needs a new hot-tub. And, if they didn't want to? Their choice was to go to war or to get stuck in the belly with a sharp pointy thing until they stopped breathing. And, if they didn't like such choices, they were more than welcome to grab a pitchfork and take their grievances to the local lord, who'd stick them in the belly with sharp pointy things until they stopped breathing.
Then, people got the crazy idea to start writing things and reading them. Knowledge started to spread. Local lords found out they could make more money by taxing skilled laborers than dirt-grubbing peasants. Meanwhile, skilled laborers started accumulating wealth, too, in their own fashion. "Power" came into their hands. Little guys became bigger guys and "institutions" started to form. Before they knew it, some guys wrote a piece of paper that said "Somebody else besides the King matters." That idea grew.
Once people got the idea in their head that they had some measure of control over their own lives, once they could read a bulletin and find out what was happening over on the other side of the hill and once leaders figured out that they couldn't just make decisions with impunity, it became increasingly evident to everyone that if anyone wanted "change" they'd have to convince the "common people" that it was needed. After all, they went to their guild-controlled jobs, came back to their hovel, ate their 1.2 fish dinner, if they were lucky, played tiddlywinks with their kids, fed their .5 chickens, had sex with their spouse 2.5 times per week (times were good, back then) and went off to war 1.3 times per year, etc...
In the "Modern Age" across the majority of nations, regardless of the type of government they hold dear, if one wishes to induce change, it is critical that one first convince the "common people" that change is necessary. Nothing convinces the common people more surely than telling them that their 1.3 lives and what they've been used to for their 32.7 years is being... "threatened." After all, everyone likes their "way of life" to stay "their way."
Immigrants are threatening your way of life. Hate groups are threatening your way of life. Religions are threatening your way of life. Atheists are threatening your way of life. Politicians are threatening your way of life. Trade groups are threatening your way of life. The color "blue" is threatening your way of life. The color "red" is threatening your way of life.
In fact, the more unstable and under threat the common people feel their way of lives are, true or not, the easier it is to convince them that change is necessary and desirable.
And, they won't really care what direction that "change" takes them, just so long as it's either promised to be better than the dire threats they face today or it's at least different than the true horrors they faced yesterday.
There is no direction a nation of people won't go if the common people are convinced, through any means or method, that "change" is necessary. One can lead a peaceful, loving, people to war, enact genocide, cleanse the lands of "undesirables," revoke "freedoms", destroy whatever good principles or beliefs they may have held dear or convince them to adopt whatever standards one holds in front of their faces, not for the benefits that "change" will bring them, but for the promised relief of whatever "threat" one has convinced them exists.
A threatened people will do things none would have thought possible, even so far as "electing" unfit leaders that promise to save them from threats to their 1.3 ways of life.
If one wishes to know how, in the Modern Age, seemingly ridiculous things get done, genocides occur, racial cleansing becomes common, morons get elected, rights vanish, extremists become political leaders in a democracy, people in a constitutional republic become persecuted, hate groups rise in power and economic disparity increases when it could be easily relieved... Well, there's the lesson.
How to stop it happening however is a somewhat more open question.Morkonan wrote:If one wishes to know how, in the Modern Age, seemingly ridiculous things get done, genocides occur, racial cleansing becomes common, morons get elected, rights vanish, extremists become political leaders in a democracy, people in a constitutional republic become persecuted, hate groups rise in power and economic disparity increases when it could be easily relieved... Well, there's the lesson.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD
So even congress are afraid that Trump will launch a nuclear attack that they are debating whether he should have the means to do so. Even that they are discussing this possibility, just shows how much confidence anyone has in his ability as the president.
Florida Man Makes Announcement.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.
-
Mightysword
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
And at the end of the day, it's still something that's not violating any laws no matter how inappropriate it is.eladan wrote: But Trump as President is not just anyone. And he has gone far past just 'criticising' - he has attacked the press, and called into question their right to report on his actions. That's not just inappropriate, that's downright dangerous.
Uh ... no. Feel like this is something need to be singled out. You don't have to be a Trump supporters to shit on the mainstream media. I have been shitting on the mainstream media since long before Trump became a thing. I have more respect for the fishes swimming in my aquarium then most journalist out there, and I'm not even a Trump supporter. This is not Trump problem, this is a modern media problem, and it is a problem they created themselves, mainly because: they are no longer the voice of the people, no matter how much they claim to be. You go up the echelon far enough and pretty much all mainstream media are owned by multimillionaire lobbyist. For me, today media is vile, pretentious, and a cesspool of hypocrisy.Ask his supporters about how legitimate they now consider mainstream press to be, to see the damage that he has done.
See, you don't have to be Trump to think that way.
-
Mightysword
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
I'll tell you when, never. You are asking for a certain line to be crossed that is extremely dangerous. What is the difference between civilized and barbarism? For me, the main difference is a civilized culture does not compromise its principle, whatever that is. For example, in our society, a person can commit crime so many and so hideous but no matter what, he or she are still due for proper process, and the maximum sentence can not be more than what defined in the law. What are you asking in your question is similar to the case of what is the limit when the crime is so hideous, a person can just be executed on the spot, or better yet, trying to come up with a punishment that's beyond the law because we think it's fitting the crime? A good part of the world today still operates in this parameter, and I admit, sometime the dark side in me find satisfaction seeing how some criminal are treated as the animal they are in those part of the word. But no matter what, even if I find a criminal here should not be wasted money and time to face trial, that I would like to see his body teared apart by 4 chariots, the principal in me, as a citizen of a civilized nation will still have to demand for that criminal to have a fair trial. That is the criminal's right, and so he will have it, no matter how much I believe he does not deserve itBishop149 wrote: I'm genuinely interested to hear where the people who take the "free speech is utterly sacrosanct and violence must never be used to shut people up" would personally draw the line between these two positions.
When exactly is enough, enough and its time to get punchy.
It is easy to defend people right to speak of what you can agree to, butDefend someone's right to say the thing you will never agree with is the core principal of free speech.
I also genuielly interested to hear the answer to the questions I have been repeating posting, but it seems no one is interested in answering:
+ Fire someone from their job if they're racist.
+ Deny service to someone because they're racist.
+ Create a media campaign and assassinate their character if they're racist. (Face no consequence unless you make thing up).
+ Banned anyone from private space if they're racist.
We never said you can't do anything of the above, or that you have to agree, or that you can't critize them. In fact you have as much right to do any of the above as they have the right to say it. Better yet, the way I do it, I just ignore those speech and let them preach to themselves, same way I would treat a troll.
The only issue here, is that some people think that is NOT enough. They believe people MUST be silent and put in jail. That is WAY WAY WAY beyond then just showing someone the door, it already moved into censorship territory. Again, I repeat the original question: why do some of you believe the wide range of retaliation already granted to you is not enough, and you will only find satisfaction seeing people total silenced behind bar?
Again: why do some of you believe the wide range of retaliation already granted to you is not enough, and you will only find satisfaction seeing people total silenced behind bar?
As the article I linked to stated, that is at least debatable.Mightysword wrote:And at the end of the day, it's still something that's not violating any laws no matter how inappropriate it is.
While I understand what you are saying, and I am fully aware that the quality of journalism in the US has been pretty poor for some time, there is a difference between calling them out for that type of poor reporting and criticising them when they do actually do decent journalism, rare though it may be. I agree to some extent that they have at least in part created the rod for their own backs, but they have done useful, real journalism that needed to be done as well - consider the reporting on the Snowden leaks, Panama Papers, etc - they have to be allowed to do that job, it is not only useful, in a democracy it is essential. What Trump has done, though, is not to just call them out on illegitimate stories, he has questioned their right to report on anything at all. That cannot be allowed.Uh ... no. Feel like this is something need to be singled out. You don't have to be a Trump supporters to shit on the mainstream media. I have been shitting on the mainstream media since long before Trump became a thing. I have more respect for the fishes swimming in my aquarium then most journalist out there, and I'm not even a Trump supporter. This is not Trump problem, this is a modern media problem, and it is a problem they created themselves, mainly because: they are no longer the voice of the people, no matter how much they claim to be. You go up the echelon far enough and pretty much all mainstream media are owned by multimillionaire lobbyist. For me, today media is vile, pretentious, and a cesspool of hypocrisy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/shep-smith-b ... 05515.html
Ahh schucks Masterbagger you have to get a new tin foil hat conspiracy as the last one is sooo BS your own political propaganda channel can't sell it and while J.Sessions can lie his ass off about Russia, he can't when there are no actual facts to present.
You make a great example of the Republicans, willing to witlessly believe a Breitbart new story (FFS Breitbart is your source, wow) and then the yahoo sold his BS as a book to make money of the idiots who believe this stuff.
8 years of having a real President sunk to the clown show and even Fox news, the backers of the story that Sandy Hook was faked, can't sell this.
Ahh schucks Masterbagger you have to get a new tin foil hat conspiracy as the last one is sooo BS your own political propaganda channel can't sell it and while J.Sessions can lie his ass off about Russia, he can't when there are no actual facts to present.
You make a great example of the Republicans, willing to witlessly believe a Breitbart new story (FFS Breitbart is your source, wow) and then the yahoo sold his BS as a book to make money of the idiots who believe this stuff.
8 years of having a real President sunk to the clown show and even Fox news, the backers of the story that Sandy Hook was faked, can't sell this.
VURT The only Feathers to Fly With......
-
BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
I'll give this a much quicker answer that it probably deserves, but to in its most simple form:Mightysword wrote:Again: why do some of you believe the wide range of retaliation already granted to you is not enough, and you will only find satisfaction seeing people total silenced behind bar?
- Because all the stuff you mentioned quite clearly doesn't work.
We've been pursuing such methods for a 100 odd years and yet look, racism is still here isn't it? More than that it's growing and thriving, a change of tactic is obviously required.
I could write a very long answer about why this is the case but to again simplify the most important factor to a single sentence:
- Because society is dramatically unequal and those that benefit the most from disenfranchising people are those with all power.
Anyway,
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-re ... d=51178663
What the actual. . . .
I will present what I think is probably an accurate depiction of the current Presidential approval process.
- Mr President some people (your son) would like to repeal. . . .
- Let me stop you there, I have only one question for you - Did Obama do this one?
- Yes, Mr President
- Ha!, go ahead and tear it down then, I really hate that guy.
- Don't you at least want to know what . . . .
- NO!! GET RID OF IT!!
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD
You can't conquer it. But, you can tame it.Bishop149 wrote:How to stop it happening however is a somewhat more open question.
We will always be suspicious of the people on the other side of the hill. We will always be afraid of the unknown. We will always be more concerned about what effects us than we are about what effects people other than us. And, we will always long to be part of a group, especially if that group has a righteous cause.
In order to stop something, you have to fight it, even if it's a giant boulder you have to keep pushing up a hill. Pushing back is the first step. And again, and again, and again.
To fully tame it though? Not tomorrow or next week. Not next year. Not in the next decade or the next lifetime. But, eventually, when social and cultural conditions are eventually changed, it will be... tamed. Not eradicated, but tamed.
As long as we are still human beings, we will have our demons to fight.
I don't think Trump hates Obama. I don't even think Trump has a political agenda at all. I think, instead, he wants to gain and retain the favor of his most outspoken supporters, supporters that do want to see certain political, social and even cultural changes.- Ha!, go ahead and tear it down then, I really hate that guy.
Trump doesn't have a "vision" of political change. Why should he? He made bajillions of dollaroos over the course of different Presidential administrations. He's never had a specific political "axe to grind." He's expressed support for anyone who's nice to him, Democrat or Republican. He's taken the stage as a "Conservative" and gained some attention from that over the years, but he's never really had a political platform, preferring to gain attention by being against something rather than presenting and supporting a political message of his own.
If enough people supported appointing a cat as Secretary of Defense, Trump would do it, no matter the origins of that idea or what group was truly behind it.
In other words, I don't think Trump has a "political compass" other than whatever gains and retains the most support from his base. (Or, appears to.)
-
BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
Mike Malloy - reviews Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi43oA4XOaU
under no circumstances should the fascist right-wing be accommodated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwh5KMuFttk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi43oA4XOaU
under no circumstances should the fascist right-wing be accommodated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwh5KMuFttk
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!!
-
BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
re Cambridge Analytica:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4sLMwdpF9U
- get the connection?
- Farage crowing over Judge Roy Moore in Alabama..
- etc, etc..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4sLMwdpF9U
- get the connection?
- Farage crowing over Judge Roy Moore in Alabama..
- etc, etc..
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!!
I do believe the guy being interviewed was generally being honest, but I don't think he was being 100% honest. I also think you posted it in the wrong place.BugMeister wrote:re Cambridge Analytica:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4sLMwdpF9U
- get the connection?
- Farage crowing over Judge Roy Moore in Alabama..
- etc, etc..
Florida Man Makes Announcement.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.
-
BugMeister
- Posts: 13647
- Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
- my concern is the manipulation of data
- the constant claims of "fakery" are writ large..
- the fact that Breitbart is involved makes it important to follow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG4hxvVV76s
- the constant claims of "fakery" are writ large..
- the fact that Breitbart is involved makes it important to follow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG4hxvVV76s
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!!
I spent nearly two hours trying to respond to an earlier post you did - but I just don't have time to finish them and it's annoying because i've always had a lot of respect for you.BugMeister wrote:- my concern is the manipulation of data
- the constant claims of "fakery" are writ large..
- the fact that Breitbart is involved makes it important to follow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG4hxvVV76s
That said, you really do come across as an arrogant SOB right now, so I have to ask why clinton would have been better?
That Rachel Maddow just gets my heckles up, I really don't like the women.BugMeister wrote:- my concern is the manipulation of data
- the constant claims of "fakery" are writ large..
- the fact that Breitbart is involved makes it important to follow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG4hxvVV76s
Florida Man Makes Announcement.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.
We live in a crazy world where winter heating has become a luxury item.