Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PRESIDENT TRUMP
Posts
Decky
View playlists
Closeauthor=LockeZ
If you were alive in 1930, and were not a time traveller who had knowledge of the future, it would in fact be morally wrong to stop Hitler's free speech. There's no question. Taking away people's rights because you're worried they might do bad things in the future is wrong. This applies to preventing Muslims from trying to enter because you're worried they may one day blow us up, and also equally to trying to depose Trump's legitimate government because you're worried they may one day blow us up. Both things are wrong.
let's react to everything after the fact and not learn from history
psy_wombats
13315
author=LockeZ
If you were alive in 1930, and were not a time traveller who had knowledge of the future, it would in fact be morally wrong to stop Hitler's free speech. There's no question.
Okay everyone, pop quiz!
Which of the following two things is more wrong?
A. Violating Hitler's Freedom of speech
B. Hitler murdering 6 - 12 million people.
NTC3
5625
author=Solitayreauthor=LockeZOkay everyone, pop quiz!
If you were alive in 1930, and were not a time traveller who had knowledge of the future, it would in fact be morally wrong to stop Hitler's free speech. There's no question.
Which of the following two things is more wrong?
A. Violating Hitler's Freedom of speech
B. Hitler murdering 6 - 12 million people.
Irrelevant question, given that he's already served a jail term before entering the government. The fact it wasn't large enough, or that German elites saw it fit to appoint him Chancellor post-contested election, after he was convicted for trying to lead a violent coup against them a few years earlier, is neither here nor there.
Blind
2262
I was offering that meme specifically in response to Milo/Steve Bannon, but yeah, I would agree that "pre-emptive" authoritarian actions aren't positive.
What's more troubling is that when Trump seems to take an official stance on the Berkeley riots, he makes clear he's ethically in alignment with that cause (defending Milo/Breitbart) and will actively work to promote it. That itself is legitimately terrifying, if not surprising.
Was a riot the right solution? No, perhaps not. But I'd argue there are larger ethical concerns than a single provocateur's entitlement to free speech; and even if you don't believe that, it can be reasonably debated whether there's anything to gain by giving him a large platform. That was a serious oversight by the university.
Discouraging open and healthy debate never helps anyone - but if you're using free speech to cause tangible unrest and societal tensions (especially in a rather soulless way to fill your own pockets), the President should inherently recognize that there isn't a need to support this person.
What's more troubling is that when Trump seems to take an official stance on the Berkeley riots, he makes clear he's ethically in alignment with that cause (defending Milo/Breitbart) and will actively work to promote it. That itself is legitimately terrifying, if not surprising.
Was a riot the right solution? No, perhaps not. But I'd argue there are larger ethical concerns than a single provocateur's entitlement to free speech; and even if you don't believe that, it can be reasonably debated whether there's anything to gain by giving him a large platform. That was a serious oversight by the university.
Discouraging open and healthy debate never helps anyone - but if you're using free speech to cause tangible unrest and societal tensions (especially in a rather soulless way to fill your own pockets), the President should inherently recognize that there isn't a need to support this person.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=SolitayreOne of those things is wrong for me to do, and the other is wrong for Hitler to do. So this question makes no sense.author=LockeZOkay everyone, pop quiz!
If you were alive in 1930, and were not a time traveller who had knowledge of the future, it would in fact be morally wrong to stop Hitler's free speech. There's no question.
Which of the following two things is more wrong?
A. Violating Hitler's Freedom of speech
B. Hitler murdering 6 - 12 million people.
But even ignoring that, the question still makes no sense because there's no possible way to know, when choosing whether or not to violate his free speech, whether or not he's going to murder anyone. Everyone on the planet is potentially Hitler. Should we violate all their rights all the time, just in case?
Edit: I will admit that I ignored the first part of this conversation, only saw Blindmind's picture out of context, and responded to it on its own merit. I have no idea if it was supposed to be an analogy to some modern situation. I assume not - at this point we're probably just literally talking about what we would have done if we were a German federal judge in 1930, right?
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Solitayreauthor=LockeZOkay everyone, pop quiz!
If you were alive in 1930, and were not a time traveller who had knowledge of the future, it would in fact be morally wrong to stop Hitler's free speech. There's no question.
Which of the following two things is more wrong?
A. Violating Hitler's Freedom of speech
B. Hitler murdering 6 - 12 million people.
C. None of the above. Hitler was a bad man.
author=LockeZ
One of those things is wrong for me to do, and the other is wrong for Hitler to do. So this question makes no sense.
Pedantry would be a pretty bad reason to do nothing while someone in a position of power literally advocates for ethnic cleansing.
I originally never wanted to participate in this discussion, and it's a little sad that Godwin's law is triggered once again, but the problem that just came up is something I've been feeling very confused and annoyed by for a long time. Namely, the rather strange views on the concept of "Freedom of Speech" that a lot of people seem to have.
Don't get me wrong, you'll never hear me argue that free speech is unimportant, on the contrary. As far as I'm concerned, the oppression of differing viewpoints and deliberate silencing of critical voices is one the of greatest evils in the world.
However, it seems that quite some people underestimate the dangerous potential of language, and apparently value some abstract notion of "being allowed to say literally anything you want no matter the consequences" over far more essential human rights. As an example, in Germany, criminal law contains the offence of "Volksverhetzung," which roughly translates to "incitement of the people." In practice, it generally means that explicit hate speech, calls for discrimination and direct attempts to incite or support violence against groups of people (often out of racist motivations) can be illegal. The establishment of these laws was a direct reaction to the aftermath of World War 2 and the analysis of how Nazi propaganda had managed to turn large parts of a country's population into accomplices of mass murder. Hitler and his associates deliberately channeled and encouraged the aggressions of many people by manipulating them with racist rhetoric and explicit appeals to violence against their scapegoats. That should never have been possible in the first place, and should most definitely not happen again. But at the time, even if the people in power had wanted to, their laws couldn't do much about it, since at that point the protection of minorities or the limits of free speech hadn't really been considered yet.
I'm sure similar laws exist in other countries as well, and for a good reason: As important as free speech is, there are a few more fundamental human rights that have a higher value: Protection against death and physical harm from other humans, protection against discrimination, and the general preservation of human dignity. And if someone attempts to abuse their freedom of speech in order to limit or destroy those rights for others, then the law and the people need to step in. Of course, every such limitation of free speech must be considered very individually and carefully, since it is always a difficult and far-reaching decision.
While I personally am absolutely convinced Trump is evil and will cause unnecessary suffering to many people, I am not (yet) ready to directly compare America's current government and the Nazi regime. However, it is more than worrying that a presidential canditate openly makes it his explicit policy to institutionalise discrimination against certain people, and even wins the election despite or because of such disgusting promises. And when a president condones and supports individuals or organisations that directly work towards hurting others and inciting violence, I think people need to ask themselves if they really are ready to risk their most fundamental and important rights just because of their loyalty to a (more or less) legimitate authority.
Don't get me wrong, you'll never hear me argue that free speech is unimportant, on the contrary. As far as I'm concerned, the oppression of differing viewpoints and deliberate silencing of critical voices is one the of greatest evils in the world.
However, it seems that quite some people underestimate the dangerous potential of language, and apparently value some abstract notion of "being allowed to say literally anything you want no matter the consequences" over far more essential human rights. As an example, in Germany, criminal law contains the offence of "Volksverhetzung," which roughly translates to "incitement of the people." In practice, it generally means that explicit hate speech, calls for discrimination and direct attempts to incite or support violence against groups of people (often out of racist motivations) can be illegal. The establishment of these laws was a direct reaction to the aftermath of World War 2 and the analysis of how Nazi propaganda had managed to turn large parts of a country's population into accomplices of mass murder. Hitler and his associates deliberately channeled and encouraged the aggressions of many people by manipulating them with racist rhetoric and explicit appeals to violence against their scapegoats. That should never have been possible in the first place, and should most definitely not happen again. But at the time, even if the people in power had wanted to, their laws couldn't do much about it, since at that point the protection of minorities or the limits of free speech hadn't really been considered yet.
I'm sure similar laws exist in other countries as well, and for a good reason: As important as free speech is, there are a few more fundamental human rights that have a higher value: Protection against death and physical harm from other humans, protection against discrimination, and the general preservation of human dignity. And if someone attempts to abuse their freedom of speech in order to limit or destroy those rights for others, then the law and the people need to step in. Of course, every such limitation of free speech must be considered very individually and carefully, since it is always a difficult and far-reaching decision.
While I personally am absolutely convinced Trump is evil and will cause unnecessary suffering to many people, I am not (yet) ready to directly compare America's current government and the Nazi regime. However, it is more than worrying that a presidential canditate openly makes it his explicit policy to institutionalise discrimination against certain people, and even wins the election despite or because of such disgusting promises. And when a president condones and supports individuals or organisations that directly work towards hurting others and inciting violence, I think people need to ask themselves if they really are ready to risk their most fundamental and important rights just because of their loyalty to a (more or less) legimitate authority.
Holy Godwin, Batman.
Just like how Trump isn't an island of his own ideology and isn't forcing half the country to be fiercely loyal to him, Hitler also had a huge portion of the public on his side on their own accord.
Side note: That said, Trump hasn't deployed the brownshirts yet, (and he won't) though we have seen them deployed by anti-Trump forces (Antifa at UC Berkeley.) Don't you think it's bad that you are almost guaranteed to be physically assaulted for wearing the MAGA hat in the wrong place? No, you don't think it's bad. You will say so to appear anti-violence, but in the end, if you've terrorized your opponent into silence and inaction, you win.
So the comparison in that 2 button meme is pretty simplistic and short-sighted. There was no choice happening in real life during Hitler's ascension. He seized upon the conditions which already existed. If there hadn't been a Versailles Treaty, economic ruin, rising communism, etc, happy and well-adjusted people would have rejected the Nazi party. Despite what I've heard just about every day, Trump is not Hitler, but his ascendancy could be called similar in that he seized upon the existing frustrations of half the country.
This is not Trump vs the good and pure perfect little people. This is two supergroups of people in America who are irreconcilably in disagreement on two things:
1) What is
2) What should be
"Our" cultural values, brought to its logical conclusion, is utopia. "Theirs" is the end of civilization. This is not reconcilable. It doesn't help that Dyhalto calls me a redneck for wanting a physical border wall (NOT a new or unique concept), but even if he wasn't name-calling, there'd be no common ground at this point because it's become clear we simply don't have any shared goals.
Trump could quit tomorrow and this cultural war would rage on.
Just like how Trump isn't an island of his own ideology and isn't forcing half the country to be fiercely loyal to him, Hitler also had a huge portion of the public on his side on their own accord.
Side note: That said, Trump hasn't deployed the brownshirts yet, (and he won't) though we have seen them deployed by anti-Trump forces (Antifa at UC Berkeley.) Don't you think it's bad that you are almost guaranteed to be physically assaulted for wearing the MAGA hat in the wrong place? No, you don't think it's bad. You will say so to appear anti-violence, but in the end, if you've terrorized your opponent into silence and inaction, you win.
So the comparison in that 2 button meme is pretty simplistic and short-sighted. There was no choice happening in real life during Hitler's ascension. He seized upon the conditions which already existed. If there hadn't been a Versailles Treaty, economic ruin, rising communism, etc, happy and well-adjusted people would have rejected the Nazi party. Despite what I've heard just about every day, Trump is not Hitler, but his ascendancy could be called similar in that he seized upon the existing frustrations of half the country.
This is not Trump vs the good and pure perfect little people. This is two supergroups of people in America who are irreconcilably in disagreement on two things:
1) What is
2) What should be
"Our" cultural values, brought to its logical conclusion, is utopia. "Theirs" is the end of civilization. This is not reconcilable. It doesn't help that Dyhalto calls me a redneck for wanting a physical border wall (NOT a new or unique concept), but even if he wasn't name-calling, there'd be no common ground at this point because it's become clear we simply don't have any shared goals.
Trump could quit tomorrow and this cultural war would rage on.
NTC3
5625
author=harmonic
physically assaulted for wearing the MAGA hat in the wrong place? No, you don't think it's bad. You will say so to appear anti-violence, but in the end, if you've terrorized your opponent into silence and inaction, you win.
Tell me what's gonna happen to a person wearing a hammer and sickle hat in the wrong place in America, then. Somehow, I think they'll find a range of "wrong places" to be much larger then those in MAGA hats.
author=harmonic
This is not Trump vs the good and pure perfect little people. This is two supergroups of people in America who are irreconcilably in disagreement on two things:
"Our" cultural values, brought to its logical conclusion, is utopia. "Theirs" is the end of civilization. This is not reconcilable. It doesn't help that Dyhalto calls me a redneck for wanting a physical border wall (NOT a new or unique concept), but even if he wasn't name-calling, there'd be no common ground at this point because it's become clear we simply don't have any shared goals.
Trump could quit tomorrow and this cultural war would rage on.
And this is why I find the Chinese and Iranians are onto something with the one-party state. Then again, I haven't lived in either of those places, but I lived in Australia and can tell its compulsory voting also provides a decent check on such tendencies while keeping the multi-party system. Hell, the French two-round also seems to have some merit by providing true choice across the spectrum, for this election at least (anti-EU left, pro-EU liberal left, liberal centrism, Thatcherist right, protectionist anti-EU right). Some country ought to try and see what happens when the three aspects are melded together.
Harmonic, I think it's rather sad - and very telling - that you immediately reject any possibility of communication between the two "supergroups" that you attempt to describe. Personally, I'm not stupid enough to actually believe that my political ideologies will ever lead to a perfect utopia, and neither do I believe the majority of the people on the other "side" are purposely working towards the end of civilisation. There is a huge sliding scale in political viewpoints, and not just two extremes that make up 50% of the population each. In fact, I think that the largest part of humanity has similar hopes and goals they wish to achieve, and just different ways of trying to reach them. Making it sound like any attempt at constructive exchange or compromise is impossible is just lazy and unhelpful.
In the end, however, as far as I'm concerned the true deciding factor is not really what you think is or should be. The only absolute and unchangeable element that defines irreconcilable views is someone's willingness to make others suffer. If your political leanings cause you to knowingly accept the suffering of people as long as it benefits your own group, you are of dubious integrity at best. If your political ideology drives you to actively inflict suffering upon people and seek to harm others as a means of gaining power for yourself or your own group, you are evil.
Most other things are negotiable. This one thing isn't.
And I'm sure that a large number of both conservative and liberal-minded will be able to come to terms at least on the most important and fundamental issues, if they just leave the ideological and emotional baggage aside for a moment. And don't get me wrong, there absolutely is no excuse for violence on either side. However, if someone deliberately distinguishes themselves as a hardcore supporter of a president who has made it his explicit policy to cause pain and misery to countless people, I don't think it's very surprising they will be met with resistance. Again, I do not condone violence even against people whose views I find disgusting and inhuman. But I do think it's very important to show those people their twisted ideologies are not acceptable, and to prevent them from seizing the power they need to carry them out.
In the end, however, as far as I'm concerned the true deciding factor is not really what you think is or should be. The only absolute and unchangeable element that defines irreconcilable views is someone's willingness to make others suffer. If your political leanings cause you to knowingly accept the suffering of people as long as it benefits your own group, you are of dubious integrity at best. If your political ideology drives you to actively inflict suffering upon people and seek to harm others as a means of gaining power for yourself or your own group, you are evil.
Most other things are negotiable. This one thing isn't.
And I'm sure that a large number of both conservative and liberal-minded will be able to come to terms at least on the most important and fundamental issues, if they just leave the ideological and emotional baggage aside for a moment. And don't get me wrong, there absolutely is no excuse for violence on either side. However, if someone deliberately distinguishes themselves as a hardcore supporter of a president who has made it his explicit policy to cause pain and misery to countless people, I don't think it's very surprising they will be met with resistance. Again, I do not condone violence even against people whose views I find disgusting and inhuman. But I do think it's very important to show those people their twisted ideologies are not acceptable, and to prevent them from seizing the power they need to carry them out.
Let me begin by expressing my absolute shock. Two responses dedicated to the subject, without getting hostile and name-calling. Wow! I guess it is possible.
Well maybe, but that's not really happening and difficult to prove. What is happening now is MAGA hats being assaulted. I'd rather deal in what's real than what-ifs.
I'm not wanting to trudge through the swamp of exceptions and anecdotes. The big picture is that there are two sides waging cultural war at the moment. Yes, of course there is a sliding scale on an individual basis. Some of you here might be surprised to learn that I do not wear a swaztika armband at all times. The way I see it:
Globalism vs Americanism
Communism vs Capitalism
Social Justice vs Meritocracy
Racial segregation vs Cultural unity in spite of race
Out group preference vs In group preference
Moral relativism vs Moral absolutism
The globalism vs Americanism thing - I just don't see how lefties and righties will ever agree on this, particularly since it empowers the left to import more and more people from cultures that are accustomed to getting free things from corrupt governments, people who have no interest in becoming a part of America and don't like our society, and you can justify this by calling opponents to mass immigration racist. The two sides have different goals. Lefties generally want to do away with national sovereignty and import everyone and anyone, give them welfare and voting rights, so they can outnumber and defeat the right. The right sees this as a threat to the safety and well being of our neighborhoods. How can these two possibly reconcile? That's in group preference vs out group preference. The same insanity that leads American feminist movements to tout Sharia law as the answer... a hyper-patriarchal system that would have women's rights be set back hundreds of years. It's a fanatical dedication to the out group there, because the in group is their political enemy.
How can I possibly see eye to eye with someone who uses the word "privilege" constantly, and therefore begins from a state of skew, and starts me at a position of owing the world something because of my race and gender, something I cannot change? It actually makes me very afraid to know there are so many people out there who see too many of me as a bad thing. They want my quality of life to suffer because social justice, not realizing that life isn't a zero sum game and assigning privilege to people based on their race and gender is a horrible, repugnant and ineffective solution to anything. It's really shitty knowing that so many people are rooting for me to lose because of something I cannot change. And if I don't like this whole privilege argument, I'm the racist.
When you're talking about the highest of high altitude goals, like peace and prosperity, then yes of course we have common ground. And a clean healthy environment is another. (No, Captain Planet villains aren't real) We all want a clean, nice place to live, and to get along. But when you get into the nuts and bolts just a little bit from there, it diverges severely. Especially when there is an attempt at a conversation, and Antifa comes to shut it down, violently. I do think there is progress to be made by keeping the conversation going, despite these severe divides. When the words stop, the bullets start, and no one wants that.
...Well, except Sarah Silverman.
author=NTC3
Tell me what's gonna happen to a person wearing a hammer and sickle hat in the wrong place in America, then. Somehow, I think they'll find a range of "wrong places" to be much larger then those in MAGA hats.
Well maybe, but that's not really happening and difficult to prove. What is happening now is MAGA hats being assaulted. I'd rather deal in what's real than what-ifs.
author=NeverSilent
snip
I'm not wanting to trudge through the swamp of exceptions and anecdotes. The big picture is that there are two sides waging cultural war at the moment. Yes, of course there is a sliding scale on an individual basis. Some of you here might be surprised to learn that I do not wear a swaztika armband at all times. The way I see it:
Globalism vs Americanism
Communism vs Capitalism
Social Justice vs Meritocracy
Racial segregation vs Cultural unity in spite of race
Out group preference vs In group preference
Moral relativism vs Moral absolutism
The globalism vs Americanism thing - I just don't see how lefties and righties will ever agree on this, particularly since it empowers the left to import more and more people from cultures that are accustomed to getting free things from corrupt governments, people who have no interest in becoming a part of America and don't like our society, and you can justify this by calling opponents to mass immigration racist. The two sides have different goals. Lefties generally want to do away with national sovereignty and import everyone and anyone, give them welfare and voting rights, so they can outnumber and defeat the right. The right sees this as a threat to the safety and well being of our neighborhoods. How can these two possibly reconcile? That's in group preference vs out group preference. The same insanity that leads American feminist movements to tout Sharia law as the answer... a hyper-patriarchal system that would have women's rights be set back hundreds of years. It's a fanatical dedication to the out group there, because the in group is their political enemy.
How can I possibly see eye to eye with someone who uses the word "privilege" constantly, and therefore begins from a state of skew, and starts me at a position of owing the world something because of my race and gender, something I cannot change? It actually makes me very afraid to know there are so many people out there who see too many of me as a bad thing. They want my quality of life to suffer because social justice, not realizing that life isn't a zero sum game and assigning privilege to people based on their race and gender is a horrible, repugnant and ineffective solution to anything. It's really shitty knowing that so many people are rooting for me to lose because of something I cannot change. And if I don't like this whole privilege argument, I'm the racist.
When you're talking about the highest of high altitude goals, like peace and prosperity, then yes of course we have common ground. And a clean healthy environment is another. (No, Captain Planet villains aren't real) We all want a clean, nice place to live, and to get along. But when you get into the nuts and bolts just a little bit from there, it diverges severely. Especially when there is an attempt at a conversation, and Antifa comes to shut it down, violently. I do think there is progress to be made by keeping the conversation going, despite these severe divides. When the words stop, the bullets start, and no one wants that.
...Well, except Sarah Silverman.
BadLuck
2270
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828342202174668800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
"Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"
This doesn't sound a little like setting up to burn the Reichstag to you?
Jon Lovett put the concerns over stuff like this really well.
https://twitter.com/jonlovett/status/828346630894088192
"Trump signaling his intent to blame checks on his power for terrorist attacks is his most explicit threat against our democratic system yet."
Maybe Trump doesn't understand what he's saying, but the above quote is exactly right.
Harm, I get that you're annoyed with liberals and I understand you're pissed at hypocrisy, and I can empathize with thinking Hillary Clinton is shitty, but it's time to come to terms with this.
The pendulum didn't swing back the other direction. It got ripped out of the clock and thrown out the window.
"Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"
This doesn't sound a little like setting up to burn the Reichstag to you?
Jon Lovett put the concerns over stuff like this really well.
https://twitter.com/jonlovett/status/828346630894088192
"Trump signaling his intent to blame checks on his power for terrorist attacks is his most explicit threat against our democratic system yet."
Maybe Trump doesn't understand what he's saying, but the above quote is exactly right.
Harm, I get that you're annoyed with liberals and I understand you're pissed at hypocrisy, and I can empathize with thinking Hillary Clinton is shitty, but it's time to come to terms with this.
The pendulum didn't swing back the other direction. It got ripped out of the clock and thrown out the window.
Yes, Trump has already proven his presidency will be an imperial one. Kinda like the last guy.
That's the problem with setting new precedents. They tend to stick around.
In my ideal world, the new imperial presidency will undo that precedent set by the last one, and then die off naturally.
But very likely, Trump will take the imperial thing even further. And those of us who want our neighborhoods to be safe, our country to retain its national identity, and to serve its own people first, we'll be pleased, until the lefty comes along and shoves it back into globalism with perhaps even more imperial gusto and even more accusations of "agree with me or you are racist".
I don't like it, it's just reality.
Off topic Superbowl edit...
HOLY FREAKING COW. Atlanta fans - my condolences. I didn't really care who won but that 4th quarter was freakin' unbelievable. Holy cow.
That's the problem with setting new precedents. They tend to stick around.
In my ideal world, the new imperial presidency will undo that precedent set by the last one, and then die off naturally.
But very likely, Trump will take the imperial thing even further. And those of us who want our neighborhoods to be safe, our country to retain its national identity, and to serve its own people first, we'll be pleased, until the lefty comes along and shoves it back into globalism with perhaps even more imperial gusto and even more accusations of "agree with me or you are racist".
I don't like it, it's just reality.
Off topic Superbowl edit...
HOLY FREAKING COW. Atlanta fans - my condolences. I didn't really care who won but that 4th quarter was freakin' unbelievable. Holy cow.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=harmonic
Kinda like the last guy.
Real talk: people had eight years to blame Obama. They had eight years to question his legitimacy (birther movement). They need to let it go and start taking responsibility for their own actions. Obama wasn't the antichrist they painted him to be and he didn't enforce martial law to seize a third term. He may have bowed down to foreign dignitaries but at least he kept the nation afloat, sort of like how Bush kept us safe after 9/11.
If we get four more years of blaming daddy because the son isn't successful (there's a Biblical law against that sort of thing*), my head might explode.
*Deuteronomy 24:16 states:
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Solitayreauthor=LockeZPedantry would be a pretty bad reason to do nothing while someone in a position of power literally advocates for ethnic cleansing.
One of those things is wrong for me to do, and the other is wrong for Hitler to do. So this question makes no sense.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Not electing him to office is the solution that doesn't hurt anyone. I mean you probably shouldn't elect a guy as your leader anyway if he's saying he wants to legalize and then commit genocide.
Though I guess it also depends on the other guy. I don't know a lot about WW2 history. Maybe Hitler's opponent was a furry.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I thought he talked about it in Mein Kampf. Maybe it was less explicit there.
I assume the "violate Hitler's free speech" button would burn all the copies of his book? And stop him from making anti-semitic remarks in his campaign speeches? I'm not actually sure how that would save anyone's life. Stopping him from talking about ethnic cleansing would just prevent voters from knowing the reasons they shouldn't elect him. He would be MORE likely to get elected.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just really don't understand what exactly the two choices are supposed to be here. Or even who's making them. An average citizen in 1930? A federal judge? A newspaper publisher? A member of the League of Assassins? A time traveller?
I assume the "violate Hitler's free speech" button would burn all the copies of his book? And stop him from making anti-semitic remarks in his campaign speeches? I'm not actually sure how that would save anyone's life. Stopping him from talking about ethnic cleansing would just prevent voters from knowing the reasons they shouldn't elect him. He would be MORE likely to get elected.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just really don't understand what exactly the two choices are supposed to be here. Or even who's making them. An average citizen in 1930? A federal judge? A newspaper publisher? A member of the League of Assassins? A time traveller?
Well, at least you seem interested in actual conversation after all, harmonic. To be honest, I was afraid you might block off any attempt at exchange right away in order to make your theory of irreconcilable extremes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm glad that doesn't seem to be the case.
I will have to say that your views on immigration seem rather skewed and quite disturbing to me. Let's not fool ourselves: There will of course always be people who seek to exploit the state they currently live in, be they immigrants that want to take advantage of their new home, or natives who evade taxes and abuse loopholes in the law.
But in general, most immigrants that come to the US are actually not "people from cultures that are accustomed to getting free things from corrupt governments, people who have no interest in becoming a part of America and don't like our society." After all, what reason could those people possibly have to leave the comfortable situation of their original home countries? No, many immigrants that seek to leave their homes and move elsewhere are doing so because they are desperate. They either face extreme poverty and horrible, inhuman living conditions, or come from places that are ravaged by violence and war, where staying would pretty much leave them only with two options: To be murdered, or to become murderers.
Is not wanting to die or to kill really so despicable, and a good reason to deny these people the help and safety they so desperately need?
I, too, am one of those people that are strongly in favour of letting "everyone and anyone" in. But it seems that you struggle to imagine anyone would ever want to admit foreigners simply because they deserve a chance at a good life as well. In fact, before you mentioned it, I had never even thought of the possibility that someone might want to use immigration as an instrument of political power to outnumber their opponents. (Not to mention that at least in Germany, people of foreign nationality aren't even allowed to vote in country-wide elections unless and until they have aqcuired German citizenship, which usually takes a long time.)
Regardless, perhaps you should consider the possibility that for many people who are in favour of open borders, it is not about a "fanatical dedication to the out group," but about treating everyone well regardless of where they come from. And - to push it a little bit further - if the national way of life you seem so afraid of losing is what drives people to reject and exclude their fellow humans because of their origins or religion, then you should ask yourself if it is even worth preserving in this form to begin with.
By the way: You seem to have some misconceptions about what "privilege" actually means. It has nothing to do with guilt, and being privileged is absolutely not the same as being "the bad guy." All that privilege means is that you live in a system or society where institutionalised traditions and old concepts of normalcy lead to you getting certain benefits or generally better treatment that others do not receive. And you are correct, that alone isn't your fault, and being privileged doesn't make you a racist. What does make someone a racist is when they actively try to preserve this inequality and want to prevent people that belong to different social groups from acquiring those same benefits they themselves already have.
And I'm sure there are too many left-extremist crazies out there who take these concepts way too far and accuse anyone who was born into a position of privilege to be the spawn of hell. I'm not saying that's okay, and I'm especially not saying those people shouldn't be stopped. But their interpretations of the concept of privilege (which is just a term used to identify socially ingrained inequality and make people aware it exists) are not correct, and the conclusions they draw are not those of the majority.
I'm white, and I know that makes life easier for me in an unfair way compared to the struggles of others. But I'm neither proud of this fact and trying to maintain this status quo, nor am I going to hate myself for being who I am and assume my opinions don't matter.
Edit:
For the most part, the Nazis' dedication to genocide wasn't really the main goal of their leaders. It was just a convenient way of stirring the people up, uniting them against an imagined common enemy and thereby distracting them from their actual problems. It was just the time-honoured practice of scapegoating, combined with an ideological conception of a homogenous society where everyone would follow the same ideals without question.
Also, Hitler wasn't really elected democratically. His popularity was initially rather limited, but his fanatical supporters used violence and scare tactics to get people to vote for the NSDAP and prevent them from voting for other parties. The fact that the nazis employed these tactics and directly advocated violence and the destruction of democracy should have tipped people off, but at the time German democracy was still very new and unstable.
I will have to say that your views on immigration seem rather skewed and quite disturbing to me. Let's not fool ourselves: There will of course always be people who seek to exploit the state they currently live in, be they immigrants that want to take advantage of their new home, or natives who evade taxes and abuse loopholes in the law.
But in general, most immigrants that come to the US are actually not "people from cultures that are accustomed to getting free things from corrupt governments, people who have no interest in becoming a part of America and don't like our society." After all, what reason could those people possibly have to leave the comfortable situation of their original home countries? No, many immigrants that seek to leave their homes and move elsewhere are doing so because they are desperate. They either face extreme poverty and horrible, inhuman living conditions, or come from places that are ravaged by violence and war, where staying would pretty much leave them only with two options: To be murdered, or to become murderers.
Is not wanting to die or to kill really so despicable, and a good reason to deny these people the help and safety they so desperately need?
I, too, am one of those people that are strongly in favour of letting "everyone and anyone" in. But it seems that you struggle to imagine anyone would ever want to admit foreigners simply because they deserve a chance at a good life as well. In fact, before you mentioned it, I had never even thought of the possibility that someone might want to use immigration as an instrument of political power to outnumber their opponents. (Not to mention that at least in Germany, people of foreign nationality aren't even allowed to vote in country-wide elections unless and until they have aqcuired German citizenship, which usually takes a long time.)
Regardless, perhaps you should consider the possibility that for many people who are in favour of open borders, it is not about a "fanatical dedication to the out group," but about treating everyone well regardless of where they come from. And - to push it a little bit further - if the national way of life you seem so afraid of losing is what drives people to reject and exclude their fellow humans because of their origins or religion, then you should ask yourself if it is even worth preserving in this form to begin with.
By the way: You seem to have some misconceptions about what "privilege" actually means. It has nothing to do with guilt, and being privileged is absolutely not the same as being "the bad guy." All that privilege means is that you live in a system or society where institutionalised traditions and old concepts of normalcy lead to you getting certain benefits or generally better treatment that others do not receive. And you are correct, that alone isn't your fault, and being privileged doesn't make you a racist. What does make someone a racist is when they actively try to preserve this inequality and want to prevent people that belong to different social groups from acquiring those same benefits they themselves already have.
And I'm sure there are too many left-extremist crazies out there who take these concepts way too far and accuse anyone who was born into a position of privilege to be the spawn of hell. I'm not saying that's okay, and I'm especially not saying those people shouldn't be stopped. But their interpretations of the concept of privilege (which is just a term used to identify socially ingrained inequality and make people aware it exists) are not correct, and the conclusions they draw are not those of the majority.
I'm white, and I know that makes life easier for me in an unfair way compared to the struggles of others. But I'm neither proud of this fact and trying to maintain this status quo, nor am I going to hate myself for being who I am and assume my opinions don't matter.
Edit:
For the most part, the Nazis' dedication to genocide wasn't really the main goal of their leaders. It was just a convenient way of stirring the people up, uniting them against an imagined common enemy and thereby distracting them from their actual problems. It was just the time-honoured practice of scapegoating, combined with an ideological conception of a homogenous society where everyone would follow the same ideals without question.
Also, Hitler wasn't really elected democratically. His popularity was initially rather limited, but his fanatical supporters used violence and scare tactics to get people to vote for the NSDAP and prevent them from voting for other parties. The fact that the nazis employed these tactics and directly advocated violence and the destruction of democracy should have tipped people off, but at the time German democracy was still very new and unstable.
