Researching the world of Warhammer proved to be somewhat similar to their deep dives into real world history. Creative Assembly open up about the latest Total War.
Talking Total War Warhammer II with Creative Assembly
The looming Darkness has not consumed Bungie at this point in time. Quite the contrary. Destiny 2 is the glorious self-rez fans have been praying for.
Out of Orbit - Our Full and Complete Destiny 2 Review
With the NES emulator naming of 'flog' it showcases the ability for the Switch to play NES games. But, it also raises the question of - why?
The Heart-Warming Story Behind the Switch's Hidden NES Golf Game
Having recently entered the Early Access stage of development, we go hands-on with the latest build of id Software's Quake Champions.
Fraggin' Good Times - Hands-On with Quake Champions
Political Thread 2.5 (Because we really haven't made any progre...
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
26024 posts
Trump is looking to scrap DACA. What is DACA?

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy established by the Obama administration in June 2012. DACA allows certain illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work permit.


So basically people who have entered the country illegally at no fault of their own due to the fact that they were children.

Trump is ordering a mass deportation of people who have done nothing wrong and in the vast majority of cases have established themselves as productive and valued members of their community. All so he can be seen to be dismantling Obama's work and to appease his racist followers.

Oh, and no-one has seen a penny of that million dollars he said he'd donate. He also said he'd donate to Hurricane Sandy but never did.
12:36pm 07/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3172 posts
01:19pm 07/09/17 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
21358 posts
All so he can be seen to be dismantling Obama's work and to appease his racist followers.


i am struggling to see how it isn't anything but this..
01:19pm 07/09/17 Permalink
Vash
5528 posts


i am struggling to see how it isn't anything but this..


It's all part of the plan to make America great again!
03:02pm 07/09/17 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
26025 posts
It's all part of the plan to make America great white again!
03:03pm 07/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2740 posts
i am struggling to see how it isn't anything but this..


Has it got fpot calling a bunch of people he knows less than nothing about racist? If yes, that's what it was.
06:27pm 07/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2741 posts
here is one from the Atlantic just for you phooks. Rape culture isn't a thing.

A central tenet of advocates seeking greater accountability for sexual assault is that the complainant is virtually always the one telling the truth. As a 2014 White House report, “Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action,” stated, “Only 2–10 percent of reported rapes are false.” Campus materials aimed at students make similar assertions.

But as Michelle J. Anderson, the president of Brooklyn College and a scholar of rape law, acknowledged in a 2004 paper in the Boston University Law Review, “There is no good empirical data on false rape complaints either historically or currently.” The data have not improved since that time. In a 2015 working paper, Lieutenant Colonel Reggie Yager, a U.S. Air Force judge advocate who has defended men accused of sexual assault, took a comprehensive look at the research on the incidence of false rape reports, and concluded that the studies confirming the overwhelming veracity of accusers are methodologically unsound.


I wonder where the white house got a stat with no solid empirical basis from eh? maybe it was activist research. just maybe.
06:53pm 07/09/17 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39163 posts
Trump is looking to scrap DACA. What is DACA?
Like (I have to assume) almost everyone else in the world I'd never heard of this DACA thing until the last week.

I found the Slashdot comments quite interesting on this topic. There were many people saying DACA was Obama overstepping the bounds of the Executive in an un-Constitutional manner. But there are just as many people saying it was fine because Congress actually did empower the Executive to deal with this issue (also if only because it was apparently never successfully challenged while he was in office). #55141729 probably the best single post summary that looks at both sides. This referenced Tweetstorm is interesting too, from an Obama staffer listing why it is/was always likely to be wound back.

Basically it's one of those things that I think comes down to various massively complicated subtleties in law so it's much much easier just to outsource the decision to pre-defined notions or your favourite talking heads. I don't need any more evidence to think that Trump is a douchenozzle but I confess I'd probably be in favour of winding back un-Constitutional legislation (but that's not what this is from the above referenced comment, it's just a policy?? f***)
07:14pm 07/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3173 posts
Secrecy and silence are the perpetrator’s first line of defense. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure that no one listens. . . . After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened; the victim lies; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it on herself; and in any case it is time to forget the past and move on.

We are still in an era of battles over who will be granted the right to speak and the right to be believed, and pressure comes from both directions. From the “men’s rights” movement and a lot of popular misinformation comes the baseless notion that there is an epidemic of groundless accusations of sexual assault. The implication that women as a category are unreliable and that false rape charges are the real issue is used to silence individual women and to avoid discussing sexual violence, and to make out men as the principal victims. The framework is reminiscent of that attached to voter fraud, a crime so rare in the United States that it appears to have had no significant impact on election outcomes in a very long time.

A friend of mine who works in sexual-harassment prevention training at a major university reports that when she gave a presentation at the business school on her campus, one of the older male professors asked, “Why would we start an investigation based on only one woman’s report?” She has dozens of stories like this, and others about women — students, employees, professors, researchers — struggling to be believed, especially when they testify against high-status offenders.

This summer, antediluvian columnist George Will claimed that there is only a “supposed campus epidemic of rape,” and that when universities or feminists or liberals “make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.” Young women replied by creating the Twitter hashtag #survivorprivilege, posting remarks such as “I didn’t realize it was a privilege to live with PTSD, severe anxiety & depression” and “#ShouldIBeQuiet because when i spoke out everyone said it was a lie?” Will’s column hardly even constitutes a twist on the old idea that women are naturally unreliable, that there’s nothing to see in all these rape charges, and that we should just move along.

I should have offered proof, as though proof were possible. I am like bad people who distort facts. I am subjective but believe I am objective; I feel but confuse feeling with thinking or knowing. It’s such a familiar litany and a familiar rage.

If we could recognize or even name this pattern of discrediting, we could bypass recommencing the credibility conversation every time a woman speaks.


If you're a right wing authoritarian reading this, you'll be offended for whatever reason, perhaps because the feminists are coming to get you (and your church). Everyone else will realise that thousands of survivors are failed by the system, and they need support and frameworks to help them come forward, male and female.
10:58pm 07/09/17 Permalink
trillion
Ballarat, Victoria
4314 posts
well DACA does sound much more PC than wetback i suppose
12:08am 08/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2742 posts
If you're a right wing authoritarian reading this, you'll be offended for whatever reason, perhaps because the feminists are coming to get you (and your church). Everyone else will realise that thousands of survivors are failed by the system, and they need support and frameworks to help them come forward, male and female.


If you're a nominally functional adult you'll be able to see that even if what she say is true it doesn't justify wholesale repeal of fundamental rights. You'll also notice she refers to sexual harassment which as bad as it *can* be is often not bad at all. You'll notice victims of being looked at get referred as "survivors" just the same as victims of gang rapes.


1) limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
2) a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
3) minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
4) informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.


Title IX is an executive order, with *undefined*, not vaguely defined, offenses justified on the emotive grounds that we have failed survivors, and if due process rights have to be suspended well we need to address this easily recognizable societal problem. Courts are recognizing this phooks. All those rawcist judges are awarding against title IX investigations in favour of the "perpetrator".

I found an LWA without even looking for one. How did old mate f*** that up. Maybe he wasn't really trying. I think he may want "right wing" to walk hand in hand with "authoritarian". Like really badly.

See this is why its easier just to skip to calling you a f*****g moron phooks. You demonstrated from the outset you had no interest in an actual discussion. You want to call people who disagree with you right wing authoritarians or ideologues and that's fine.

comments like this

See, this middle road is such a dangerous ideology in itself, not because it assumes that experts should be making all the practical decisions, but because it gives into the false equivalency of balance that legitimises the views of those like PP. Democracy itself exists for a reason, and you should get off the fence.


would be quicker if you just wrote

View which disagree with my own are a false equivalency.


You wanted to be called a moron, and I'm happy to do it. I see no reason to change the arrangement
07:32am 08/09/17 Permalink
paveway
Brisbane, Queensland
21359 posts
Basically it's one of those things that I think comes down to various massively complicated subtleties in law so it's much much easier just to outsource the decision to pre-defined notions or your favourite talking heads. I don't need any more evidence to think that Trump is a douchenozzle but I confess I'd probably be in favour of winding back un-Constitutional legislation (but that's not what this is from the above referenced comment, it's just a policy?? f***)


fair enough

not sure other republican presidents would do it though, without the seeming vendetta trump has to destroy everything obama did
08:29am 08/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3174 posts
Pp I will be blunt. You have established in this thread you care deeply about due process for Nazis, white supremacists, and men charged with rape.

You have championed for those who are in the majority, for those with historical and current privileges, and for traditional family values.

You have trivialised sexual offences, and made fun of survivors of assault and abuse.

At all instances you have questioned credibility on sources and evidence only when it is against your own worldview.

I don't expect you to care about why this is an issue because like most RWAs, all you see is threat to the current order, and therefore a threat to you. You are so numb to what you're saying. I encourage you to see the world for what it is, and for what it can be. There is beauty in diversity, and the world is not a dangerous place. There is no a need for a big ego, you are not under threat.
10:33am 08/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3176 posts
Perhaps I can encourage you to check your own biases with a simple question.

"You suck d****!" is an insult. Why is that?
03:16pm 08/09/17 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39165 posts
fair enough

not sure other republican presidents would do it though, without the seeming vendetta trump has to destroy everything obama did
doing it right now while Texas is underwater and people are fleeing Florida for fear of the biggest hurricane ever seems like misplaced priorities

Spoke to a colleague in Florida yesterday; they are battening down the hatches with supplies but are not leaving (Miami) because they don't want to get stuck on the roads in a hurricane with no gas. It is still days away (I think?) but it sounds like people are pretty on edge. Hopefully the f*****g thing dies in the next few days but it sounds like there is still plenty of heat in the ocean for it to power off.
05:10pm 08/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2743 posts
Pp I will be blunt. You have established in this thread you care deeply about due process for Nazis, white supremacists, and men charged with rape.


You have championed for those who are in the majority, for those with historical and current privileges, and for traditional family values.

You have trivialised sexual offences, and made fun of survivors of assault and abuse.

At all instances, you have questioned credibility on sources or evidence only when it is against your own worldview. I don't expect you to care about why this is an issue because like most RWAs, you are so numb to what you're saying. All you see is threat to the current order, and therefore threat to you.

I encourage you to see the world for what it is, and for what it can be. There is beauty in diversity, and the world is not a dangerous place. There isn't a need for a big ego, you are not under threat


Phooks darling let me explain to you very clearly and very patiently why this post is incoherent drivel.

I have pointed out that those groups have rights. Those rights are enshrined explicitly in the US constitution, in the ICCPR and to varying degrees implicitly in the Australian constitution.

I have also pointed out that if you are going to brawl in the streets with someone exercising their inalienable rights, in a civilised democracy, you are the problem. Even, and perhaps especially, when those views are taboo or morally reprehensible.

The nature of their “historical and current privilege” is not and has never been relevant to the content of their rights.

Whether you like it or not Nazis and white supremacists represent an immeasurably small minority in the US and Australia. So the idea that I have stood up for a racist majority trampling the rights of minorities is absurd, factually wrong and a clumsy insult.

I have at no point trivialised sexual crimes much less made fun of survivors and I have discussed zero rapists. I have mocked, quite correctly, the ridiculous concept that we in Australia live in rape culture. I have mocked you for trying to suggest that some sexual *harassment* is evidence of a *rape* culture.

I have attacked the idea that right wing authoritarianism is something that should be taken seriously, because the survey you linked to was a bald faced political document. And to demonstrate my point, you can pore over my posts. You will not find a value judgement in relation to “traditional family values”. Your ability to project notwithstanding. I have expressed no opinion at all in relation to them. I have stated you can disagree with that phrase with out expressing a value judgement which you have rather hysterically characterised as “championing” traditional family values.

As for attacking things that don't support my "world view", what the f*** do you propose you are doing? I haven't seen you attempt to point out the glaring faults in the s*** you post champ. for example

We are still in an era of battles over who will be granted the right to speak and the right to be believed


The right to be believed isn't a thing, and most certainly isn't a thing in a criminal matter, the literal point of a criminal trial is to determine who should be believed.

The one I particularly love is that we don't live in a dangerous world but we also live in a rape culture. *amazing*. and for the reading impaired. That sentence expresses no judgement at all on whether we in fact live in a dangerous world. So spare me the vulgar psycho analysis. It would be funny if you weren't qualified.
06:49pm 08/09/17 Permalink
taggs
6507 posts
+1

PP sometimes gets lost in the internet dweeby agrumenty weeds but good post IMO.


Genuinely interested in good faith responses.
08:40pm 08/09/17 Permalink
wubs
Brisbane, Queensland
1 posts
What to do about the anti SSM and ACL ads?
10:52pm 08/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3177 posts

Yet another enlightened post from the RWA.

PP your interpretation of rape culture is that rape is endorsed explicitly by a society. Wrong.

Your interpretation of psychological literature regarding RWAs is very poor.

The nature of their "historical and current privilege" is not and has never been relevant to the content of their rights.


Wrong. History and politics play an important role in developing or recognizing rights, and the discussion about which behaviours are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of importance. The concept of rights varies with political orientation.

"championing" traditional family values.


family values
plural noun
values especially of a traditional or conservative kind which are held to promote the sound functioning of the family and to strengthen the fabric of society

going to brawl in the streets with someone exercising their inalienable rights, in a civilised democracy, you are the problem. Even, and perhaps especially, when those views are taboo or morally reprehensible.


A great insight into where you, and the rest of your camp, get your moral compass from - authority. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights can be seen as unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. For more information; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development#Post-Conventional

I haven't seen you attempt to point out the glaring faults in the s*** you post champ. for example


I'm yet to see someone point out a valid criticism. I love being wrong, and recognise I am biased in my own ways, if anyone can see valid flaws in logic (meme posting notwithstanding) I invite them to point it out.
02:50pm 09/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3178 posts
For instace if I see Hitler 2.0 walking the streets, you bet your ass imma punch him the f*** out. PP be the guy standing behind the riot police, clapping on the cops putting me in jail as an enemy of the state for punching a respected politician
03:12pm 09/09/17 Permalink
Vash
5529 posts
You're wasting your time Phooks. He'll exhaust you with wall of texts and then think he's destroying you. Ego the size of a house.

The holy Constitution, a document that supported slavery until amendment. How long until the alt-right amends it to remove the rights of minorities?

PP is only a protector of justice & freedom for as much as it suits his world view. If the democratic process brought in Slavery again, no doubt he'd champion it for how wonderful democracy is for allowing such opposing views to enter law.
03:35pm 09/09/17 Permalink
taggs
6508 posts
For instace if I see Hitler 2.0 walking the streets, you bet your ass imma punch him the f*** out. PP be the guy standing behind the riot police, clapping on the cops putting me in jail as an enemy of the state for punching a respected politician


One of the fundamental principles underpinning modern society is that the state has a monopoly on violence other than self defence. You might think you're doing a "good" when you punch hitler 2.0 and in a world where 100% of the population agrees you're punching hitler 2.0 maybe you are. What if only 90% of the population agrees with you? 60%? 30%?

Internet toughguy posturing aside surely you're intelligent enough to see how stupid that sort of idea is?
03:53pm 09/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2744 posts
PP your interpretation of rape culture is that rape is endorsed explicitly by a society. Wrong.

Your interpretation of psychological literature regarding RWAs is very poor.


Just so you know phooks, calling me an RWA isn't getting under my skin. It's just making you look stupid.

Rape culture phooks, is the claim that rape is pervasive in society and implicitly or explicitly endorsed in said society. So if anything I was being generous in my interpretation. Nevertheless that is a empirically false claim, and you have not posted a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. You've posted emotive crap with zero reference to data, and the data you have posted does not on any reasonable interpretation support your claim.

If RWA is not a pathetic exercise in confirmation bias, why are you still talking about traditional family values phooks. I have still literally said nothing about family values traditional or otherwise. You are so far up your own ass you're incapable of seeing that apparently.

Wrong. History and politics play an important role in developing or recognizing rights, and the discussion about which behaviours are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of importance. The concept of rights varies with political orientation.


When you can point to a rights document which states these rights are contingent on historical and current privilege I'll take you seriously. You're going to be looking for a while though phooks because they don't exist.

The point of *universal* human rights is that all humans get them you utter utter moron. I love how you link to someone who says universalism is the highest form of moral development then argue with a straight face that human rights should be applied with consideration of "privilege" in mind. Genius.

Noted RWAs the ACLU agree with my interpretation on the right to free speech.

A great insight into where you, and the rest of your camp, get your moral compass from - authority.


Oh look you at go phooks. How did you pull authority out of those two sentences? it's like magic. I guess we're back to you just making up your own arguments. Did you get up on Nadal?

If you see hitler 2.0 you're going to do nothing of the sort, I doubt you've even said boo to an elected official.

but read in conjunction with

There is no a need for a big ego, you are not under threat.


Champagne comedy.

He'll exhaust you with wall of texts and then think he's destroying you.


You self-destruct Vash, and are too stupid to know it.
04:09pm 09/09/17 Permalink
Vash
5530 posts
Nothing shows insecurity more than a big ego and calling everyone stupid.
It's okay PP. You're loved, everything will be OK.
04:18pm 09/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2745 posts
Oh Vash. the s*** that comes out of you when poked really does make it all worthwhile.
04:46pm 09/09/17 Permalink
Viper119
Other International
3297 posts
Taking it upon yourself to punch Hitler 2.0 if you see him walking the streets is basically vigilante or mob justice, no? Where's the end of that thought process? We decree certain ideologies punishable by death and cull all the racists, xenophobes, bigots, conservatives, people that disagree with you?

Why's it so difficult to see that the rule of law that underpins our civilisation not only protects you but also people that have differing views to you?

Antifa is no better than the white supremacists given the violent and authoritarian tendencies they have, imo. Not to mention rolling out to get into street fights with neonazis is hardly the way to stop them, violence begets violence. The illogicality and hypocrisy of the far left is pretty astonishing tbh. The political spectrum really is a horse shoe with the far left and the far right actually being pretty close to each other.

I thought this was cool: The hilarious way a German town turned neo-Nazis against Nazism
08:27pm 09/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3179 posts

Just so you know phooks, calling me an RWA isn't getting under my skin.


You do however keep arguing against it's very existence, and trying to fight for the same phenomenon in left wingers, which is the -exact- response you would expect from an RWA. Hence the funny.

The whole 'under threat' thing is playing to the insecurities of the right - the world is a dangerous place specifically because feminists, gays, refugees, atheists and ethnic minorities (basically any minority or outgroup, not any specific one) are coming to steal your jobs/rights/church/etc, and that is evil that needs to be combated with 'necessary evils' like a strong military, nationalism, capital punishment, capitalism, religion and conservative economics.

Hence the whole 'you're under threat, you need a strong leader' stuff the liberals pull all the time.

Where's the end of that thought process?


At the hitler 2.0 part? whu-oh, it's the slippery slope train, next stop, the war on drugs!

the far left and the far right actually being pretty close to each other.


I feel like we're going in circles here. Vash had a nice diagram for you up a few posts

violence begets violence.


Which is exactly why forcing the boats to turn back, at the likely cost of the lives of valid refugees and asylum seekers, was -such- a great idea. (Protip; regressive refugee policies weren't the best long term solution)
policies of deterrence also come at a very high economic cost to Australia and have a significant negative impact on Australia’s strategic interests internationally.
https://www.unicef.org.au/blog/news-and-insights/september-2016/the-true-cost-of-australias-refugee-policies
09:01pm 09/09/17 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
26027 posts
Wouldn't it be just as easy to say that letting the nazis have their say and hoping it all peters out into nothing may be a critical mistake that has historic precedent? I am not talking about targeting them with violence, but they must be protested. Maybe it's not possible for these large groups to clash peacefully. I know so far only one of the groups has committed a terrorist act.

The risk isn't the USA becoming a 1930s/40s style nazi state with death camps. The risk is the possibility of the nazis gaining any sort of political influence at all. In a healthy democracy with competent leadership and a well educated public willing to critically think their way through problems I agree the nazi threat would be zero. At the moment we have a rogue president who has vocally supported the nazis and implemented policies that support their agenda (giant walls, mass deportations etc). We also have an American public either dumb or disenfranchised enough to vote him in. The police force in the USA is absolutely f***ed and if anyone is hoping they'll be the ones to save them they're going to be disappointed.
09:16pm 09/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2746 posts
You do however keep arguing against it's very existence, and trying to fight for the same phenomenon in left wingers, which is the -exact- response you would expect from an RWA. Hence the funny.


Sounds a little like that can't be falsified there phooks. Hence funny.

Just you get out there and punch those imaginary nazis Ted Kaczynski.

Just note that when people shoot up mosques you can't complain. You said it was ok to be violent to your political opponents. The idea you call anyone "authoritarian" is truly Orwellian.

HEY YOU KNOW WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT REFUGEES AND STRONG LEADERS. NOONE. TAKE A DAY OFF YOU WEIRDO.

I know so far only one of the groups has committed a terrorist act.


Remember when that bernie supporter shot members of congress. Me too.

At the moment we have a rogue president who has vocally supported the nazis


Provide a single quote where this has happened. Just one.
09:26pm 09/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3180 posts
12:13am 10/09/17 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39167 posts
One of the fundamental principles underpinning modern society is that the state has a monopoly on violence other than self defence.
In normal circumstances I 100% agree wtih you. I cannot think of a situation in which I would tolerate citizens using violence against a person or group, without their safety being at stake.

But it's important to remember that this rationale is based on one thing: the state going out of its way to defend its citizens. If the state is failing in that duty (e.g., there are hordes of brownshirts wandering the streets beating up people based on their genetic makeup) and the safety, liberty, health and lives of others are compromised, then arguably civil disobedience (i.e., punching Nazis) could be a fairly logical next step.

This would be, more or less, the point of a major societal breakdown and I think it's fairly obvious (except the weeny tiny number of anti-fascist punchers, a number smaller than even that of the Nazis) that we're not near that point - but there are very worrying signs, e.g., the total, spectacular failure of the President of the United States to simply and immediately condemn actual, literal Nazis that exist in his country and are stirring, as a direct result of his other total, spectacular failures (in policy but also as a human being).

So while I think violence is not the right answer to the "Nazi threat" today, I can envisage a future where it is without much difficulty. Given that it is basically totally legal (in the US at least) for Nazis to organise and wander around public with more or less zero repercussions, it should not be forgotten that all the anti-fascist punchers can and almost certainly will be locked up (even a half-assed effort by the authorities should do this), while the number of Nazis can grow because there are (for now) basically zero mechanisms to forcibly check the spread of their ideology.

It is not difficult to envisage a world where, for a long period of time, mobs of Nazis wander the streets calling for the extermination of brown people, with things eventually going out of control, resulting in them beating them up or (say) running them over in their cars, all while the machinery of government flails around uselessly trying to decide what to do. Like a Kristallnacht 2.0 situation where a bunch of Nazis that think they're clever try to perform non-violent action by blockading or damaging businesses owned by people of whatever ethnicities they're sad about.

So I'm saying, at some point I would find it hard to be critical of those using violence to stop Nazis from growing their evil movement and hurting more and more people. "First they came for the Nazis" just doesn't have that same ring to it, you know?

General comments:

Without having spoken to any Nazi punchers, I think the argument for punching Nazis is that it IS self defence, and the defence of others, in the face of a disgusting ideology that literally wants people dead based on nothing more than some random genetic factors.

It's easy to think Nazis are just further along on some linear scale of badness, like a little bit above general purpose murderers and people that torture animals or something. (For what it's worth I honestly find the threats of Islamic terrorists and North Korea completely banal by comparison.) But that is not the case; it is more like some exponential curve of badness. When thinking about people that want to punch Nazis, I think it's important (or at least, interesting) to remember that there are people alive today that were in Nazi death camps, who faced down literal Nazi soldiers on battlefields, who have family members that are no longer alive today because of Nazis.

These aren't random abstract expressions of rage at a couple of skinhead rednecks; they're deeply entrenched feelings of terror from people who were at risk of genocide or extermination and, rightfully, have never forgotten about it. Few things make me sympathetic about the right to bear arms but avoiding genocide due to the apathy of governments is one of them.

While I think punching Nazis is not the right response right now, I have to wonder what would have happened in 1930s if people had spent a bit more time punching Nazis, instead of being strong-armed by brownshirts while the state looked on futilely (although admittedly probably not without a lot of frustration) doing nothing.

The good news though is that - in my ever-humble opinion - I think the circumstances are significantly, like orders-of-magnitude, different. I do not believe there are enough Nazis to develop critical mass. I do not think anti-fascists punching Nazis will increase (or decrease) their numbers. I do not think American society will tolerate the cancer of Nazis, and believe they will be suppressed and rejected by the normal machinations of society, accelerated through non-violent methodologies (e.g., Sleeping Giants and public humiliation), although sadly not without more deaths as some of the more fringe crazy elements go out of control.
You might think you're doing a "good" when you punch hitler 2.0 and in a world where 100% of the population agrees you're punching hitler 2.0 maybe you are. What if only 90% of the population agrees with you? 60%? 30%?

Internet toughguy posturing aside surely you're intelligent enough to see how stupid that sort of idea is?
hehe, it sounds like we are now just discussing the vulnerabilities of democracy here :D

What IF x% of people do agree punching Nazis is OK, and we pass a law that allows it!?! Would that be a terrible law? (I suspect you think this already and that is not what you are saying but not clear to me what your point is here. This is what I mean by a vulnerability of democracy - just because a majority of people think we should be allowed to have slaves, or people from Tasmania should only get paid 40%, or whatever, doesn't mean the laws of the country should reflect that.

Even if 100% of the population does agree that punching the Nazi was a good idea, there is a strong argument that it still should be illegal and the Nazi puncher should be dealt with accordingly. (I think the anti-fascist punchers should be tried for assault, but several of them already have been so the system seems to be working reasonably well, if a bit slow and anemic). In the (unlikely) event we get to the point where Nazi groups are more organised and become an actual threat I would expect, and demand, the state take steps to limit it, regardless of the percentage of citizens that think it's a good idea.

Sadly, due to the totally inconvenient nature of the space-time continuum, it is hard to A/B test reality, so we'll never know what the best course of action is, or would have been, or was last century the first time these Nazi f**** reared their stupid peanut heads. I would like to believe that our society has evolved to be strong enough to deal with such threats organically, and this brief spurt of activity will soon wither and die as pathetically and ignominiously as it deserves, as they all go back into their basements to lick their wounds with the realisation that their beliefs simply have no place in this era of humanity.
02:33am 10/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3181 posts
SIEGEL: What clearly distinguishes a Robert E. Lee statue from a George Washington statue or a Thomas Jefferson statue since all those men owned slaves?

SOMIN: There are two big distinctions. One, nobody honors George Washington precisely for the fact that he owned slaves, whereas the Confederate leaders, when they're honored, are honored almost entirely for their service to the Confederacy, which was created for a purpose of perpetuating and extending slavery.

Second, while I think it's very much correct to criticize the Founding Fathers for owning slaves, those of them who did, they also had great achievements in other areas which do legitimately deserve honor. By contrast, the Confederate leaders - very few of them would be remembered today but for what they did in the Civil War to protect slavery.

SIEGEL: One of the arguments that's heard is that a statue of Robert E. Lee reminds us of a dark chapter in our past, that it's part of our history. Removing it is akin to erasing history. Does that argument hold any water for you?

SOMIN: I don't think so. We should definitely remember this period in our history. And in fact, nobody proposes that we forget. But there's a big difference between remembering history and honoring people who fought in defense of slavery. And what these statues do is they honor these people. They don't simply commemorate them. If the goal was just simply to remember what happened, that could be done with museums, or that could be done with more appropriate public monuments, ones that actually acknowledge the evil of slavery.

SIEGEL: Now, I asked you about two slave-owning Founding Fathers, Washington and Jefferson. But there are people in more ambiguous situations. Woodrow Wilson was a 20th-century president, a segregationist - on the other hand, led the country through World War I, proposed joining the League of Nations, won a Nobel Prize. Should his name be taken off a school at Princeton or the Center for Scholars in Washington D.C.?

SOMIN: I think this is a tougher case than a Confederate leader is. To my mind, I have no problem with removing his name. But I can see people on the other side of the debate who say his segregationism, his violations of civil liberties and his poor performance in forging peace after World War I - that these are outweighed by what they consider to be his achievements in other areas. It's an arguable issue, and reasonable people can differ. On the other hand, with the Confederate leaders, their legacy is much more one-sided. It consists almost entirely of their war in defense of slavery.

SIEGEL: Is it perilous, though, to judge historical figures by the moral and ethical standards of the present time?

SOMIN: In some ways, it is. But we don't have to do that in this case. There were plenty of people who in 1861 realized that slavery was wrong and that seceding for the purpose of protecting it was wrong. They included not only many people in the North but also many white Southerners. A large number of Army officers from the state where I live in, Virginia, actually chose to fight for the Union rather than support the Confederacy as Robert E. Lee did.

SIEGEL: There's another kind of monument certainly throughout the South that is not for a general or for a Confederate leader but for a Confederate soldier, just as there were doughboy monuments after the first world war, commemorating the locals who had died - different category for that kind of monument?

SOMIN: I think so. I think it's possible to commemorate people who died in a war without necessarily justifying their cause. For example, in Germany, there are cemeteries for German soldiers who died in World War I and World War II that commemorate the deaths without, at least at this point, honoring the causes that Germany fought for in those wars. So similarly, I think cemeteries and similar monuments whose main purpose is to commemorate the dead are very different from statues that honor the people that they depict and justify their cause.
08:25am 10/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3183 posts
Trogs centrist paradise be like:





09:23am 10/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2747 posts
While I think punching Nazis is not the right response right now, I have to wonder what would have happened in 1930s if people had spent a bit more time punching Nazis, instead of being strong-armed by brownshirts while the state looked on futilely (although admittedly probably not without a lot of frustration) doing nothing.


Trog this literally happened, a bunch of red shirts would turn up an punch on. It resulted in an expanded police state, which helped the nazis, you can go and read about it. Nazis would goad people into fighting and then use this to justify the expansion of police powers to disperse crowds.

When thinking about people that want to punch Nazis, I think it's important (or at least, interesting) to remember that there are people alive today that were in Nazi death camps, who faced down literal Nazi soldiers on battlefields, who have family members that are no longer alive today because of Nazis.

These aren't random abstract expressions of rage at a couple of skinhead rednecks; they're deeply entrenched feelings of terror from people who were at risk of genocide or extermination and, rightfully, have never forgotten about it. Few things make me sympathetic about the right to bear arms but avoiding genocide due to the apathy of governments is one of them.


As for this. there are people who did that its true. They are not *repeat* not the people advocating for punching nazis. You can find jews who advocate for the rights of nazis to peacefully organise and march.

The giant bright burning golden line is violence. You have categorically not acted in self defence if you respond with violence to speech period. And this idea that you can, is a profoundly dangerous one.

The people talking about punching nazis are a d***less parade of internet tough guys, who'd s*** their pants in an actual physical fight.

There is no danger *at all* of Nazis holding sway in the US now or in the future.
10:21am 10/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3184 posts
There is no danger *at all* of Nazis holding sway in the US now or in the future.
lol
11:16am 10/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3185 posts
You have categorically not acted in self defence if you respond with violence to speech period.


Unless, of course, that speech is to do with terrorism. Or national security threats. Or illegal immigrants mulims refugees entering the country 'illegally'. Or aggression against the state. Or, you know, if it's self defence because it indirectly threatens the sovereignty of the nation because of faraway geopolitical instability. And that's why we need a strong military ofc.
11:35am 10/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3186 posts
In case you don't understand my point again PP, it's that you are only against violence to people who are messing with the 'current order', whereas state sanctioned violence is A-OK.
11:36am 10/09/17 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
4051 posts
I like it how people think that hate groups have a right to "peacefully" protest because having a policy of violence and oppression against minorities is apparently free speech.

Don't forget the KKK is a terrorist group, the free speech conversation would go out the window if it were a group of muslims who were protesting while waving an ISIS flag.

If defending the supposed rights of nazis to protest is important to you then maybe you should re-evaluate your priorities. By the way, the right to free speech does not include hate speech, having to explain that to grown ass adults is pretty depressing.
11:40am 10/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2748 posts
In case you don't understand my point again PP


No I understand you point quite clearly. It's just wrong.

So in that Wikipedia did it touch on how neo-nazis shape policy (because they don't in anyway at all) or did it talk about how they exist. Because I'm talking about one and not the other. But you're too dumb to figure that our apparently.

There will never be a time when people don't hold morally reprehensible views. Nor is it particularly desirable to create a society where it is illegal to express those views.

Just go get your punch on Phooks. When a body guard smashes your face in the pavement, and you changed *nothing at all* IE nazis didn't have influence before and won't after, it will be all the more funny.
12:20pm 10/09/17 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
12888 posts
By the way, the right to free speech does not include hate speech, having to explain that to grown ass adults is pretty depressing.


Hate Speech in America is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Its depressing that you want to shut other people up.
People like you are far more dangerous than Nazis.
Then there are people like Trog who believe Free Speech is founded on Righteousness and everyone should be really nice to each other.

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
Brendon O'Neil referred to this a couple of nights ago on Facebook.

Everyone who says this is really saying, "You can say what you like, but you might suffer for it". Which is another way of saying, "You can say what you like, but I wouldn't if I were you". Which is another way of saying, "Best not sayt, eh".

So let's get this "consequences" thing straight once and for all. If the consequence of our freedom of speech is more speech -- disagreement, argument, challenge, questioning -- that is absolutely fine. Those consequences are good, essential in fact. They're central to freedom of speech. But if the consequences are being No Platformed, or expelled from polite society, or sacked, or harassed so relentlessly that you stop saying what you wanted to say, or banned from Twitter, or arrested, or jailed, or shot, then that is unacceptable.

And these are the consequences that all the supposed liberals, clueless libertarians and radical Islamists who utter the words "Your free speech has consequences" are really talking about. By "consequences", they mean "punishment". They mean, "We'll teach you a lesson if you say that thing". They're making a threat. Be very worried when you hear people speak of "consequences" for what we think and say.



12:35pm 10/09/17 Permalink
Phooks
Brisbane, Queensland
3187 posts
how neo-nazis shape policy (because they don't in anyway at all) or did it talk about how they exist. Because I'm talking about one and not the other. 


So.. wh.. I don't.. ...... I'll refer you to Trogs post for that one.

"First they came for the Nazis" just doesn't have that same ring to it, you know?

This_thread.jpeg
03:50pm 10/09/17 Permalink
Sir Redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
2140 posts

Just remember Phooks when dealing with newscorp readership, Nazis marching in the street, fine.

Calling someone a dog f***** is not allowed.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/07/chris-kenny-ill-be-remembered-as-the-journalist-called-a-dog-fker-who-stood-up-for-his-rights


04:19pm 10/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2749 posts
"First they came for the Nazis" just doesn't have that same ring to it, you know?


So then there should be no need to be wandering the streets looking for hitler 2.0 to punch on with should there?

But go save the world from the nazis phooks. We can all have a laugh about how they've had more influence over your face than political thought for the last 50 years.
05:19pm 10/09/17 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
18442 posts
People should be free to display how much of a douche bag they are.

By forcing them to not express themselves by enacting laws preventing that, they will find covert methods to release that expression.

What would you rather, a overt Nazi that is easily identifiable as the douchebag they are and thus can avoid them and their toxic behaviour. Or forcing them to be covert in their nature, so you can't easily identify them and then be subjugated to their toxic s*** randomly when it comes out.

Think about the emotionally abusive relationship. The abusers are often indistinguishable from healthy people, people form relationships with them and slowly the abuser (most often not intentionally, the are just unhealthy, broken people) whittles away their self-esteem and over-time significant damage is done.
Consider if that person was overtly abusive, the relationship would likely not be formed and that person happily avoids years of emotional torment.

Forcing people to obfuscate their beliefs and abusing ways is essentially creating an environment for emotionally abusive people to thrive, via forcing them into covert styles of abuse.

So does censoring them still seem like such a great idea?
07:13pm 10/09/17 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39168 posts
Trogs centrist paradise be like:
I actually wrote a metaphor about slavery in my post but removed it at the last minute because I think it would just be a bit of a strawman that would confuse people. You seem to have been confused anyway :(

edit: wait is it centrist to believe in the laws of the land?

When I have some time I'm going to start working on a 3D version of the left/right/centre spectrum", so people who don't express extremist left or right positions don't have to uselessly be labelled centrist
07:22pm 10/09/17 Permalink
Vash
5531 posts

Weird how the American Nazi Party didn't get banned after WW2, especially after this went into law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954


07:29pm 10/09/17 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39169 posts
Then there are people like Trog who believe Free Speech is founded on Righteousness and everyone should be really nice to each other.
everyone /should/ be really nice to other. What the absolute worst segment of the free speechers believe is that their right to free speech means that they should, nay, must, wander around using it to be an obnoxious f*** to everyone all the time. Like they're being the living embodiment of the first amendment by exercising that right non-stop (when in fact they're just anti-social d***wads).

That is not why free speech laws exist. People that hide behind free speech laws purely to run around and be f***wits screaming 'free speech free speech' whenever anyone tells them to shut up aren't excellent demonstrations of what a great idea free speech is. It's a necessary weakness of the law - the law entitles them to do it.

But it's not a BENEFIT of free speech. It's the COST of free speech.

I am prepared to tolerate that cost because I think free speech is important. But I /do/ think people generally should be nice to each other and shouldn't generally take advantage of free speech laws simply because it allows them to be toxic. This does not seem to be a very controversial position to me.
Brendon O'Neil referred to this a couple of nights ago on Facebook.
That post (once you strip it of its quite excellent logical fallacies; it is a masterpiece of Trumpish that makes it very hard to lose - he's basically listed a series of responses that start with other people exercising their own right to free speech then slippery slope all the way down to being gunned down in the street - a truly impressive piece of dogwhistle writing!!) basically says "I should have free speech and everyone else's other freedoms should be curtailed to ensure I have that right".

I'll cherry pick the more practical parts of his post:

- Why do you think other citizens should not be able to exercise their free rights of association & not hang out with people whose speech they disagree with?
- Why do you think should other citizens be silenced and not allowed to communicate their views to people they disagree with (this is "harassment" apparently)?
- Why do you think businesses should have to keep people employed who spout off Nazi slogans? (this is a tricky one and I am not sure about this one, but if you are as freedom-loving as you have often claimed to be, I would imagine you think businesses should be able to do whatever they want)
- Why do you think free citizens should not have the right to ridicule people that try to hide behind 'free speech' laws to spout off ridiculous falsehoods? (presumably also "harassment")
- Why do you think Twitter should not be free to block the speech of whoever they want?

Finally, I would say the most interesting & ardent free speech supporter I know is of course Popehat & it is a tenet of his that free speech should have consequences. (Most of my thinking about free speech has been done from reading everything on the Popehat blog so I admit to being heavily biased in my thinking based on his conclusions.)
07:34pm 10/09/17 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39170 posts
By the way, the right to free speech does not include hate speech, having to explain that to grown ass adults is pretty depressing.
It has been confusing because the conversation has partially been about general free speech, US-specific free speech, and Australian free speech. It expressly does in the USA - that is what 'freedom' means. It is not 'freedom, but', but general freedom (outside of an extremely limited number of specific cases).

Australia does /not/ have free speech in the same way as America though - and we do have some hate speech laws.
08:50pm 10/09/17 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
4052 posts
Well threats of violence and intimidation are illegal in both countries as far as I know and I know some people who like to advocate for terrorist organizations like the KKK like to claim that hate speech is somehow different to a threat but that I doubt the people who are the target of that hate speech feel the same way.

Imagine being Jewish and seeing people walk down the street wearing the symbol of an organization that literally tried to kill your entire race or being black and seeing people openly advocate for the KKK, an organization that has killed thousands of people for no other reason than the colour of their skin. How are those people supposed to feel anything other than intimidated?

Seriously though, is this thread just about American politics? Right now we have a Liberal PM trying to tell a private company how to run it's business in AGL and a deputy PM that may not even be constitutionally elected but all anyone here wants to talk about is the US.
10:57am 11/09/17 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39171 posts
Well threats of violence and intimidation are illegal in both countries as far as I know
Not really in the US; it has to be a clear threat of inciting immediate violence or something (I can't remember offhand but the limitations are narrow).
How are those people supposed to feel anything other than intimidated?
Yes, well, that is the price of freedom - it includes the freedom to be f***wits (hence my comments above that choosing to be a f***wit is something that people should strive not to do).
Seriously though, is this thread just about American politics? Right now we have a Liberal PM trying to tell a private company how to run it's business in AGL and a deputy PM that may not even be constitutionally elected but all anyone here wants to talk about is the US.
Fair point but we're not really talking about the US; just the concept of free speech in general. If you want to change the topic, just change the topic, don't keep talking about the old topic :D Let's laugh at the Liberals, that's always fun
05:45pm 11/09/17 Permalink
fpot
Gold Coast, Queensland
26031 posts
11:37pm 11/09/17 Permalink
sLaps_Forehead
Brisbane, Queensland
7715 posts
racist nazi or ?

07:31am 12/09/17 Permalink
Sir Redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
2141 posts
Let's laugh at the Liberals, that's always fun


Yes, lets.

http://www.abc.net.au/cm/rimage/8893144-16x9-large.png?v=2
09:30am 13/09/17 Permalink
Raven
Melbourne, Victoria
9495 posts
Hate Speech in America is protected by the 1st Amendment.


It's important to remember that it is protected to the point that it becomes a suggestion. Speech is protected in the US if it is an idea or a point of view, but the moment it becomes a call-to-arms, a suggestion that people act in an illegal way that may cause harm to other, it ceases to be protected. For example, "I think we should lynch group X" would protected. "I am going to lynch group X" being the statement of intent of an illegal act or "I advise people to lynch group X" being an instruction to perform an illegal act is not protected.
12:17pm 13/09/17 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
12889 posts
12:50pm 15/09/17 Permalink
Vash
5533 posts
This country is well on it's way to the s****** (if it isn't there already)
Attempts at forcing the ABC to be more right-wing, by trying to make it more 'fair and balanced' (it already is) and reduction in media ownership laws will ensure a stronger narrative of right leaning policy, something that is bad for everyone, besides the wealthy i suppose.
02:03pm 17/09/17 Permalink
PornoPete
Melbourne, Victoria
2755 posts
those wily corporations. they'll getcha, they'll getcha everytime.

The crab people are coming vash. Better get ready to punch. You know to keep things 'fair and balanced'
05:15pm 17/09/17 Permalink
Sir Redhat
Sydney, New South Wales
2142 posts
Are you talking about the corporations that pay f*** all tax and get a 30 mil handout?

Sounds pretty fair and balanced to me.
06:35pm 17/09/17 Permalink
sLaps_Forehead
Brisbane, Queensland
7716 posts
Mein ABC
06:55pm 17/09/17 Permalink
Vash
218 posts
This post has been removed.
Reason: Disruptive
Send Private Message
07:40pm 17/09/17 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Other International
39199 posts
06:35pm 22/09/17 Permalink
system
Internet
--
06:35pm 22/09/17 Permalink
AusGamers Forums
Show: per page
1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10
Post a Reply
You must be logged in to post a reply.