Nazis aren't good with data types
-
You have a ball of twine for weather-telling purposes?
-
@dhromed said:
You have a ball of twine for weather-telling purposes?
I guess someone stole the rock it was attached to.Or there was a tornado.
-
@dhromed said:
@PJH said:
That's easy. Just use a constant of "30 years".And I think I need to find something different for my sig
Time until the projected year for the fully functional ITER fusion reactor.
-
@Anonymouse said:
That's easy. Just use a constant of "30 years".
Well yeah, but you can just take the current projection, and...
Ok, I guess we need something else.
-
@DaveK said:
I was going to complain about the necro, but this one is quite nice!Happy New Year everybody, and welcome to the "Dumbest thing anyone said to me on the Internet" award, 2012. This year's winner was said to me back in January, and even though the year had only just begun, I knew a real contender when I saw it.
@DaveK said:
[The Nazis] defined themselves by their opposition to any form of Socialism, Communism, or other left-wing politics, right from their early days as street thugs attacking political demonstrations.
So, my heartiest congratulations to Boomzilla, who took this year's prize in the face of stiff opposition from Blakeyrat and many others, and good luck to all who wish to compete for the 2013 award. Let's see if we can't come up with some real dumb shit for next year!
Yes to that. The left is obviously communism and (lesser) socialism. The communists were the Nazis arch enemies and the Allies thought of the Nazis as a means to stop the communism from expanding ("Bollwerk gegen den Bolschewismus"). The Nazis even claimed that Germany wouldn't have lost WW1 if the lefties/jews/whoever else they hated hadn't had stabbed Germany in the back.
I think that's all that needs to be said about Nazis "actually being left".
-
@topspin said:
The left is obviously communism and (lesser) socialism.
Ah! So you agree with me!
@topspin said:
The communists were the Nazis arch enemies and the Allies thought of the Nazis as a means to stop the communism from expanding ("Bollwerk gegen den Bolschewismus").
Yes, who could have imagined that two authoritarian regimes that wanted to rule the world wouldn't get along?
-
@kilroo said:
it is probably at least as likely that I haven't noticed Democrats being unhappy about being seen as authoritarians as it is that I really haven't encountered any who are.
And you never will encounter a Democrat who cares about being seen as authoritarian, because they're doing it to you for your own good.
-
@dhromed said:
From what I can tell, there is no left wing in America. Just centrists and the conservative right.
And a few leftist idiots who do not realise they are actually helping their opponents rather than their own side (I wouldn't be surprised if Ralph Nader was getting paid by the Reps somehow).
Anyway the differences between countries are much much bigger than the differences between parties within a country. In my country pretty much every party is more leftist than pretty much every party in the US. Their response to the flagging economy: "well we can't help it, we are an export-oriented country". Their response to the endless complaints from employers about high wages: "STFU" (more or less). Their response to European regulations about government debt: "STFU". Their response to immigrant crime: "you are all racists".
If the Dems participated in the elections here they would win by a landslide because it would be the only real right wing party. -_-
-
@DaveK said:
@blakeyrat said:
Heh. Hey Blakey, here's a question for you: What's the secret of good comedy?Timing!
-
@DaveK said:
@DaveK said:
clap@blakeyrat said:
Heh. Hey Blakey, here's a question for you: What's the secret of good comedy?Timing!
-
@DaveK said:
Happy New Year everybody, and welcome to the "Dumbest thing anyone said to me on the Internet" award, 2012.
@DaveK said:So, my heartiest congratulations to Boomzilla, who took this year's prize in the face of stiff opposition from Blakeyrat and many others, and good luck to all who wish to compete for the 2013 award. Let's see if we can't come up with some real dumb shit for next year!
And the winner is . . . . . @blakeyrat said:@DaveK said:
Hey Blakey, here's a question for you: What's the secret of good comedy?
Everything I say is funny.
-
@DaveK said:
@DaveK said:
@blakeyrat said:
Heh. Hey Blakey, here's a question for you: What's the secret of good comedy?Timing!
clap_2
-
<font size=18>POLISH POP QUIZ TIME!</font>
Identify the following parties as right- or left-wing.
Party A: populist-socialist with strong Christian and traditionalistic/nationalistic attitude, often viewed as sort-of authoritarian
Party B: mostly corporationist with slight leanings towards socialism (more through the actions than actual program), generally liberal and neutral, though with a strong conservative fraction
Party C: post-communist, liberal and anti-traditionalist in terms of culture and society, with mostly socialist economic views
Party D: Anti-Christian and anti-religious, and equally socialist and free-market in terms of economy
Party E: Slightly more traditionalist than not, agrarianist
Answers: <font color="white">A and B are identified as right-wing, with A accusing B of being "fucking leftists", C and D are left-wing all along, and E are political sluts</font>
-
@boomzilla said:
No, it's actually correct, unless you also consider communists and socialists to be on the right, in which case we're just disagreeing on what we mean about right vs left.
Fascist politics and fascist economics do not correspond and correlate with political socialism and socialist economics, or political communism and communist economics. The corporatist and third position elements in fascist economics especially show the particular relation of fascism (and especially the Nazis) with the traditional "right wing" of politics. Recently, some conservative luminaries such as Jonah Goldberg (and also some conservative non-luminaries) have been claiming that liberals and everyone else to the left of them are "fascists." This tactic usually relies on taking the straw man broadsides heaved at liberalism by wingnuts and finding commonalities between them and some fascist program; for example, noting that Nazi Germany had large public works projects, and since liberals also favor public works projects while conservatives do not, liberals must also be fascists. This is, of course, complete crap. If a person wishes to know why fasicism in general and the Nazis in particular are right wing, one only needs to read "Ur-Fascism" by Umberto Eco, the first and last word on the qualities of fascism.
@boomzilla said:
guess I could agree that they don't fit the technical definition of "publicly owning the means of production," but how is that meaningfully different from controlling the owners using government force?
Actually, it was the corporate owners who wielded influence over the Nazi government. See The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932-1938 by R J Overy and "Business, Politics, and War." by Richard J Evans. Support from industrialists and corporate executives was key to maintenance of Nazi dominance in Germany; big business there did the coercing and were not the coerced. Common misconception, though.
@boomzilla said:
Perhaps this is a difference between American and European(ish) definitions of right and left. Corporatism is pretty socialist.
No, it's the difference between the American popular definitions of right and left and the proper academic and legal definitions thereof used in political science. To a true right-winger, the American Founders were for all intents and purposes only slightly to the right of Communists, mostly because of all the freedom and liberty bullshit. A monarchist is a proper rightist. Corporatism is also not very socialist at all; it might be socialist according to peculiar American notions, but it fails the test of what is and is not socialist. Mainly in that you are incorrect that corporatism = government control. A conglomeration of all CEOs in the USA getting together and deciding what's what would also be considered corporatist. Or your local Chamber of Commerce.
@boomzilla said:
Your definition of left vs right is pretty meaningless
It's only meaningless to the uneducated. Just like legal terms are meaningless to the uneducated. It behooves one to educate themselves.
-
@Castaigne said:
Recently, some conservative luminaries such as Jonah Goldberg (and also some conservative non-luminaries) have been claiming that liberals and everyone else to the left of them are "fascists."
I won't bother quoting the rest of your straw men, but that's not really what Goldberg said.
@Castaigne said:
No, it's the difference between the American
popular definitions of right and left and the proper academic and legal
definitions thereof used in political science. To a true right-winger,
the American Founders were for all intents and purposes only slightly to
the right of Communists, mostly because of all the freedom and liberty
bullshit. A monarchist is a proper rightist. Corporatism is also not
very socialist at all; it might be socialist according to peculiar
American notions, but it fails the test of what is and is not socialist.
Mainly in that you are incorrect that corporatism = government control.
A conglomeration of all CEOs in the USA getting together and deciding
what's what would also be considered corporatist. Or your local Chamber
of Commerce.Yawn. OK. We can quibble about semantics, and I guess about the True Academic Definition. Your ideas about right and left aren't very useful, certainly not in modern America. Your definition of corporatism is likewise laughably constrictive. You're getting too hung up on labels and what you think are the proper definitions and failing to see the ways in which they suck in common.
-
@Castaigne said:
To a true right-winger,
the American Founders were for all intents and purposes only slightly to
the right of Communists, mostly because of all the freedom and liberty
bullshit...Emphasis on the real defining belief of leftists added.
-
But Republicans here don't believe in freedom and liberty either (suggest legalizing drugs and prostitution to one and you'll see what I mean), and neither does our new Resident Troll. Does that mean they're also leftists?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
But Republicans here don't believe in freedom and liberty either (suggest legalizing drugs and prostitution to one and you'll see what I mean),
Some do. Drug legalization and prostitution cross a lot of ideological boundaries.
-
@boomzilla said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
But Republicans here don't believe in freedom and liberty either (suggest legalizing drugs and prostitution to one and you'll see what I mean),
Some do. Drug legalization and prostitution cross a lot of ideological boundaries.
I vote we legalize any action that does not affect people who did not consent to that action for a week. For example, smoking in public would be illegal unless you got everyone in your city to consent to second hand smoke, but contraception would be legal since it only affects you.
-
@Ben L. said:
I vote we legalize any action that does not affect people who did not consent to that action for a week. For example, smoking in public would be illegal unless you got everyone in your city to consent to second hand smoke,
I think there may be <a href="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract>something wrong with your example...
-
@PJH said:
@Ben L. said:
I vote we legalize any action that does not affect people who did not consent to that action for a week. For example, smoking in public would be illegal unless you got everyone in your city to consent to second hand smoke,
I think there may be something wrong with your example...
Coughing is an effect.
-
@Ben L. said:
@PJH said:
So you're going to ban dust, perfume, car exhausts as well..... Right. Just clearing up which side of the bansturbatory, policy-based evidence fence you're on.@Ben L. said:
I vote we legalize any action that does not affect people who did not consent to that action for a week. For example, smoking in public would be illegal unless you got everyone in your city to consent to second hand smoke,
I think there may be something wrong with your example...
Coughing is an effect.
Though why psychosomatic coughing experienced by anti-smokers seeing people smoking outdoors should be considered a valid effect is beyond me.
-
@PJH said:
@Ben L. said:
@PJH said:
So you're going to ban dust, perfume, car exhausts as well..... Right. Just clearing up which side of the bansturbatory, policy-based evidence fence you're on.@Ben L. said:
I vote we legalize any action that does not affect people who did not consent to that action for a week. For example, smoking in public would be illegal unless you got everyone in your city to consent to second hand smoke,
I think there may be something wrong with your example...
Coughing is an effect.
Though why psychosomatic coughing experienced by anti-smokers seeing people smoking outdoors should be considered a valid effect is beyond me.Hey, all I'm saying is that banning versus not banning things is ALWAYS arbitrary.
-
@Ben L. said:
Hey, all I'm saying is that banning versus not banning things is ALWAYS arbitrary.
Do you really believe that? What does "arbitrary" mean in your world?
-
If "arbitrary banning" cannot be compared to "logical, rational banning" because that doesn't exist, isn't banning arbitrary by definition?
-
@dhromed said:
If "arbitrary banning" cannot be compared to "logical, rational banning" because that doesn't exist, isn't banning arbitrary by definition?
You don't frequent a lot of internet forums, do you?
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
But Republicans here don't believe in freedom and liberty either (suggest legalizing drugs and prostitution to one and you'll see what I mean), and neither does our new Resident Troll. Does that mean they're also leftists?
You're comparing the freedom to snort a line of cocaine off a hooker's ass in the middle of town square to the freedom defend yourself or take care of your family in the way you see fit? Huh....
That being said, I'm actually all for legalizing prostitution and some drugs (Pot? sure. Heroin or meth... not so much.).
-
@DrakeSmith said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
But Republicans here don't believe in freedom and liberty either (suggest legalizing drugs and prostitution to one and you'll see what I mean), and neither does our new Resident Troll. Does that mean they're also leftists?
You're comparing the freedom to snort a line of cocaine off a hooker's ass in the middle of town square to the freedom defend yourself or take care of your family in the way you see fit? Huh....
That being said, I'm actually all for legalizing prostitution and some drugs (Pot? sure. Heroin or meth... not so much.).
Why don't we legalize ALL drugs and then make driving/operating/whatever under the influence of the ones that were previously illegal illegal?
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
@dhromed said:
If "arbitrary banning" cannot be compared to "logical, rational banning" because that doesn't exist, isn't banning arbitrary by definition?
You don't frequent a lot of internet forums, do you?
My banning is super logical. But that's a different kind of banning.
-
@Ben L. said:
Why don't we legalize ALL drugs and then make driving/operating/whatever under the influence of the ones that were previously illegal illegal?
Banning kind of doesn't do much except create massive friction if the culture doesn't support it.
-
@DrakeSmith said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
The snorting taking place in the town square is a red herring unless you don't believe in property rights either. @DrakeSmith said:But Republicans here don't believe in freedom and liberty either (suggest legalizing drugs and prostitution to one and you'll see what I mean), and neither does our new Resident Troll. Does that mean they're also leftists?
You're comparing the freedom to snort a line of cocaine off a hooker's ass in the middle of town square to the freedom defend yourself or take care of your family in the way you see fit? Huh....
QEDThat being said, I'm actually all for legalizing prostitution and some drugs (Pot? sure. Heroin or meth... not so much.).
-
@dhromed said:
It also creates sources of revenue for criminals and (at least in the US anyway) law enforcement agencies.@Ben L. said:
Why don't we legalize ALL drugs and then make driving/operating/whatever under the influence of the ones that were previously illegal illegal?
Banning kind of doesn't do much except create massive friction if the culture doesn't support it.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
It also creates sources of revenue for criminals and (at least in the US anyway) law enforcement agencies.
You say that like there's a substantial difference in this Brave New World.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@DrakeSmith said:
QED
That being said, I'm actually all for legalizing prostitution and some drugs (Pot? sure. Heroin or meth... not so much.).I don't get this whole "anti-drug" policy, honestly. You want to ruin your life? Your call, moron. You hurt anyone else in the process? You answer for that. You want to snort a line of cocaine off of a hooker's ass in the middle of a town square? Unless there's a kid you've just scarred for life, I don't see a problem. Jesus, it's that simple.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
It also creates sources of revenue for criminals and (at least in the US anyway) law enforcement agencies.
So like war, it is an awesome economic stimulation!
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@DrakeSmith said:
QED
That being said, I'm actually all for legalizing prostitution and some drugs (Pot? sure. Heroin or meth... not so much.).I don't get this whole "anti-drug" policy, honestly. You want to ruin your life? Your call, moron. You hurt anyone else in the process? You answer for that. You want to snort a line of cocaine off of a hooker's ass in the middle of a town square? Unless there's a kid you've just scarred for life, I don't see a problem. Jesus, it's that simple.
I've seen first hand how heroin or meth can destroy the lives of people who aren't even using it. To me, legalizing drugs with this strong of an addiction is like legalizing child abuse or child neglect. These drugs have such a psychological effect that they take away the free will of those who use it and severely infringe on the rights of many who don't.
There is a distinct difference between living free and total anarchy. Liberty doesn't mean the freedom to do anything.
-
-
@DrakeSmith said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
Do you usually stop reading at the first sentence you disagree with so you can reply faster?I don't get this whole "anti-drug" policy, honestly. You want to ruin your life? Your call, moron. You hurt anyone else in the process? You answer for that. You want to snort a line of cocaine off of a hooker's ass in the middle of a town square? Unless there's a kid you've just scarred for life, I don't see a problem. Jesus, it's that simple.
I've seen first hand how heroin or meth can destroy the lives of people who aren't even using it. To me, legalizing drugs with this strong of an addiction is like legalizing child abuse or child neglect. These drugs have such a psychological effect that they take away the free will of those who use it and severely infringe on the rights of many who don't.
There is a distinct difference between living free and total anarchy. Liberty doesn't mean the freedom to do anything.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@DrakeSmith said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
Do you usually stop reading at the first sentence you disagree with so you can reply faster?I don't get this whole "anti-drug" policy, honestly. You want to ruin your life? Your call, moron. You hurt anyone else in the process? You answer for that. You want to snort a line of cocaine off of a hooker's ass in the middle of a town square? Unless there's a kid you've just scarred for life, I don't see a problem. Jesus, it's that simple.
I've seen first hand how heroin or meth can destroy the lives of people who aren't even using it. To me, legalizing drugs with this strong of an addiction is like legalizing child abuse or child neglect. These drugs have such a psychological effect that they take away the free will of those who use it and severely infringe on the rights of many who don't.
There is a distinct difference between living free and total anarchy. Liberty doesn't mean the freedom to do anything.
I read his post as saying that there's a lot of evidence that says that if you do those things, you are hurting someone. So it makes sense to make those things illegal. We can disagree with the extent and likelihood of the harm, but I think the logic of his post is sound.
-
That was a very charitable reading. I read it as him completely missing the sentence I bolded. But your post raises a question: we all know the possible extent of the harm, but what is the likelihood? The extent and likelihood of the harm have an effect on whether or not it makes sense to make those things illegal. For example, we know that thousands of people die in auto accidents every year, but no one suggests making cars illegal.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
That was a very charitable reading. I read it as him completely missing the sentence I bolded. But your post raises a question: we all know the possible extent of the harm, but what is the likelihood? The extent and likelihood of the harm have an effect on whether or not it makes sense to make those things illegal. For example, we know that thousands of people die in auto accidents every year, but no one suggests making cars illegal.
The benefits of automotive transportation are huge (not to mention pretty fundamental to our current civilization). The benefits of recreational use of things like heroin or meth, not so much. I suppose it's possible that a "responsible" regimen of use could be found for those sorts of things if they were legal. I'd prefer a gradual work up to stuff like that in any case. It will be interesting to see how the marijuana experiments in Washington and Colorado proceed.
-
@boomzilla said:
The benefits of automotive transportation are huge (not to mention pretty fundamental to our current civilization). The benefits of recreational use of things like heroin or meth, not so much. I suppose it's possible that a "responsible" regimen of use could be found for those sorts of things if they were legal. I'd prefer a gradual work up to stuff like that in any case. It will be interesting to see how the marijuana experiments in Washington and Colorado proceed.
Apparently my post count went to 420 with that last post.
I have heard of "responsible" uses of drugs other than marijuana, but not many. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect to hear about too many as those people would currently have every incentive to keep quiet about it.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
That was a very charitable reading. I read it as him completely missing the sentence I bolded. But your post raises a question: we all know the possible extent of the harm, but what is the likelihood? The extent and likelihood of the harm have an effect on whether or not it makes sense to make those things illegal. For example, we know that thousands of people die in auto accidents every year, but no one suggests making cars illegal.
Meth is extremely prevalent where I live, and out of everyone I know in the area, I don't know of one who hasn't been affected negatively by someone else's use (all of whom have not used themselves). From what I've seen, the likelihood of harm is in the range of certain to absolutely certain.
And yes, I saw the sentence you bolded. But if we just left it at a crime only if they affect someone else, that's severely going to infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of those others in large numbers. Why there should be limits. This is why I think there is a strong correlation between realistic freedom and morality. So called freedom without morality isn't freedom because people will rob others of their freedom otherwise.
Geez, this is not the kind of argument I expected to find here. I'm waiting for Godwin's law to bring this topic full circle from bad nazi coding to calling each other nazi programmers.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
I have heard of "responsible" uses of drugs other than marijuana, but not many. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect to hear about too many as those people would currently have every incentive to keep quiet about it.
Also, consider prescription narcotics. These are legal, though highly regulated. Many people abuse them. The reasons and ways they do so is pretty varied. But I think the problems caused by abuse of these legal drugs are worse than those caused by marijuana.
Another interesting thing (or so I've been told) about modern marijuana is that it's a lot more potent than stuff used to be. That's not surprising, given the incentives over the years.
-
@DrakeSmith said:
Meth is extremely prevalent where I live, and out of everyone I know in the area, I don't know of one who hasn't been affected negatively by someone else's use (all of whom have not used themselves). From what I've seen, the likelihood of harm is in the range of certain to absolutely certain.
Key point bolded. If it's true that the likelihood of harm approaches 100%, it makes sense to have it be illegal. But see my other posts. Any user that isn't causing trouble is going to keep quiet about it and you won't even know about them, so there's a built-in selection bias.@DrakeSmith said:
This point could use further explanation because it seems counter-intuitive at first glance. How exactly does decriminalizing something that doesn't harm others infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of others?
But if we just left it at a crime only if they affect someone else, that's severely going to infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of those others in large numbers.
-
I usually liken legalising drugs to legalising blindfolded driving. It may go smoothly to begin with, if you choose the road right. But sooner or later there comes a wall.
The only rational defense to legalising any drug, that I've heard of, is decreasing local crime levels through depriving criminal organizations of a source of funding. And even that will not work. In the short term, the previously well-funded criminals will start grasping at anything to keep up their level of living. In the long term, no drug-user has ever been able to hold on to a job for long, and they still need to fund their habit somehow, no matter how cheap the pills are. If the drug is cheaper to begin with when it is legalised, the sheer number of jobless addicts will keep the number of burglaries on a stable, high, level.
Based on statistical evidence, the most effective way to cut drug-use anywhere is to make it punishable by death. This makes sense, since people tend to make a quick mental risk-benefit analysis for any new action they make, be it jumping to the pool from 10 feet up, or overspeeding. If the potential benefit is an hour's inebriated state and the associated risk is death if caught, very few will try. And lack of curious people trying it once leads to a lack of addicts. Compare to right now in, say, USA, where first time possession or use, as far as I know, only results in fines. If the cops even bother.
-
@OldCrow said:
The only rational defense to legalising any drug, that I've heard of, is decreasing local crime levels through depriving criminal organizations of a source of funding. And even that will not work. In the short term, the previously well-funded criminals will start grasping at anything to keep up their level of living. In the long term, no drug-user has ever been able to hold on to a job for long, and they still need to fund their habit somehow, no matter how cheap the pills are. If the drug is cheaper to begin with when it is legalised, the sheer number of jobless addicts will keep the number of burglaries on a stable, high, level.
What are you classifying as drugs here? What about, say, alcohol, nicotine or caffeine?
In the US, we have some good experience with the prohibition of alcohol and the related crime. While there are still illegal producers, the levels are pretty negligible. Aside from reality TV most people probably have no awareness or contact with it. Millions of people use it responsibly, and a lot of people don't.
-
@boomzilla said:
In the US, we have some good experience with the prohibition of alcohol and the related crime.
Uh huh. Though I don't think state sanctioned murder of 10,000 people was one of the crimes you had in mind.
-
@PJH said:
@boomzilla said:
In the US, we have some good experience with the prohibition of alcohol and the related crime.
Uh huh. Though I don't think state sanctioned murder of 10,000 people was one of the crimes you had in mind.Why wouldn't it be? Plenty of bad behavior to go around in Prohibition. And no one can kill people like governments with the will to Do Something.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@DrakeSmith said:
This point could use further explanation because it seems counter-intuitive at first glance. How exactly does decriminalizing something that doesn't harm others infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of others?
But if we just left it at a crime only if they affect someone else, that's severely going to infringe on the rights/liberties/lives of those others in large numbers.You're assuming it doesn't harm others; I'm saying it does. If you don't try to even consider my argument, of course any reasoning I make won't make sense.
Decriminalizing drugs that don't affect non-users would make sense. I would wager that it is hard to prove that pot, coke, hallucinogens, and probably ex/MDMA affect anybody but the user, and as such, probably don't need to be illegal. Coincidentally, nearly all of these were legal at some point in the last hundred years or so.
