Ben Carson Gum is a Holocaust of flavor in my mouth!



  • I'm not going to even join this debate. When the other side is furiously shoving their own foot down their mouth, at some point you just gotta step aside and let them do their own thing. No need to even get involved! That's the best kind of debate.



  • @mott555 said:

    I'm not going to even join this debate.

    Erm, why did you post here then?

    "Look, ma, I'm not touching this!" *poke*


  • Dupa

    @xaade said:

    Most school shootings, the kid with the gun stole it from someone. Something extra background checks would do nothing to stop.

    You know what would, though? Not making them available for anyone to steal, ie. banning them. Wow, what a controversial and revolutionary thought!

    @xaade said:

    Better to die firing a gun in my arms, than to be led into a shower.

    Never denied that. But it wouldn't change the course of the war. Like other uprisings.

    @xaade said:

    I can get a gun cheaper than a big mac in Africa. I wasn't aware they had a large industry building guns.

    What you said here is just plain stupid. @Captain argued, that back then guns were expensive (AK-47 wasn't known back then) and there was no one (all very few people) in Germany that could afford this stuff. Sure, there probably was a lot of guns circulating, since people brought this shit from the Great War, but don't forget that the Treaty of Versailles required, that Germany "permanently reduce the size of its army to 100,000 men, and destroy their tanks, air force, and U-boat fleet (her capital ships, moored in Scapa Flow, were scuttled by their crews to prevent them from falling into Allied hands)."

    So shut the fuck up. If you want to start iffing, research the topic and write a fucking book.

    OK, that's it, I'm muting this fucking thread 'cause it screws with my blood pressure.

    Just want to reiterate, so there's no confusion. It's not about guns, really. And it's not about what's possible and what's not, really. It's about stupid fucking politician making fucking stupid claims about stuff he doesn't really know about, just so he can be a little more appealing for a fucking stupid group of people.

    Maybe it's a good idea to allow people to hold guns, I really fucking don't know. But you have to be a plain moron to use such an argument for it.



  • You're not worth responding to.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Right. Because Jews behave just like carbondioxide.

    No, but people are actually pretty predictable.

    But besides that, iff is the whole premise of scientific experiment.

    I find it odd that it's such a sensitive topic here.


    My reaction was, "I don't know, maybe. It would be interesting to perform the thought experiments"

    Not, "He's a fucking idiot because he's in the other party."



  • Historically people don't just give up weapons, they simply find alternatives.

    Printed weapons.
    IEDs
    Knives
    Sickles and Scythes.
    Rope Darts


  • Dupa

    @xaade said:

    But besides that, iff is the whole premise of scientific experiment.

    I find it odd that it's such a sensitive topic here.

    Again: it's not about the subject, really. It's about the context. I've no problem with pondering "what would happen". The only thing I've problem with, is the political use of oversimplified ideas and when someone is condoning it.



  • @kt_ said:

    The only thing I've problem with, is the political use of oversimplified ideas and when someone is condoning it.

    So, you're offended that someone is going to listen to it and nod their head without thinking.

    Funny, because that's what happened with Obamacare. Do I need to dig up the videos of people asking "Where's my free healthcare?"


    ##The idiots believe anything, protect the idiots from new ideas, I don't want this guy getting elected.


  • Dupa

    @xaade said:

    You're not worth responding to.

    OK, sorry, I got a bit carried away and used too abrasive language. But the points I made still stand.


  • Dupa

    @xaade said:

    Funny, because that's what happened with Obamacare. Do I need to dig up the videos of people asking "Where's my free healthcare?"

    Don't really get your point. I'm not familiar with Obamacare or stuff that happened around it/what people believed.



  • The point of that, is that you've obviously already decided Ben's worth based on some other factor, and it's influencing your ability to discuss his comments.

    He's not a stupid fucking idiot for asking the question.

    There are countless examples where he is straight up right.



  • @kt_ said:

    Don't really get your point.

    My point is that you seem to be offended that he makes such a statement by oversimplifying the context.

    But anyone that can think critically is going to walk away saying "I'm not sure what would happen, but that gives food to thought."

    @kt_ said:

    just so he can be a little more appealing for a fucking stupid group of people.

    Here you're saying that stupid people are going to fall for a simplistic argument.

    Well, we have a laundry list of examples of stupid people falling for a simplistic argument for Obamacare.

    "Where's my free healthcare"
    "When's Obama going to pay my bills"

    And people continue to say 10 million people are now insured, like they somehow achieved the goal, Obamacare worked, yay team.

    When the stated goal was insuring 60 million people.
    More than that lost their insurance. Didn't get to keep their plan if they liked it. Obama lied.
    The form of healthcare they got was super high deductible insurance.
    Teacher's deductible just doubled from 6k to 12k. Making the insurance practically worthless.
    And claiming that it now covers women's health, when the above still holds, making that coverage worthless.

    So now 10 million people have worthless insurance, by making everyone else's insurance much worse.

    golf clap


    And that's why I don't trust the government, because everything they do ends in failure while they continue to pat themselves on the back like they won.... something.


    And before you think I'm just a right-wing blasting the left. That's just the most recent example of failure.
    Conservatives have their share of back-patting failures.


  • Dupa

    @xaade said:

    And people continue to say 10 million people are now insured, like they somehow achieved the goal, Obamacare worked, yay team.

    OK, now I get it. That's a nice example.

    @xaade said:

    The point of that, is that you've obviously already decided Ben's worth

    I didn't really, just meant this one subject (and I have decided what his saying what he said on this subject is worth, yes). I didn't really know who Ben Carson is until today. :sunglasses:



  • @xaade said:

    But besides that, iff is the whole premise of scientific experiment.

    Yeah, the Nazis also were big into scientific experiments with humans. Now, if you could point out exactly where CO2 behaves like Jews, that would be great.

    Again, which part of "it's an oversimplistic, idiotic argument to gain brownie points with the gun nuts" eluded you?



  • @Rhywden said:

    Now, if you could point out exactly where CO2 behaves like Jews that would be great.

    I can't make an argument that would go without being labeled as racist :P



  • Listen, the gist of the argument was:

    "Oh, but if they only had guns they might have survived!"

    Counter argument:

    "Oh, but if only no one had guns they might have survived!"

    Works both ways.

    Of course, there are a multitude of other scenarios with equally dubious outcomes. I'm not sure which purpose this is supposed to serve.



  • @Rhywden said:

    I'm not sure which purpose this is supposed to serve.

    It's like hotdogs.

    You can eat it from both ends.





  • hmmmm.... hot dogs.



  • Not as simplistic as criticizing him to make points with the gun grabber crowd and/or the Ben is an uncle Tom crowd.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Not as simplistic as criticizing him to make points with the gun grabber crowd and/or the Ben is an uncle Tom crowd.

    It's not even in the same league of simplistic as the automatic buttumption that because you're criticizing something you must automatically be for the opposite!

    Talk about black-and-white thinking...



  • @xaade said:

    Well, this is from a group of people who let in hundreds of thousands of people from which we get the bright idea to use pressure cookers to kill.

    :trolleybus: … ?

    @xaade said:

    They've already caught ISIS members running around pretending to be Syrian

    I don’t think they’d need any of those — IS/ISIS/ISAL/“the group calling itself Islamic State"¹ grew up in Syria and Iraq, so they’re bound to have members who are actual Syrians. (Or at least were born in a time and place where they received Syrian citizenship, regardless of whether those same people still think of themselves as Syrians.)

    ¹ Jesus, BBC, if they’re the ones calling themselves that, maybe, just maybe you could consider it to be their fucking name?!

    @Luhmann said:

    Let's just blame global warming on Hitler and be done with it.

    Well, he did have a reputation for farting a lot. [spoiler]Because of his diet.[/spoiler]



  • You aren't American so maybe you're not familiar with our media outrage culture. But they're super interested in misunderstanding deliberately the things said by people they disagree with, especially if they are rave traitors like Carson.



  • @boomzilla said:

    You aren't American so maybe you're not familiar with our media outrage culture. But they're super interested in misunderstanding deliberately the things said by people they disagree with

    Judging by some people around here that is a trait not only featured in the media.



  • I'm not sure that there is much to misunderstand about such a statement.

    Sometimes a spade is a spade.



  • Yes, it's obvious that you don't see it. I'm not sure the other people criticizing him publicly are capable of seeing other points of view either.

    Actually, I think they're probably just trying to serve a higher cause. By Any means necessary.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Sometimes a spade is a spade.

    Did you mean or ?



  • Oh, I see it alright. It's just that you may not recognize that your argument leads your own words ad absurdum - because the same points you're criticizing me for can be equally well applied to you.

    You're just wearing a different set of blinders and you're not the carrier of the torch of truth either.

    So, get off your high horse for once, will you?



  • I'm not the one saying people are obviously stupid because I disagree with them.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I'm not the one saying people are obviously stupid because I disagree with them.

    If you can point out where I said that Carson is stupid...?



  • Ok, technically you just called the argument "Fucking stupid". Others are saying that he was stupid or equivalent. I probably conflated you with others on that. Apologies.

    A lot of my criticism was also directed at people not here, but dating stuff in the media or whatever. I'm not a fan of Carson for president, BTW. But the knee-jerk reaction about anything he says is just silly.


  • BINNED

    He is either stupid (not likely considering that he is a surgeon) or a dangerous nut.



  • Filed Under: I am so going to the X-tian HeavenTartarus for that



  • @dse said:

    dangerous nut

    Well, the hero of the other side purposefully let her own citizens die to cover up her laundering guns.

    So, yeah, saying citizens can own guns is being a dangerous nut, because he's dangerous to the ones that would serve us up, literally to die, on the platter of political correctness.

    Liberals are so sure that if we're just nice enough.... because there must be a reason these people hate us.

    Yet, in our absence, they kill each other like bloody animals.

    Seriously, if the politicians of today had been in charge prior to WWII, Hitler would have gained Europe.

    Of course, Russia might have just killed him, but without a powerful west Europe, the cold war would have probably turned out different.

    But its ok. We're all past world war today.

    It's just that Russia is invading east europe, and ISXX wants to restore the ottoman empire. But that's just fairy talk. If we just clap and believe... click our heels, "There's no place like home".

    Maybe if we just disarm our militaries and carry sheep onto the battlefield.... "Be all that you can be"



  • @Rhywden said:

    Right. Because Jews behave just like carbondioxide.

    Must... resist... a joke...

    @Rhywden said:

    Listen, the gist of the argument was:

    "Oh, but if they only had guns they might have survived!"

    I'm not following this thread closely, but... duh? Why are we having a flamewar about a statement as obvious as "ewll, if you try to herd six million people and lead them to their death, it kind of helps when they don't all bear fucking arms"?

    @Gurth said:

    ¹ Jesus, BBC, if they’re the ones calling themselves that, maybe, just maybe you could consider it to be their fucking name?!

    So if I create an organization that murders puppies and call it, say, "Patriots for America", you'll be okay with us using that name?



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    I'm not following this thread closely, but... duh? Why are we having a flamewar about a statement as obvious as "ewll, if you try to herd six million people and lead them to their death, it kind of helps when they don't all bear fucking arms"?

    Because we might as well say: "If only the host of heaven had descended from the skies to smite the evil guys, none of this would have happened."

    It's an equally honest view of how one could have prevented this: They obviously did not pray hard enough.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    So if I create an organization that murders puppies and call it, say, "Patriots for America", you'll be okay with us using that name?

    Of course I wouldn't! I'd insist on calling them by their proper name, which is of course "The Freedom Party".

    Filed Under: Dr Harry and his wife met with Danny Bonaducce one Boxing Day at a club called The Pear Tree...


  • BINNED

    @xaade said:

    So, yeah, saying citizens can own guns is being a dangerous nut, because he's dangerous to the ones that would serve us up, literally to die, on the platter of political correctness.

    Not because of that, nope. Citizens can have guns, and second amendment protects that. Sure it must be be more regulated, guns must be expensive, background check regularly, associate an address with each gun, ...

    What? do you think government can go house to house and confiscate guns? that is more costly and stupid than building Trump's wall.

    Now what is nuts:
    People who resort to Holocaust analogies to gain power are nuts; Has he really thought himself as Hitler and thought he could only be defeated if people have guns? remember he is running for presidency, he is not an anarchist or a gun activist or any of that sort.
    A neurosurgeon who denies science is a dangerous nuts; Trump is what Trump is (a clown troll), Bush is what any Bush is (an idiot bush), but at least they are not paradoxical in what they are.



  • @dse said:

    Has he really thought himself as Hitler

    Do you think he was referring to himself as tyrannical.

    Certainly you can count yourself as a leader and also state the fact that some leaders can be tyrannical, and the 2nd amendment is there to offer protection from that.

    That's not a contradiction.

    @dse said:

    to gain power

    You act like he's instigating a cultural revolution.

    He's simply saying "elect me... I'll protect your right to defend yourself should the government go crazy"

    Don't forget that he isn't the whole of the government, there's nothing stopping the government from illegally arresting the President to coup.

    You think it's crazy because you live in a vacuum, where history doesn't matter because somehow we're above what happened in the past.

    That's what's neurotic, the left believing that somehow we're immune to the past and that we don't need to offer citizens the ability to protect themselves because we will never do them wrong.

    That's the kind of attitude that simply makes you unaware of when you are doing wrong.



  • He is neither. But he doesn't have the right skill set to be president. In my opinion. But then Perry much all the people with Ds after their names strike me as dangerous nuts.



  • I believe that part of the thinking behind this sort of thing ( defense against government) and certainly in this case, is akin to civil disobedience. Supposedly a fair amount of people understood what was going on, but chose to look the other way or something.

    The armed resistance might have exposed this, both to Germans and internationally. And maybe something could/would have been done. Probably at least a few might have killed a small squad sent to collect them and escaped.

    In other words, we're not talking about major combat operations of civilians with small arms against a mechanized and trained army. Though that seems to be the only scenario that critics of armed defense against a government seem to consider.



  • @boomzilla said:

    In other words, we're not talking about major combat operations of civilians with small arms against a mechanized and trained army. Though that seems to be the only scenario that critics of armed defense against a government seem to consider.

    OK, granted. However, there are a few things to consider as well.

    First, as I I understand it (please correct me on this if I am mistaken), Germany already had rather strict gun control laws on the books well before the Nazis came to power (written in the hope of controlling the large number of freikorps militias that sprang up after WWI and the post-war revolution). It was the SA themselves who were among the largest instigators of them, and the most visible violators of them as well. The major change was that the laws were disarming everyone except the Nazi Party, the police, and the military. They originally had promised to disarm themselves as well as others, and everyone thought they meant it until it was too late.

    Second, there were street battles between the Nazis and their opponents, both other right-wing groups and the various left-wing (especially Communist) groups, including a significant number of Jewish protesters. The biggest reason the Nazis were able to come to power was that they promised to stop the fighting in the streets if their representatives were elected - a promise they entirely ignored afterwards. Those who did stand up against the Nazis - especially Jews - were accused of being provocateurs, rather than garnering sympathy. Put another way, armed resistance against the Nazis was one of the cornerstones their rise to power.

    Third, the Jews were actually a tiny minority in Germany (approximately 505,000 people out of a total population of 67 million, or somewhat less than 0.75 percent, according to the Holocaust Encyclopedia website). More than a third of the Jewish population in Europe in 1933 lived in Poland, and another quarter in the USSR, making up 9.5% and 3,4% of the population, respectively; not surprisingly, most of the victims of the Holocaust came from those two countries. While significant numbers of Jewish refugees left Germany and Eastern Europe between 1933 and 1939, most Germans didn't really take the issue seriously. Almost all Germans, if they thought of the issue at all, simply didn't care if the Jews were deported (which is what the Nazis said they wanted to do - even in the party itself, the idea of deliberate mass extermination didn't really take hold until around 1940, long after the first concentration camps were established, and then mainly because the routes for exiling the Jewish population to the US and the Palestine Mandate were closed off; it was a much more cold-blooded and pragmatic step than it is usually shown as being, something that ought to make it even more chilling than if it were just out of sheer malice).

    Finally, the Nazis had already shown their willingness to bring in overwhelming force to minor skirmishes, both by flooding a town or neighborhood with SA brownshirts at the first sign of a fight, and by calling on the Army - usually unofficially, through backdoor channels - as early as 1929. Not many were willing to risk a major confrontation against a numerically superior opponent whose elite units were often armed with military-grade weapons over what was considered a minor issue. People actually thought that making Hitler the Chancellor would end the fighting, and after a decade of turmoil, most would go along with anything that stopped it at that point.


  • Dupa

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    I'm not following this thread closely, but... duh? Why are we having a flamewar about a statement as obvious as "ewll, if you try to herd six million people and lead them to their death, it kind of helps when they don't all bear fucking arms"?

    Because he's running for president. And what he says doesn't mean what he says. It always means at least more and.m sometimes even something else entirely.

    So what did he say? He said: it couldn't happen to us, cause we have all the guns. And thus owning guns is a good thing. I'm not arguing, if gun law in USA is a good thing or bad (don't have an opinion). I'm arguing, that making such an oversimplified claim is stupid, especially since he used it to score some nut-points.

    That's why.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    So if I create an organization that murders puppies and call it, say, "Patriots for America", you'll be okay with us using that name?

    That has nothing to do with my point, namely that the BBC every bloody time IS is mentioned, adds the words “the organisation calling itself”. Or would you find it normal if everyone on TDWTF were to continually refer to you as “the person calling himself Maciejasjmj”?



  • On the one hand, it is a classic propaganda mechanism, and an effective one because it is (as such things go) relatively subtle. If you emphasize that they lack legitimacy, they sound more and more like a bunch of wingnuts making irrational claims. Not that this is really necessary in the case of IS, but still.

    On the other hand, there's a genuine sense that calling themselves 'The Islamic State' is, if nothing else, overreaching. The name itself is pure provocation: they aren't just calling themselves an islamic state, but the Islamic State, with the intentional implication that anyone who isn't with them isn't really Muslim. This is a direct verbal assault on everyone not in their camp, and they make no bones about wanting to unite all of Islam under their banner - something which the overwhelming majority of Muslims find a horrifying prospect, if only from the fears of a renewed Ottoman Empire if nothing else.

    These are extremists even compared to Al-qaeda. but what really set them apart is their ambition. Most other Muslim radicals and terrorists - much like those of other faiths and cultures - are primarily motivated by the desire to make That Other Guy pack up, go away, and leave them to oppress themselves in peace. IS, however, are mostly aimed at 'purifying' Islam itself, a terrible affront to every Muslim who has a different idea of how to worship and live than they do. They are an army of Inquisitors who scare the unholy hell out of other Sunni, never mind the Shia, Druze, Sufi, Ismaili, and other sectarian groups within Islam.

    Perversely, but understandably given history, this has also set off non-Muslims outside of their region of control, despite the fact that they mostly aren't interested in exporting terrorism. While they do export terrorism, it isn't their main focus - mostly, they are less interested in what the qafir do and think as long as they fuck off and stop bothering them, and while they also attract the attention of many who do want to hit the Americans and Europeans fast and hard, and give them support to do so, they themselves are more interested in empire-building and ethnic and religious cleansing.

    The problem is that Western analysts have mostly missed this, and to the extent that they do, they get shouted down by those who just want to see them as part of the Great Islamic Conspiracy no different from Iran and Al-Qaeda. It tends to lead policymakers to make understandable but wrong decisions based on confusion about the real nature of their opponents.



  • @boomzilla said:

    In other words, we're not talking about major combat operations of civilians with small arms against a mechanized and trained army. Though that seems to be the only scenario that critics of armed defense against a government seem to consider.

    Well

    • It's possible to own some serious firepower in America. Grenades, Full Auto, even Gatling guns are possible, but you have to have a reason to own it, and it takes paperwork, background checks, and fees, as well as costs a great deal of money. Even still, certain guns are required to be made unfirable or turned into semi-automatic. So it's not a practical solution.
    • The second amendment is somewhat ambiguous because of the dependent clause (grammar). But the independent clause, is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The reason given is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". The interpretation that the dependent clause is a restriction to the independent clause isn't a valid interpretation. We can't determine intent, and so we go by what's written, and I would hope that a bunch of well educated, including the scribe, would understand grammar. However, since militia and being necessary to security of a free state, seems to imply that the intended use is civilians who freely own arms comparable to the military could be mobilized by the states. However that doesn't restrict their personal use of those arms.
    • The argument that the forefathers couldn't imagine the firepower of today is full-retard. They always intended the militia to be as powerful as a military, whatever that power would be, because the power of arms increased drastically from the declaration of independence to the 2nd amendment, scarily so, and that didn't stop them from ratifying the 2nd amendment. The arms at the time weren't simple rifles and pistols.
    • Remember, military is the responsibility of the federal government. Therefore the states had to rely on militia when the federal government couldn't respond (travel was a bitch back then). The states could mobilize the militia, but the militia was independently organized from the state. So the idea that a Coast Guard fulfills the 2nd amendment is wrong. Remember the dependent clause is one explanation for the need, not a restriction.
    • I'm under the impression that in America it would be harder, since the gun owners and military show a lot more independent thinking rather than the collective thinking that Hitler exploited, a significant portion of the military would align with the citizenry should our government attempt tyranny. But then again, Hitler socially hacked the Germans.
    • Even though the "behind every blade of grass" is a misquote. I believe the idea is sound. Having personal ownership of guns is a big deterrent to invasion and tyranny.

    Citizens that are prepared to fight tyranny at least means that the government can't count on having so many slaves, and honestly a tyrannical government can't exist without the slave population.



  • @xaade said:

    The argument that the forefathers couldn't imagine the firepower of today is full-retard. They always intended the militia to be as powerful as a military, whatever that power would be, because the power of arms increased drastically from the declaration of independence to the 2nd amendment, scarily so, and that didn't stop them from ratifying the 2nd amendment. The arms at the time weren't simple rifles and pistols.

    While you are correct in so far as intent goes, you are missing the matter of practicality, of which firepower is only a part. While the expectation was that the militia would always outnumber the Federal army if maintained, the problem was that expecting civilians to continue to drill, maintain their personal weapons, and remain prepared in times of peace proved politically and psychologically untenable, especially as the population grew both in the cities (where drill would be difficult) and the frontier (where the sparse population made training and organizing a problem).

    Furthermore, the issue is less with the sheer effect of new weapons, but of the cost of purchasing, maintaining, supplying and moving them. The states (especially those newly formed ones on the frontier) weren't willing or able to foot the bill directly, and since logistics was one of the elements of defense that the Federal government had already undertaken (see below), the process of supply and depoting slowly moved towards them as well.

    @xaade said:

    Remember, military is the responsibility of the federal government. Therefore the states had to rely on militia when the federal government couldn't respond (travel was a bitch back then). The states could mobilize the militia, but the militia was independently organized from the state. So the idea that a Coast Guard fulfills the 2nd amendment is wrong. Remember the dependent clause is one explanation for the need, not a restriction.

    My understanding is that the plan was that the Federal government wouldn't have a standing army at all, at least not inside the US proper, but would focus on training an officer corps and logistical system that would coordinate the militias when in the field. Since anyone not in the Federal army would be in one of the militias anyway - as I have often pointed out, the US has and always has had universal conscription on paper, but generally doesn't practice it - they didn't see a need for any but the most minimal national armed forces, and wanted to prevent the formation of one, so militia was the best approach in any case.

    It was, more than anything else, the rapid expansion of territory and the movement into the frontier that quashed this notion. Since the unorganized territories were held and managed by the Federal government until such time as they could be formed into states, and would then be in a position to continue relying on the national forces afterward simply out of financial burdens, the formation of a national standing army became pretty much fait accompli.

    As for the weapons of the time versus those of today, that has less bearing on the question of protection from tyranny than it does on the question of whether self-defense was a significant factor in framing the second amendment, but it is a side argument no matter what. Self-defense wasn't even on the table when the amendment was debated, and it is usually only raised by those - again on either side of the debate today - .who don't really get the point of the Bill of Rights.

    @xaade said:

    itizens that are prepared to fight tyranny at least means that the government can't count on having so many slaves, and honestly a tyrannical government can't exist without the slave population.

    There were plenty of those in Germany in 1933, more than in the US today probably, most of them armed with Mausers and grenades, and they did fight - each other. The Nazis started off as one such group, and loudly protested that they were fighting for freedom, too (and a lot of people thought they meant it). It was because of the fighting that the Nazis were able to finesse a system that on paper was even more free and open than the US was at the time. So much for Constitutional guarantees when most people are hungry, desperate and tired of conflict.

    Remember, too, that in that same year there was a plot in the US to stage a coup against the in-coming administration, one which would have had tons of popular support if the general they wanted as their figurehead hadn't turned them in. A lot of radicals of all stripes were running around in the US at the time, too, and it isn't inconceivable that someone like, say, Huey Long, or the Technocrats, or some other fringe group couldn't have gotten a lot more support if the Depression hadn't eased up by 1936. Whether the New Deal had anything to do with that didn't matter, but the perception that it was effective did, if only because the relatively mild reforms it made took away the ammunition from the Communists and Fascists alike.



  • @ScholRLEA said:

    If you emphasize that they lack legitimacy, they sound more and more like a bunch of wingnuts making irrational claims.

    I didn’t think the BBC was known for slavishly toeing the government line.

    @ScholRLEA said:

    On the other hand, there's a genuine sense that calling themselves 'The Islamic State' is, if nothing else, overreaching.

    True, but it doesn’t alter that if it’s what they themselves call their own organisation, why does it need the qualifier “TOCI”? Nobody on the BBC says “The party calling itself New Labour,” for example.


  • BINNED

    @ScholRLEA said:

    They are an army of Inquisitors who scare the unholy hell out of other Sunni, never mind the Shia, Druze, Sufi, Ismaili, and other sectarian groups within Islam.

    A very informative and accurate assessment of the situation! I had never seen any westerner who knows that much about Islam!

    @ScholRLEA said:

    It tends to lead policymakers to make understandable but wrong decisions based on confusion about the real nature of their opponents.

    The policy should be to deliver their opponents what they are most afraid of. They have shown they are not afraid of death, or drones. Ironically, what they are afraid of are strong women, and educated women in power would be their end.

    @Gurth said:

    Nobody on the BBC says “The party calling itself New Labour,” for example.

    I think BBC is trying to let moderate Muslims distance themselves from IS, which makes sense. But I agree with you, people should be called by what they call themselves, and in this case they are called Daesh (a group who tries to establish IS).
    It seems names do have power, and only when you call things by their true name you can wield that power.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dse said:

    Ironically, what they are afraid of are strong women, and educated women in power would be their end.

    It might take some of those ugly things like shooting them as well. A good strategy does not rely on only one style of attack on their position; we want them degraded militarily, and we want them seen widely as both morally and intellectually degraded. This is important as it does a lot to stem recruitment, without which we can much more easily squelch the scum.

    I don't know the solution, but I do know that neither just shooting them nor just ridiculing them will be enough.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.