πŸ”₯ Is hitler a socialist? No homo.



  • @flabdablet said in Recruiting Giants:

    the troll in the tie.

    Apt description.

    Liberals are all direct descendants of Hitler. Good conversation starter, there.



  • @flabdablet said in Recruiting Giants:

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    they control the debate

    That's the thing, though. They behave as if they control the debate, by continually attempting to set the agenda: every other day there's some culture warrior cross-posting some kind of ill-researched crap from the Daily Fail and banging on about the latest SJW outrage.

    But it takes two to have a debate. Don't give them the satisfaction. Just insult them. It's far more entertaining.

    And you wonder why I look forward to your posts. You're a walking caricature.



  • @boomzilla That's a nuanced position. Nuance is a :barrier: to conversation or politics.

    I don't know that 'the social justice take' exists. It's not really an organization, and it certainly doesn't have consistent ideals.

    (fuck that dude in the tie. Social justice is exactly what it sounds like. Society is unjust in places, and it should be just in those places instead. Asking a bunch of people to define 'mountain' and getting back ten different mountains just means your dinner guests have a poor grasp of geology, not that mountains aren't real.)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    they control the debate

    I like to think of it as having a safe space for us right-wing loons. Fuck knows you won't find one at DailyKos.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @MZH Holy cow, the cover alone should be enough reason to commit the author to the nearest asylum. I wonder how many people bought the book out of morbid curiosity to find out what such a delusional person would write.


  • β™Ώ

    @MZH said in Recruiting Giants:

    Liberals are all direct descendants of Hitler. Good conversation starter, there.

    It's easy to tell when someone hasn't read the book.


  • β™Ώ

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    I don't know that 'the social justice take' exists. It's not really an organization, and it certainly doesn't have consistent ideals.

    Agreed.

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    (fuck that dude in the tie. Social justice is exactly what it sounds like

    LOL, thanks for proving his point.


  • β™Ώ

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    @MZH Holy cow, the cover alone should be enough reason to commit the author to the nearest asylum. I wonder how many people bought the book out of morbid curiosity to find out what such a delusional person would write.

    It's actually an excellent book. The graphic is riffing on something George Carlin said about how when fascism really comes to America, it will be with smiley faces or something. I forget what he said, exactly, but it's in the book, which covers a lot of history of American liberalism / progressivism.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    It's actually an excellent book.

    Even if that were true, the cover is reason enough not to buy the book out of spite. If you feel the need to advertise your non-fiction book using an outrageous hypothesis/illustration, I won't buy it, no matter what it's about. Your advertising strategy already disqualifies you from serious discourse.



  • @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    LOL, thanks for proving his point.

    "fictional people focus on different subproblems of a larger problem" What a visionary.



  • @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    If you feel the need to advertise your non-fiction book using an outrageous hypothesis/illustration, I won't buy it, no matter what it's about.

    If you can't avoid Godwin's Law on the cover of your own book, I don't care what you put inside it. There are many books in the world, and I needn't read yours.



  • @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    And I'd still argue

    Of course you would. On and on and on and on you'd drone, until everybody else had lost the will to live. Then you'd declare yourself The Winner! Because LOGIC.


  • β™Ώ

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    If you can't avoid Godwin's Law on the cover of your own book, I don't care what you put inside it. There are many books in the world, and I needn't read yours.

    There are many excuses for ignorance, but this one is yours. Of course, the content of the cover really is directly related to the content.'

    @flabdablet said in Recruiting Giants:

    Of course you would. On and on and on and on you'd drone, until everybody else had lost the will to live. Then you'd declare yourself The Winner! Because LOGIC.

    You're right, I should give more credit to emotional book reviews based on their ignorant interpretation of the cover.



  • @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    @MZH said in Recruiting Giants:

    Liberals are all direct descendants of Hitler. Good conversation starter, there.

    It's easy to tell when someone hasn't read the book.

    After reading the reviews of the reviews my interest is now piped!

    *edit yes I actually read the comments of the reviews!

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    (fuck that dude in the tie. Social justice is exactly what it sounds like. Society is unjust in places, and it should be just in those places instead. Asking a bunch of people to define 'mountain' and getting back ten different mountains just means your dinner guests have a poor grasp of geology, not that mountains aren't real.)

    Now name one and provide solutions that won't bankrupt a country to carry out.

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    It's actually an excellent book.

    Even if that were true, the cover is reason enough not to buy the book out of spite. If you feel the need to advertise your non-fiction book using an outrageous hypothesis/illustration, I won't buy it, no matter what it's about. Your advertising strategy already disqualifies you from serious discourse.

    Whatever happened to don't judge a book by its cover?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @DogsB said in Recruiting Giants:

    Whatever happened to don't judge a book by its cover?

    In this case, there's a good reason to do so. Also, the cover alone reduces my willingness to give the author money to zero.



  • @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    @DogsB said in Recruiting Giants:

    Whatever happened to don't judge a book by its cover?

    In this case, there's a good reason to do so. Also, the cover alone reduces my willingness to give the author money to zero.

    Strangely enough the cover actually drew me in but then I'm a sucker for bright colors and hitler smiley faces. Then I learned it was political and was turned off by it. Now that I've read the batshit in the reviews and the comments on reviews I'm morbidly interested. Now that you point it out I don't like the idea of political pundits getting my money.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @DogsB OK, now I read at least the reviews as well. So, apparently, the book reiterates the good old "left wing and right wing are the same", "hitler was a socialist" and other assorted bullshit. Yes, both authoritarianism and populism can be found at both ends of the political spectrum. No, you cannot infer "left wing consists of evil fascists" from that, as the cover insinuates.

    Perhaps the best comment I've seen so far (I wouldn't call it review since it doesn't refer to the book very much) is the following one (3 stars):

    The warning that American progressivism has "fascist" tendencies is an important one: the obsession with economic fairness, inequality, and the power of capitalists and bankers was a core component of fascist ideology. The modern American left also shares other ideas and ideals with German fascism. However, that is not the whole story. German fascism also shares many aspects with modern American conservatism, such as a focus on the importance of the family and strong political support for Christian values (at least in speeches and money). You can dig through Nazi speeches and find sections that are key to Nazi politics and ideology yet fit politicians across the political spectrum.

    But such details aside, there is one simple reason it's hard to assign the blame for fascism to the political left: the political left voted against and fought the Nazis, while German conservatives and Christians supported them and cooperated with them politically; the cooperation was perhaps grudging, but it was voluntary and essential to the success of Nazism and fascism in Germany. But this is hardly exculpation for the American political left, because the American political left is neither socialist nor communist nor working class, it is progressive, populist, educated, and middle class.

    Basically, the American left is weird, authoritarianism is not restricted to one political wing and yes, there's still a difference between left and right wing. Also, no, random similarities between the NSDAP and some party mean absolutely nothing. Unless you're about to start a world war, install a police state or commit genocide.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @asdf Just for the sake of completeness, the rest of the review I quoted:

    What fascism really was was quintessentially anti-individual and anti-freedom, and unfortunately, we find these tendencies in both major parties in the US today. Whether it is American progressives or American conservatives, both want to use the federal government to realize their social, moral, political, and economic visions, overriding individual choices and individual liberties. Technically, it is probably true that the American left tends more towards ideologies similar to German fascism. But the American right (meaning, social conservatives), if not tending towards fascism, tend towards theocracy, an ideology that has historically been just as corrupt, destructive, and genocidal as fascism, if not more so.

    The book has a lot of valuable observations and insights. In particular, the message that there is a disturbing degree of commonality between the economic agenda of American progressives and European fascists of the 1930's is an important one. But ultimately, that important message is lost because the author pursues a partisan agenda. That means that the people who really need to understand this, namely the American left, will not listen. And churches and social conservatives, who were also a big part of the rise of fascism in Germany, get largely a free pass. Sadly, despite making many important observations, due to its political partisanship, this book will serve to educate few and change few minds. We need books that persuade both American liberals and conservatives to remember the importance of liberty, not a book that serves as further ammunition in their petty ideological wars with each other.

    It brings up another good point: The hypocrisy of American conservatives, who criticize Muslim countries for their intolerance towards other religions while leaning towards a Christian theocracy themselves.



  • @DogsB said in Recruiting Giants:

    (fuck that dude in the tie. Social justice is exactly what it sounds like. Society is unjust in places, and it should be just in those places instead. Asking a bunch of people to define 'mountain' and getting back ten different mountains just means your dinner guests have a poor grasp of geology, not that mountains aren't real.)

    Now name one and provide solutions that won't bankrupt a country to carry out.

    Um. Denali?

    (fr srs: minimum sentencing on crack vs cocaine is stupid, mandatory minimum sentencing and three-strikes laws for small drug offenses are also stupid. At least do an exponential progression. It costs negative money to do this.)

    Is your position really that everything that is not fair would be prohibitively expensive to fix?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    Is your position really that everything that is not fair would be prohibitively expensive to fix?

    Yeah, that's basically the mantra of American conservatives: We cannot make anything fair anyway, because that would mean billions in wasted taxes and evil big government, so grow some balls already!

    In case you're wondering whether I'm trolling or being serious: I'm not entirely sure myself, actually. As usual, it's hard to tell parody from serious statements when talking about an ideology.


  • β™Ώ

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    So, apparently, the book reiterates the good old "left wing and right wing are the same"

    No?

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    "hitler was a socialist"

    Yes, clearly.

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    and other assorted bullshit.

    Yes, it does claim to be a history of the left.

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    But ultimately, that important message is lost because the author pursues a partisan agenda.

    Sounds like the problem of the reviewer.

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    It brings up another good point: The hypocrisy of American conservatives, who criticize Muslim countries for their intolerance towards other religions while leaning towards a Christian theocracy themselves.

    :wtf:?


  • β™Ώ

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    Yeah, that's basically the mantra of American conservatives: We cannot make anything fair anyway, because that would mean billions in wasted taxes and evil big government, so grow some balls already!

    Sorry, but as an American conservative, I don't recognize this at all. But this is possibly because we have very different definitions of the word "fair."

    Certainly I don't want to waste billions of dollars or create a bigger, more evil government, though.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    "hitler was a socialist"

    Yes, clearly.

    There has been a long debate about whether this is actually true for decades. Nothing is "clear" there. Controlling key parts of the economy was mostly a necessity for the war.

    @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    It brings up another good point: The hypocrisy of American conservatives, who criticize Muslim countries for their intolerance towards other religions while leaning towards a Christian theocracy themselves.

    :wtf:?

    I was waiting for your reply there, I knew you'd disagree with that statement. We've had this debate before, so I'm not going to repeat it here. I'm just going to leave the keywords "defending Christian values" and "Trump speeches" here. Also, "creationism taught in public schools", for the :fire:.


  • β™Ώ

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    I was waiting for your reply there, I knew you'd disagree with that statement. We've had this debate before, so I'm not going to repeat it here. I'm just going to leave the keywords "defending Christian values" and "Trump speeches" here. Also, "creationism taught in public schools", for the .

    I'm still waiting for the theocracy stuff.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    I'm still waiting for the theocracy stuff.

    Enforcing "Christian values" via laws is not much better than having a theocracy. Religious freedom is worth nothing if the law is motivated by religion. Even more so if hate speech against a particular religion is common. Just ask the non-Muslim citizens of any predominantly Muslim country except Saudi-Arabia, because officially, you have religious freedom in most of them.


  • β™Ώ

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    Enforcing "Christian values" via laws is not much better than having a theocracy.

    That's a giant hole there. Murder, for instance, is against Christian values.

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    Religious freedom is worth nothing if the law is motivated by religion.

    A law is a law, regardless of motivations. It may be good or bad, but you probably can't say one way or the other without some values backing that up.



  • @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    @DogsB said in Recruiting Giants:

    (fuck that dude in the tie. Social justice is exactly what it sounds like. Society is unjust in places, and it should be just in those places instead. Asking a bunch of people to define 'mountain' and getting back ten different mountains just means your dinner guests have a poor grasp of geology, not that mountains aren't real.)

    Now name one and provide solutions that won't bankrupt a country to carry out.

    Um. Denali?

    (fr srs: minimum sentencing on crack vs cocaine is stupid, mandatory minimum sentencing and three-strikes laws for small drug offenses are also stupid. At least do an exponential progression. It costs negative money to do this.)

    Is your position really that everything that is not fair would be prohibitively expensive to fix?

    No those are actually good points. Locking people up for possession charges is pointless and wastes money but you've stopped very short of the problem. The problem here is that you've got an addict. He's being picked up three times. Putting him in jail is pointless but putting him back in the same situation is also pointless. You'll probably see him same time next week. This poor fucker is fucked by the current action but fucked by inaction. Oh why don't we put him in rehab? Good he's clean. Where does go now? Oh back home. The cycle starts again. Okay how about we put him up in a new place this time and subsudize a job for him? He's being okay for a few months now. What happens when we take our eye off him. Now scale that up to thousands of people.
    You don't even have a solution. You either want no punishment. (I actually agree) Or you want worse punishment but no solution.

    Is your position really that everything that is not fair would be prohibitively expensive to fix?

    I live in an awful world where people do cost beneift analyses and a lot of people get fucked over for it.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    That's a giant hole there. Murder, for instance, is against Christian values.

    Creating a law solely because it enforces Christian values is entirely different from creating a law which tangentially enforces Christian values. People have known murder is bad for a long time. Long enough that Christian values were made to include "murder is bad." It is not the other way around.


  • β™Ώ

    @Fox said in Recruiting Giants:

    Creating a law solely because it enforces Christian values is entirely different from creating a law which tangentially enforces Christian values.

    Are you now going to provide some arguments as to why the US isn't a theocracy in service of trying to show that it is?



  • I hate problems that don't have easy solutions.

    anti-vaxers are a beautiful example of this, because they're quite literally killing children and causing huge public health problems based on fraud.

    On the other hand, the whole point of the hippocratic oath/principles of informed consent. is you cannot administer health care to someone who doesn't want it. They don't have to be right, but if they're conscious and otherwise sane you can do nothing .


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said in Recruiting Giants:

    A law is a law, regardless of motivations.

    While that is technically true, ideally a law should be a sensible extension to and/or implementation of the constitution. Otherwise, it's not based on the basic contract the state's society is founded upon and therefore arbitrary. In addition to that, there are regulations to address specific political problems and/or ambiguities in the law.

    Avoiding philosophical questions and going back to the topic: Religiously motivated laws don't necessarily have to, but can very well undermine freedom. Again, take Arabic states as an example: Their inhabitants may have the right to practice their own religion (in private), but have to follow Muslim traditions in public. Judge for yourself whether they're really free.


  • β™Ώ

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    Religiously motivated laws don't necessarily have to, but can very well undermine freedom.

    Of course, just like any law.


  • β™Ώ

    @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    Judge for yourself whether they're really free.

    No, those places are pretty terrible in nearly every way.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    you cannot administer health care to someone who doesn't want it

    In the case of anti-vaxers, the patient isn't able to decide for himself/herself due to age, so the hippocratic oath would dictate exactly the opposite in this case (ignore the parent). The question is whether you can revoke the parent's status as a legal guardian based on the fact that they're potentially hurting their children or not.



  • @Fox said in Recruiting Giants:

    People have known murder is bad for a long time. Long enough that Christian values were made to include "murder is bad." It is not the other way around.

    Have they known longer than 6000 years? Because if not, then Christians invented it.

    (PS: It's a trick question. There is no such thing as "longer than 6000" years)



  • @DogsB said in Recruiting Giants:

    You don't even have a solution.

    Not to drugs in general, no. ( I wish)

    I do have a solution to racially motivated differentials in sentencing, which is way smaller and more manageable, and fits in a forum post. You asked for a solution to an injustice, so I provided a small one that's free.

    (Let's talk about drugs and the law though, that shit is fascinating )



  • @asdf said in Recruiting Giants:

    The question is whether you can revoke the parent's status as a legal guardian based on the fact that they're potentially hurting their children or not.

    The trouble is that they're not obviously hurting anyone. It's really hard to prove that an immunocompromised old man died of a preventable illness because of Madison down the street and her special snowflake 'little body'.

    Soft pressure like judgement and shame is the only way to go on this one.

    (Actually, why don't we have tax breaks for the vaccinated? They save the state money in healthcare costs and productivity...)


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    Let's talk about drugs and the law though, that shit is fascinating

    Personally, I find drugs way more fascinating than the law, but that may just be me. :-P

    Actually, it's the other way around. True story.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    I hate problems that don't have easy solutions.

    Sucks to be you I guess. Or, to put it another way, every real challenge has a simple and easy-to-implement solution that's thoroughly wrong. Genuinely easy problems get dealt with immediately and aren't worth talking about; the others are interesting precisely because it's difficult to get a truly good answer (or nobody has any real idea at all).

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    On the other hand, the whole point of the hippocratic oath/principles of informed consent. is you cannot administer health care to someone who doesn't want it.

    But what if they're suffering from a delusion (e.g., that you're a dancing purple triceratops that only speaks fluent Aramaic) that makes them reject care? Would that mean that you can't treat them for their delusion? It's an ethical minefield. This is why we have a more nuanced approach, such as allowing family members or a court to take decisions for someone who is unable to decide for themselves. Mostly it works out.



  • @DogsB said in Recruiting Giants:

    They're a fairy stole made up to scare Catholics much like women in tech.

    :trolleybus:

    That has to be the most stereotypical Irish thing I've ever read. Mostly because it looks like drunken gibberish. Secondly because it might also qualify as Scottish gibberish, also drunk by default.

    :trolleybus:



  • @MathNerdCNU said in Recruiting Giants:

    Scottish gibberish



  • @loopback0 Based on the text only took me ten seconds to realize that involved eating dog shit.

    Not sure if I should admit part of my family is Scottish or...



  • @Lorne-Kates said in Recruiting Giants:

    Have they known longer than 6000 years? Because if not, then ChristiansJews invented it.

    FTFMoses


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @DogsB said in Recruiting Giants:

    @AyGeePlus said in Recruiting Giants:

    @DogsB said in Recruiting Giants:

    (fuck that dude in the tie. Social justice is exactly what it sounds like. Society is unjust in places, and it should be just in those places instead. Asking a bunch of people to define 'mountain' and getting back ten different mountains just means your dinner guests have a poor grasp of geology, not that mountains aren't real.)

    Now name one and provide solutions that won't bankrupt a country to carry out.

    Um. Denali?

    (fr srs: minimum sentencing on crack vs cocaine is stupid, mandatory minimum sentencing and three-strikes laws for small drug offenses are also stupid. At least do an exponential progression. It costs negative money to do this.)

    Is your position really that everything that is not fair would be prohibitively expensive to fix?

    No those are actually good points. Locking people up for possession charges is pointless and wastes money but you've stopped very short of the problem. The problem here is that you've got an addict. He's being picked up three times. Putting him in jail is pointless but putting him back in the same situation is also pointless. You'll probably see him same time next week. This poor fucker is fucked by the current action but fucked by inaction. Oh why don't we put him in rehab? Good he's clean. Where does go now? Oh back home. The cycle starts again. Okay how about we put him up in a new place this time and subsudize a job for him? He's being okay for a few months now. What happens when we take our eye off him. Now scale that up to thousands of people.
    You don't even have a solution. You either want no punishment. (I actually agree) Or you want worse punishment but no solution.

    Is your position really that everything that is not fair would be prohibitively expensive to fix?

    I live in an awful world where people do cost beneift analyses and a lot of people get fucked over for it.

    There is one possible solution that has some precedent in America:

    • Make certain drugs flatly legal and just penalize with a modifier when they do illegal stuff while intoxicated/high. Drinking is legal, but reckless driving because you were drunk is not, and having been drunk does not help your case. Which drugs? Weed is almost certainly on the list, anything that frequently causes severe impairment of health or life is probably not. Just make sure it's determined by people better informed than politicians.
    • For the remaining drugs, as well as habitual offenders (here meaning: people repeatedly doing illegal stuff while under the influence of legal drugs), treat it like a health problem: rehab followed by supervised reentry into society.
    • For the people that doesn't help: mandatory conscription. Sounds harsh, but it actually falls in line with (IIRC) some of the necessary measures for helping someone with an addiction:
      • Change of environment
      • New, reliable(-ish) social network
      • Employment + self sufficiency + sense of self-worth
    • Still having issues? This one is harsh: back to private (or equiv), and back to basic training. Of course, there's more: provide more counseling to determine if there are any environmental factors that could be altered (e.g, a person in a frontline unit may not be able to handle the stress and should be transferred elsewhere), and maybe have a special unit or two for those people who absolutely need more supervision and support than is usual.
    • There may still be some people not helped (or at least coerced) by all this. Don't know what more to do than prison or something like that.

    I don't know if that'd be more or less expensive than the current system, but it'd probably be better overall.

    Well, except that it might encourage more wars. Maybe a civil service corps branched off from the military instead, with domestic and international branches (the latter primarily for things like disaster relief and such). Reason for the two branches is that some people may be better off going elsewhere for a while, and others might be better off staying closer to home.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @wft said in Recruiting Giants:

    A dumbfuckery scale 100/100

    Nah, that's too high. I'm thinking more along the lines of -9223372036854775808/100


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @ScholRLEA said in Recruiting Giants:

    But, but, but... I am an one of those lunatics!

    Yes, we know. You're a lisp programmer.

    Filed Under: Sorry, that was too easy...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Dreikin said in Recruiting Giants:

    Maybe a civil service corps branched off from the military instead, with domestic and international branches (the latter primarily for things like disaster relief and such).

    Isn't there something very much like this already in the US? They don't make as big a noise about it as they ought to, but I think it exists. Except I think they try to avoid taking drug addicts because they prefer to support Big Prisons instead. It's the capitalist way!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dkf said in Recruiting Giants:

    Isn't there something very much like this already in the US?

    I suppose you're thinking of the National Guard?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @lolwhat said in Recruiting Giants:

    I suppose you're thinking of the National Guard?

    No, they're something else. But I can't think what exactly to google for that won't give lots of other silly hits…



  • @dkf Are you thinking of something a bit like our Territorial Army? Or am I just way off-base?


Log in to reply
 

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