By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Being anti-nazi shouldn't be political or controversial

 

Fuck nazis

Hell yeah 139 100.00%
 
Total:139
LurkerJ on 07 October 2017
monocle_layton said:
LurkerJ said:
Being anti-Islam shouldn't be political or controversial either. But this is the world we live in

What bothers me about the Muslim community is that they don't see their hypocrisy. They attack apostates and people who question Islam, yet respect a man who threatened Muhammad multiple times before converting to Islam (Omar ibn Khattab).

The man is literally considered one of the greatest men in Islam, but people can overlook multiple death threats and an actual attempt to kill Muhammad. If he can be forgiven, then honestly why should people criticizing Islam be hated?

Hmm, I read the Quran numerous times, I don't remember that story, but it's a really good point. Lots of those who were at war with Muhammad converted to Islam later on, yet, you can't speak ill of him or his friends.

Pemalite said:
LurkerJ said:
Being anti-Islam shouldn't be political or controversial either. But this is the world we live in

As a strong believer in Atheism, I entirely agree with you, being against any religion shouldn't be political or controversial.

However... If you are only Anti-Islam and conveniently ignore the atrocities, extremists/terrorists, hate, violence and so on found in other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on... Then you are simply put... Being ignorant and contradictory.

You need to tackle the bigger problem and you need to be tactful in that approach, just spewing rubbish hate isn't going to solve anything, it's only going to continue the escalation of the current friction between groups.

Not at all, I just posted a thread the other day making fun of jewish extremists. I am against all religions, but the one that poses the biggest threat to my liberal values, here in Europe, is Islam. A lot of liberals prioritize "being nice" over anything else, which is incomprehensible. We were never nice to christians the way we are today with Muslims. If we were, we wouldn't have achieved progress on social issues related to women rights and LGBT rights.

Mnementh said:
LurkerJ said:
Being anti-Islam shouldn't be political or controversial either. But this is the world we live in

We shouldn't be anti-islam, we should pity them. Like all people believing in invisible voices, imaginary friends and other crackpot-theories like christianism, lizard-people, judaism, teapots floating in space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot ), buddhism, fake moon landing or whatever else crazy things people came up with.

Non of those crazy beliefs call for the death of apostates, or kill you for drawing Muhammad. 



Around the Network
Wright on 07 October 2017

I just wanna make a short break here.

 



CrazyGamer2017 on 07 October 2017
sethnintendo said:
StarOcean said:

Humans cant be trusted. Also I believe in a Big Brother sort of world anyway. Of course I only prefer it as part of the ruling class. So even banning isn't enough, really

What a depressing view point of the world.  I've never seen someone suck on the nipples of big brother so much.  NSA should update your folder to blissfully compliant.

Depressing indeed.

But I want to believe he's only trying to push people to a strong reaction and does not believe what he's saying, in other words trolling or flaming, not sure which word exactly applies. Not saying he is trolling for sure, it's just how his statement feels and the sad thing is, if he really means what he's saying, if it's really his opinion, it's beyond sad, it's scary.



Aeolus451 on 07 October 2017
StarOcean said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

Fair enough.. Though I'd counter with a few key points -

For one, why focus on the negative? Free speech will inevitably bring out some horrible speech, but it will also bring out some great speech that might have otherwise been suppressed. Hell, I believe we probably wouldn't have many of the technologies, religions, and theories, and philosophical concepts we have today if not for the free exchange of ideas.

Second, this "supression of hate groups" sounds nice in theory, though I'd aruge that attempting them to silence them through force or threats would only serve to boost their cause and give them more power, as they'd be able to claim victimhood by pointing to these attempts of silencing them.

Additionally, how do you decide who makes these decisions of who can say what? Who decides what speech is tolerable and what isn't? And what makes them qualified? Do they have some sort of agenda of their own that might make them want to suppress certain speech? What makes these people in power so special, and the keepers of information/morality?

And again, the suppresion of free speech IS ironically a sort of Nazism/Fascism, so those attempting to silence it would ironcally sort of BECOME what they're trying to silence in some ways.. Authority figures and governments are just as capable of hate - who's to say they can't abuse this power to merely silence OTHER forms of hate (or worse, ideas they falsely VIEW as hate) while enforcing their own? They're still only human after all..

The whole practice, of placing such empasis and importance on mere words and ideas, sets and extremely bad precedent and sets the stage for a chaotic, oppressive society from my view, full of an extrememly angry and repressed masses of people.

 

Aeolus451 said:

Oh we're really gonna disagree on this. I'm against that because depending on who's the people in power or arbiter that could easily lead to a totalitarian state. it could be abused too easily. Also, "hate groups" will exist regardless of what you do. You can migate their overall influence by countering their arguments/moves with reason and logic. You're not trying to convince them that they are wrong but rather show to everyone how foolish their ideas are. That's fairly easy to do when there's alot of holes in their arguments. 

Allow anyone to speak openly and freely. That way it's much easier to track any persons of interest with troubling ideas versus them just remaining quiet and trying to change things behind the scenes.  Suppressing open speech doesn't stop the spreading of ideas because you can't watch everyone all the time. They'll still talk behind closed doors. If you try to control that, it will lead to authortarism and you won't stop what you were aiming for. The reason why a lot of hate groups have died off or weakened into insignificance is because people have been challenging their ideas for a long time. 

 

I don't think either of you understand that I know that it cannot be accomplished now. Unfortunately, it will only be accomplished by means of vastly superior intelligence which will come in the form of AI in the coming decades. 

Then again, they'll probably also realize humans are bad for the planet and continuation of other species and wipe us out anyway. So, perhaps it can't happen. But it doesn't take away from me not believing in free speech. It's too flawed. 

It's already being accomplished. It's why hate groups aren't in control of the government. Their idealogy is flawed and most people see that. I don't agree with throwing away everyone's rights to get a few people. The math don't add up in that.



Errorist76 on 07 October 2017
CrazyGamer2017 said:
Errorist76 said:

No man, Hitler's ideology was way worse than Caesar's so don't try to equalise them. It wouldn't be acceptable to play as a Nazi at all. It would be nice to see a game from the average German soldier's perspective one day, not all Germans were Nazis...far from it. The minority were, just as only a minority supports Trump today...but don't get me wrong, Trump is no Hitler..(at least yet..he's missing the intellect for better or worse)...and I don't want to compare him directly with him, but there are certain parallels in the way both came to power which are clearly noticeable. 

Concerning your point...Of course it's arguable that the fight against the native Americans, Incas etc. (the "Untermenschen" (subhumans) of said time) or Stalin's Gulags were just the same evil - they were, at least partly, indeed - but that doesn't mean we should demonize the Nazis less...it means we should recognise the other crimes against humanity more!

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree on that first statement of yours that I put in bold. Caesar not only was just as cruel as Hitler was though with a different agenda, cause his armies would massacre, rape, torture (women, children, even men), only rich and powerful people were allowed to vote, slaves were kept for all purposes, fight to the DEATH, sex (and by sex I mean constant rape including of children) Public amusement consisted of watching people being mauled and devoured by lions in a public stadium etc...

Anyway, Ceasar was not only at least just as cruel as Hitler, he was FAR FAR from being the only leader at the time. Basically every leader before him and every one after him within the Roman Empire was just as cruel and the pain never ended, AT LEAST After Hitler died things got better in Germany.

As for the second point I put in bold at the end of your post, I couldn't agree more, I am 100% with what you are saying there and if you read me again you'll notice that it is pretty much in essence what I was trying to say.

I guess were on the same train and yes, if you put it that way Caesar WAS indeed just as cruel from a physical standpoint, but the whole thing about democracy and belief is the key, which makes the big difference in my eyes. Which makes it so much more relatable to us than the Roman times. Hitler tactically used the anger and disappointment in the population to install his fascist regime and, while trying to conquer Europe, put a final solution to the 'Judenfrage', which in the end let to a machinery of before unknown moral darkness. To feel comissioned to kill each and every one of a certain descent/belief - although he certainly wasn't the only one at that time who had a problem with jews and was backed by both the US and the Sowjets for a long time - just to eradicate them from this planet.

Of course you'll now state that the crusades against the muslims had the same goal, and I'll say...hey, but they fought and worked it out in the end. Like civilised people do, and I think that's the key here...we believe we're more civilised these days, even though I'm sometimes not so sure if that's true considering the big picture. At least we should be civilised enough that we learn from past mistakes and I guess that's why it's so important to recognise the signs, when stuff is going to shit another time at another place, be it the US, Russia, Turkey or Myanmar.

It's just never ok to be ok with it. 



Around the Network
Errorist76 on 07 October 2017
CrazyGamer2017 said:
Errorist76 said:

I'm sure he didn't let someone invent a gas-chamber to kill them though. Going to war against a populace of one certain region or just denying one whole lineage of man their right to live is still a big moral difference in my opinion. Not even talking about the difference in numbers.

That is selective morals, you are saying that since Caesar did not have gas chambers, that raping children that were not even considered as humans cause they were slaves, watching people being mauled to death and then watching them being devoured alive, butchering and torturing people in villages as armies did during their invasions, all that stuff is not as bad just cause it was not a specific way of murdering such as using gas chambers?

That is morally so wrong on so many levels, my friend.

You're right, i guess. I need to question that relation. I guess I already answered to that post in my other post, somehow. =)



StuOhQ on 07 October 2017

Anti-nazi should be the default state. And Nazism isn't socialism any more than all of the "Republics" and "Free State of..." countries that claimed to be Communist were. Nazism is fascism. Fascism is far right on the political spectrum.

Nazi Germany does not equal modern day Sweden. That's just a right-wing talking point.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Aura7541 on 07 October 2017
the-pi-guy said:
John2290 said:
I despise both sides of this argument, both sides are completely moronic and have no sense in their arguments but one side is much more of a problem at the moment and that is the "Antifa" and the far left. They may be against fascism but they have agendas more in line with Fascism than not plus they are violent and angry and seem to have the media and masses on their side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TJOjAKL7Qs

 

Antifa isn't anywhere near as violent as they are shown off to be.  Their crime rates are in line with football games.  

However, committing as well as calling for violence against certain people based on ideology is still wrong. That is different from the nature of crimes from football games.



Aeolus451 on 07 October 2017
the-pi-guy said:
numberwang said:

Milo is jewish, gay, supports Israel and maried a black man... a Nazi?

He's gay with a black husband, and yet he thinks that being gay is wrong.

"But everything isn’t OK. And, ceteris paribus, no one would choose to have a gay child rather than a straight one. It would be like wishing that they were born disabled – not just because homosexuality is aberrant, but because that child will suffer unnecessarily. Again, you’d have to be mad. Or evil.

Is being homosexual “wrong”? Something somewhere inside of me says Yes. "

http://web.archive.org/web/20110716015115/http://yiannopoulos.net:80/2011/07/11/why-ill-probably-never-be-a-parent/

Self loathing is a thing.  White supremacists can be black, black supremacists can be white.  Just because he's jewish and gay doesn't mean he can't be a nazi, or can't be supporting white nationalism.  

I think that his point was that being born straight is an easier life than being born homosexual and that no one wants others to be born with extra hardships. Milo is none of those things as you described because he doesn't actually believe in nazism or supports white nationalism. That is just the left trying to paint one of their most vocal opponents as the most horrible human being possible in order to undermine his points. Classic example of ad hominem.



Mnementh on 07 October 2017
LurkerJ said:
Mnementh said:

We shouldn't be anti-islam, we should pity them. Like all people believing in invisible voices, imaginary friends and other crackpot-theories like christianism, lizard-people, judaism, teapots floating in space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot ), buddhism, fake moon landing or whatever else crazy things people came up with.

Non of those crazy beliefs call for the death of apostates, or kill you for drawing Muhammad. 

Remember, remember, the Crusades:

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



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]