Jump to content

The Golden Shower


Arkiri Arch
 Share

Recommended Posts

you guys could just post the convo in full where we were talking about nazis and someone retorted that yeah we should just send everyone we disagree with away

 

then i said "if they weren't so wrong i wouldn't want them to die"

 

not only was it just a tad facetious but it was in direct reference to literal actual white supremacists lmao

 

maybe try getting over yourselves some time soon

Edited by rey
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Redarmy said:

I don't have enough badges to be a toxic meme lord. 

You have to post more political extremist memes, then wait till someone is triggered from it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rey said:

you guys could just post the convo in full where we were talking about nazis and someone retorted that yeah we should just send everyone we disagree with away

gsKVWcP.png

  • Upvote 2

settradirect.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

You have to post more political extremist memes, then wait till someone is triggered from it.

ddSjIHu.jpg

It's time to annex this thread.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Betulius said:

d28.jpg

C82SidZXUAA2pma.jpg:large

  • Upvote 5

"They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays.

<Kastor> And laughs and shit.

<Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/03/2018 at 6:02 PM, Big Brother said:

 Thus, Nazi merely becomes a convenient umbrella term referring to anyone that espouses reactionary views and beliefs.

When talking about accusing people of anything convenience should not be a factor. If we are taking the time to fight on another's behalf we can at least educate ourselves about the issue. Not to mention as pointed out the umbrella term is fascist.

 

On 22/03/2018 at 6:02 PM, Big Brother said:

but don't presume to judge those of us who feel compelled to act against these hateful people because we value the lives of human beings. If some Nazis have to die to save entire groups of people from ruthless slaughter, then that is a price anyone should be willing to pay.

It's beyond preposterous to equalize those who would use violence to protect human beings with those who would use violence to exterminate them.

It is very important to judge those who would use violence even to defend others... that is why we review police and investigate how they handle matters. It is why our laws require due process... to make sure we do not cross the line into tyranny ourselves.

On 22/03/2018 at 6:02 PM, Big Brother said:

Besides, there's a very easy way Nazis and the like can rid themselves of any threat of violence against them; they can stop being Nazis. That's all it takes.

 

That is by no means certain many far left regimes round up former members of not just far right parties but also democratic groups and even union members decades after the party comes to power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Senatorius said:

When talking about accusing people of anything convenience should not be a factor. If we are taking the time to fight on another's behalf we can at least educate ourselves about the issue. Not to mention as pointed out the umbrella term is fascist.

The proper umbrella term is indeed fascist, but in practice a lot of people use the word Nazi in very much the same way. That's not to say that's the correct word to use, it's just an observation of something that is actually occurring. Perhaps convenience shouldn't be a factor when accusing people of something, but people still do things out of convenience all the time. Why you don't recognize the difference between what things should ideally be like and how they are in practice, is beyond me. I shouldn't have to explain these things to you. Even if you don't think using Nazi as an umbrella term is correct surely you have witnessed people use it in that way, which is something I was merely pointing out, not endorsing. I'm confident you understood this already which leads me to believe that you're just trying to be intentionally difficult, describing to me what things should be like, which words should be used, instead of accepting my observations as to what things are actually like and which words are actually used.

3 hours ago, Senatorius said:

It is very important to judge those who would use violence even to defend others... that is why we review police and investigate how they handle matters. It is why our laws require due process... to make sure we do not cross the line into tyranny ourselves.

I agree, but if any judgment is to be passed it should be done so by the properly qualified authorities, not random strangers on the internet who are merely spouting their own interpretations and who are in no way equipped with the necessary traits to make an accurate and unbiased judgment.

 

3 hours ago, Senatorius said:

That is by no means certain many far left regimes round up former members of not just far right parties but also democratic groups and even union members decades after the party comes to power.

Am I a leftist regime? Am I speaking on behalf of a leftist regime? I think not. I don't dispute that left-wing regimes have persecuted many many people but based on what I have observed and learned about anti-fascist movements (not authoritarian left-wing regimes), I can tell you with certainty that the vast majority of anti-fascist movements don't bother fascists who aren't politically active and who don't actually encourage or agitate for ethnic cleansing, ethnostates, segregation and the like. They bother those that are active, and once they cease their activities, their work is done. At least for the time being.

Edited by Big Brother

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in practice for you and your merry band of regressives. It isn't in practice for normal people. Try again. Your anti-fascist defence is laughable by the way as it is well known that those thugs are more than happy to attack Conservatives because everyone right of Lenin is a Nazi apparently, oh and yes, I am not being literal in that statement before you pathetically try to worm away using that.

Anyway everyone will notice that my massive takedown of him wasn't addressed, but he he did choose to address a softer takedown. Big Brother FEARS THE ROZ! But hey, at least he is learning as he can't touch the Roz and he knows it. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big Brother said:

The proper umbrella term is indeed fascist, but in practice a lot of people use the word Nazi in very much the same way. That's not to say that's the correct word to use, it's just an observation of something that is actually occurring. Perhaps convenience shouldn't be a factor when accusing people of something, but people still do things out of convenience all the time. Why you don't recognize the difference between what things should ideally be like and how they are in practice, is beyond me. I shouldn't have to explain these things to you. Even if you don't think using Nazi as an umbrella term is correct surely you have witnessed people use it in that way, which is something I was merely pointing out, not endorsing. I'm confident you understood this already which leads me to believe that you're just trying to be intentionally difficult, describing to me what things should be like, which words should be used, instead of accepting my observations as to what things are actually like and which words are actually used.

 

I agree people do use the term Nazi to mean a range of things which is why the term be handled with care because it can also be used a weapon against anyone politically right of the accuser which actually undermines those who oppose actual neo nazis.

2 hours ago, Big Brother said:

I agree, but if any judgment is to be passed it should be done so by the properly qualified authorities, not random strangers on the internet who are merely spouting their own interpretations and who are in no way equipped with the necessary traits to make an accurate and unbiased judgment.

 

I think more to the point if  violence is to be used against fascists then it should be by properly qualified authorities not self appointed anti fascist movements. A democratically elected government can fight fascists and be held accountable by the people for the actions they take.

 

2 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Am I a leftist regime? Am I speaking on behalf of a leftist regime? I think not. I don't dispute that left-wing regimes have persecuted many many people but based on what I have observed and learned about anti-fascist movements (not authoritarian left-wing regimes), I can tell you with certainty that the vast majority of anti-fascist movements don't bother fascists who aren't politically active and who don't actually encourage or agitate for ethnic cleansing, ethnostates, segregation and the like. They bother those that are active, and once they cease their activities, their work is done. At least for the time being.

Never did I think you were a far left regime or part of one but some anti fascist movements have had ties to some pretty horrific far left governments and the trouble with the movement is it lacks the accountability. Should people be expected to just take a groups word that someone is a nazi or should the accusers have to follow due process? There are definitely times when violence is sadly needed against some pretty horrible people.. ie Britain vs Nazi Germany but the government still had to explain it's actions. Everyone should be equally accountable under the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Senatorius said:

I agree people do use the term Nazi to mean a range of things which is why the term be handled with care because it can also be used a weapon against anyone politically right of the accuser which actually undermines those who oppose actual neo nazis.

That's true and I agree that it should be handled with care. I don't condone using it as a political weapon and I wasn't trying to present a judgment as to whether or not using the word as an umbrella term way is right or wrong. I was just trying to show that people do use it that way and why they use it that way.

1 hour ago, Senatorius said:

I think more to the point if  violence is to be used against fascists then it should be by properly qualified authorities not self appointed anti fascist movements. A democratically elected government can fight fascists and be held accountable by the people for the actions they take.

A democratically elected government can fight fascists, but unfortunately there have been and continue to be many cases where they don't. Even worse, there's many cases where the lawful authorities have sided with fascists against the people they were supposed to protect, leading to state sponsored terrorism. When the lawful authorities don't do their job, someone else has to step in, even if that means opposing the lawful authorities, should they side with political forces that endanger people. I don't expect anyone to automatically trust any and all anti-fascist movements, people will have to make up their own minds about each and every group. But even if people don't always trust anti-fascist movements, they're still a necessity when the authorities fail to meet their responsibilities.

1 hour ago, Senatorius said:

Never did I think you were a far left regime or part of one but some anti fascist movements have had ties to some pretty horrific far left governments and the trouble with the movement is it lacks the accountability. Should people be expected to just take a groups word that someone is a nazi or should the accusers have to follow due process? There are definitely times when violence is sadly needed against some pretty horrible people.. ie Britain vs Nazi Germany but the government still had to explain it's actions. Everyone should be equally accountable under the law.

I want to agree with you but once again the problem is that the law itself becomes a politicized weapon used for political persecution or for allowing such persecution to take place. I don't expect people to believe every single accusation they witness of someone being a Nazi but I think a due process, which I understand as a legal procedure, is very much susceptible to abuse and isn't actually necessary to judge whether or not someone is a Nazi. All you really need is access to information or knowledge about what a Nazi is and information about which ideas, policies, beliefs and so on, that the people accused of being Nazis throw their support behind. If the two match, there's good reason to believe that the accused is in fact a Nazi. If a group of people suspected or accused of being Nazis hold a rally where they openly espouse the policies of national socialism and the authorities won't do anything about it, a due process is not only unnecessary (in relation to judging whether or not someone is a Nazi) but also more or less impossible to achieve due to the inaction of the authorities. So while I wish anti-fascist movements weren't necessary and that the law would function as you've described it, the sad fact is that sometimes it doesn't and that's when people are forced to take action, regardless of whether or not that action is sanctioned by the law.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big Brother said:

 

 

A democratically elected government can fight fascists, but unfortunately there have been and continue to be many cases where they don't. Even worse, there's many cases where the lawful authorities have sided with fascists against the people they were supposed to protect, leading to state sponsored terrorism.

 

Yes but that isn't a problem unique to fascism...communisim or religion can also lead to state sponsored terrorism. Many different nations have failed to defend or build democratic systems. Sometimes a civil war is unfortunately needed but historically civil wars have low odds of establishing fair and equal democracies. If the government is already rounding people up you have nothing to lose but usually it just turns into the ones with the power start becoming the bullies.  

2 hours ago, Big Brother said:

 

but I think a due process, which I understand as a legal procedure, is very much susceptible to abuse

 

 

I definitely feel that the lack of a legal process is far easier to abuse than an open and established legal process established by a democratic government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.