REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Someone is WRONG on the Internet!

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Saturday, July 20, 2024 04:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2395
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:02 AM

DREAMTROVE




Okay, I'm sitting here and realizing that last night I spent a lot of time disagreeing with Niki on a couple of nominal issues. Recently things have been bad, and I was already cranky, and so I haven't gone through and read responses, but I also had disagreements with Magon and Mal on one or two things but the above image still applies.

I'm saying this for three reasons

1) I don't want anyone to feel offended if I don't continue a debate, it's just because I think I'd be wasting everyone's time doing so. The classic cartoon is also just part of common netiquette and I stepped over that line by arguing in meaningless debates. And by meaningless I don't mean that they're meaningless issues, but that it is meaningless to argue them.

Not meaningless: Debating the science of global warming
Meaningless: Debating whether or not Kaneman is a troll

GW is science, and correct answers are important for everyone, and I know people here run websites, and together we can first, debate and come up with some facts, and second, that our opinions will influence others.

Kaneman is a user here, and not a scientific issue.

Moving on...


2) I think that everyone should probably be putting the same check on themselves above, so that they don't waste their time either.

For instance, trying to convince a thick headed opinionated person like myself that socialism is okay is probably a waste of time. I'm probably biased based on my own family history having had people on multiple sides executed by multiple socialists regimes.

I may very well be wrong. Maybe socialism is a viable idea. I personally think it has failed, and we need to try something else. I think a fair number of things have failed. Some of you may disagree, but what does it matter if I think a political idea is unworkable? Is it really important to anyone if I, say, vote republican or democratic? Or buy coke instead of pepsi? So, I don't like socialism, you do, so what, it's not like I'll hold it against you or you'll hold it against me, and it's definitely not like a random pair of us are about to socially engineer our own form of govt, so this is probably just both of us wasting our time.

There was a while on the Forum when Mike and Rap would just post every disagreement they had. Reminded me that some years back, it was me and Citizen doing that. When I did it, I noticed got very aggitated. When Mike and Rap did I noticed that they had become 1/2 of all posts. This means they were seriously wasting not just each other's time, but their own. Then I realized that's exactly what me and citizen has done.


3) The above is a netiquette point. I just mentioned a few of them, but everyone else should mention any they think of, I'll start out with this:


A) Netiquette is not about control, it's about self control, in short, it's about "How not to be a moron." In this case, a moron would be someone who is wasting their own time while diminishing their own influence.


B) Don't feed the trolls.



C) Godwin's Law



This illustrates the problem with misunderstanding godwin's law, which most people do. The example of "just like Hitler" was to illustrate an irrational connection that lead to an extreme parallel.

From me earlier:
Quote:


Irrational connections that draw extreme parallels, like your taking the last slice of pizza is like the Nazis invading Poland, is an automatic defeat for your argument.

Godwin's law is often misapplied as "Whoever compares someone to Nazis first loses."


The second interpretation is also valid, but not if that someone is Mussolini.

Instead, visualize it this way




D) Spamming pollutes the information environment.



Filling the information channel with unsolicited posts that dilute the information density of previous conversations is known as spamming. The email use of the term came much later, but this started on BBS when someone was copying a monty python skit. Picture this: What if you had to read every piece of junk mail you got, and talk to every telemarketer. You'd be letting other people take your time. There are billions of them, so they would take all of it. Imagine if TV programs were 5% program and 95% ads, but you never knew when a 30 second spot of program would come on so you had to watch the whole thing? What if cable news was 5% information and 95% people who had lots of opinions talking or arguing about it. Oh wait. It is.

E) Don't be evil.

The definition of evil is anything that wastes other people's time or resources. Brin said that information evil isn't like regular evil, in that it's not subjective. It's clear to everyone what information evil is. Pop-ups. Ads. They're wasting our time.

Sometimes information in a video is really profound, like the one on property rights. But to have to watch a video to wade through every post by a user means 3 minutes for that post, vs. the one second it takes to scroll by.

The same goes for "Everyone has to read this article to debate it" Sure, some articles are very informative, and could be the subject themselves, like the one on psychology recently. But others are just someone's opinion, usually on a current political topic.

Think before you act. Is what I'm doing necessary or helpful, or am I wasting other people's time just to save my own? Maybe the content of what I'm asking everyone else to read can be summed up in a paragraph, and then I'll just include a link at the bottom.

Like all of these, they apply to all of us, and if you don't pay attention, you will lose influence and waste time.

They were not made up by me, and I'm asking other people to post them. Here's my only request: Post real common understood Netiquette points as Netiquette points. "No one wants to see your dong" could be considered a netiquette point, a very basic one, but I don't think it applies here.

Oh, and if you're going to make them up, let us know that you're making it up. Maybe it's a brilliant new idea. But don't expect everyone to follow it just because you made it up and called it netiquette.

I'm sure I'm overlooking tons of them

F) Flame wars waste your time, and everyone else's.


G) It's not about another user. Everyone gets to play. If you can't deal with someone else, learn to ignore them.


H) When this happens

Start a new thread.

I) This girl is hot

Wait, that's just an opinion. Or is it? If it bothers you, ignore it. Guys are likely to post images like this. I just made this rule up, it's not really netiquette, but google returned her for "threadjack"


I'm not saying play nice, go ahead, call people on their bull$#!+, just don't waste everyone's time, and recognize when you're defeating yourself.

This was cute



I) If someone knows a rule that explains this point, please post it, but I think "don't be a moron" would be a good one. You know, don't state a fact you're not sure of without looking it up, and the same goes for spelling. Nothing's going to do worse for your argument than starting out
Quote:
When Mao Jong Il introduced the one child policy in 1983...
I hope everyone can spot three problems with that statement right away.
If this rule doesn't exist, I'll make it up, but I suspect its out there and I appreciate if someone could find it, you know, in a classic iconic form that will make me slap my forehead. I'm sure that everyone has seen A-G before. A bonafide netiquette rule should be familiar to most users. If you can't find what you're trying to say in one, make one up, it might be a rule that someone else can fill in, or it could be a brilliant new idea.

No one is telling you to follow these rules, they're just telling you that you're shooting yourself in the foot if you don't. This was mostly me who I noticed was doing this.

Oh, except rule I above. That's democracy. 90% of men and 30% of women like images like this. Majority rules baby.

But Threadjacking? Surely you jest. You threadjack all the time! It's fun!

Yes, sure, but when we do it, we don't get heard, because everyone thinks "What thread was that discussion on detainees on? Oh fuck it, I forget.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2010 2:36 PM

CANTTAKESKY


DT,

Yes, sometimes we have to let things go.

CTS


----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2010 3:05 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
If someone knows a rule that explains this point, please post it, but I think "don't be a moron" would be a good one. You know, don't state a fact you're not sure of without looking it up, and the same goes for spelling. Nothing's going to do worse for your argument than starting out
Quote:
When Mao Jong Il introduced the one child policy in 1983...
I hope everyone can spot three problems with that statement right away.
If this rule doesn't exist, I'll make it up, but I suspect its out there and I appreciate if someone could find it, you know, in a classic iconic form that will make me slap my forehead. I'm sure that everyone has seen A-G before. A bonafide netiquette rule should be familiar to most users. If you can't find what you're trying to say in one, make one up, it might be a rule that someone else can fill in, or it could be a brilliant new idea.


I'd call that rule "FactCheck". Used in collaboration with SpellCheck, it's invaluable. Check your facts, check your sources, and if you aren't sure, say so - say, "IIRC", or "I *think* it was..." or some such.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 19, 2010 5:20 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'd call that rule "FactCheck". Used in collaboration with SpellCheck, it's invaluable. Check your facts, check your sources, and if you aren't sure, say so - say, "IIRC", or "I *think* it was..." or some such.


Absolutely. And some blogger or obviously biased site is, I think, not generally a valid source for facts to back up an argument. I'm more likely to believe something sourced from BBC, AP, or even Al Jazerra than "EvilBush/Obama.com".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 4:29 AM

DREAMTROVE


Geezer,

lol.

Good point. Maybe there's an archetypal rule for evilbushobama.com. Some time ago, someone created a wikipedia page on jews using only nazi propaganda as sources. He did it to illustrate that all sources are not created equal. The downside of this is that we would end up deferring to TPTB who one most of the major media. It always helps your case if your opponents agree with you.

If someone posted "Evilbush.com" says this, but look, "Evilobama.com" agrees, but it gets even stronger if "jihad.com" and "zion.com" also concur with the first two. At that point I don't necessarily need guardian.co.uk to back it up. We need to keep independent sources as sources, but citing one site that always agrees with you doesn't help.

Look! My website agrees with me!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:23 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
1) I don't want anyone to feel offended if I don't continue a debate, it's just because I think I'd be wasting everyone's time doing so. The classic cartoon is also just part of common netiquette and I stepped over that line by arguing in meaningless debates. And by meaningless I don't mean that they're meaningless issues, but that it is meaningless to argue them.


Keep in mind, it all comes down to ....

1.If I agree with you, or acknowledge your views are completely valid, we can agree , or agree to disagree, and leave things at that. Further time spent on the topic is indeed time wasted.

or

2. If, however, I disagree with you, and you stop responding,... you're a coward and are simply running away. You can type the same argument 100x's, any number of ways, and I still won't get or agree with you. Ergo, you're a coward, a racist and in all likelihood, don't bathe with any regularity.

That's pretty much how forums work on the internet.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Geezer,
If someone posted "Evilbush.com" says this, but look, "Evilobama.com" agrees, but it gets even stronger if "jihad.com" and "zion.com" also concur with the first two. At that point I don't necessarily need guardian.co.uk to back it up.


And then you have to make sure that Evilbush.com and Evilobama.com and Jihad.com, etc. aren't all just quoting or paraphrasing something they all got from Overarchingconspiracy.com. Seen that happen.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Everything you wrote is good, Anthony, as I see it. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much good, as those here who "troll" have no interest in netequette anyway, so they go right on doing what they want to do for attention.

Ignoring just became a whole lot easier for me at least, after I had a couple of epitomes yesterday. It's a relief, to say the least.

And I've been called a coward for "running away" from a discussion when I saw the uselessness of it many times. I usually say I agree to disagree, and I've found it's only those who have something invested in "winning" the argument, or trolls, who come out with "coward".

On the other hand, if someone makes a point and their point is refuted, then they're asked a valid question, I am more apt to think they're running away from the argument. Nothing lost in answering a question then leaving; but that's my own prejudice, I know.

I try to say IMO, "I think", "it appears to me" and stuff as often as I think of it, because virtually everything here IS opinion, whether the person writing it puts it as a flat "fact" or not.

As I said, everything discussed here I think we already know, valid tho' it may be. It's good to be reminded of it, but most people do what you say pretty automatically; it's common sense. The difference is between people who WANT to converse and those who are here just to troll, to me.

I LOVED the cartoons--two of them didn't come out; can you fix that, or give us the links? A good laugh is always welcome. Thank you!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:45 AM

CANTTAKESKY


In my view, all those rules can be summarized into one:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

If that is too complicated, just do this:

Let go of hate.

Works in the real world too.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:01 AM

DREAMTROVE


Rap

Good point, esp. #2. This is what I was saying I wasn't saying. I'm in 24 hour work mode, currently taking a break because inventory is making my neck hurt.


Geezer. Good point. Sources to be independent can't be parroting data from the same source. I hope everyone caught that the chinese woman being sentenced to a year of hard labor for retweeting, not being the actual original twit. A person who shall go nameless but is related to me was executed for letting a friend stay at his house overnight. He was unaware that his friend was on a communist watchlist, but nonetheless was executed for aiding and abetting the following day. When his daughter complained that this was not fair, she was sentenced to 20 years hard labor and torture, which left her disfigured.

That's Mike's libertarian paradise. There's a reason everyone on that side of the family has moved here, this year. Because present day China is just so liberty loving they can't stand it anymore.


Mike, sorry, sometimes you just saying something that's pretty f-ing ignorant and I get offended. No offense. I was serious when I asked if you'd been to China.


Niki, trolls have no interest in netequette. Ignore them. Bear in mind that anyone else with no interest in it is also likely to be slated as a troll and ignored.


CTS

Yes, but there's another part of it too. Don't waste anyone's time, including yours. Someone may post a ten minute video to illustrate a point that they could spend a little effort writing out in a paragraph that could be read in one min.

Also, don't clutter the information environment, or people will not be able to access the actual topical information of debate. Not only do spams and trolls create clutter, people can clutter their own posts so that their own salient points are missed by their audience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:46 AM

DREAMTROVE


Geezer

I just had this thought so I signed on to add it:

Sometimes mainstream or otherwise credible news sources are also deriving their information from the same source, but create the illusion of consensus.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 1:29 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Some of my dislikes of internet discussions

1. Posting links to videos as an argument
2. Posts that are incredibly wordy - if I have to scroll down a couple of pages, I generally give up. Most people don't write stuff that keeps my attention that long.
3. Derailing a discussion into a critique of debating techniques
4. Posting links that are incredibly biased ie 'here are the stats on gun crime in the US' courtesy of the NRA's website or 9/11conspiracy.com or globalwarmingskeptics.com.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 2:23 PM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
2. Posts that are incredibly wordy - if I have to scroll down a couple of pages, I generally give up. Most people don't write stuff that keeps my attention that long.
I agree. And sorry, DT, gotta say that that applies to your original post here. It's just a lot of rules you're laying down for an un-moderated site. And methinks you went against on of your own recommendations in writing it... You've listed lots of stuff that reasonable posters *get*. I do wish that the others would figure it out, but they aren't going to magically learn etiquette just because you said so. According to your own post, that's a lot of time you wasted writing all that, huh?

OK, I don't actually think so, because I don't agree with that particular rule. If you enjoyed writing that post, than it's good use of your time. Doesn't matter for shit whether I or anyone else got changed by it, or even liked it. This is the internet, not the UN. Do what you like, and if it's not a good thing to do, there will be the consequences of a sort. If you don't care about the consequences, then continue doing what you like.

Wulf can post nothing but videos. Consequence: most posters think he can't put two words together. Obviously, he doesn't care.

Kane can do nothing but insult. Consequence: most posters think he's a troll. Obviously, he doesn't care.

Rappy can opine without reference, or pick and choose the best of OReilly and Beck. Consequence: most posters think he's blinded by bias. Obviously, he doesn't care either.

DreamTrove can write loooong posts about how he thinks people should behave. Consequence: can't say much about other posters, but to me it's wishful thinking. And a bit, well... kind of Lord of the Internet. But hey, do you have to care what I think? Of course not.

On the plus side, kudos and bonus points for XKCD. Best online comic about science geekdom ever!




Shoot. I guess png images don't display here? Oh well. I'm too lazy to convert them.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:08 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Rap

Good point, esp. #2. This is what I was saying I wasn't saying. I'm in 24 hour work mode, currently taking a break because inventory is making my neck hurt.


Thanks, DT.




" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:14 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


i also see some 'why can't we all get along' pleas on this site, and while I agree that this is a better forum without insults, trolling and spamming - sometimes posters are going to post stuff that one or other finds offensive and there is going to be some heat in the posts that follow it.

Trying to find common ground isn't the only means of sorting stuff out - [close your eyes here DT - nazi reference following] but if I join a debate with a nazi who thinks that all jews should be exterminated, and we try to find common ground, we might end up agreeing that not all of them should be exterminated, as long as all of them get sent away to the north coast of Alaska, where they can lead impoverished lives in isolation (anyone read The Yiddish Policeman's Union). Sometimes opinions are so extreme that they don't deserve the debate, only the 'your views are offensive to me in every possible way' kind of comment.

I feel like that about a lot of the far right rhetoric in the US and elsewhere, that it deeply offends me, I disagree on almost every fundamental value and I don't want to find common ground, because that will lead me to lurching to the right and embracing a set of values which in every way goes against who I am.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:41 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Some of my dislikes of internet discussions

1. Posting links to videos as an argument
2. Posts that are incredibly wordy - if I have to scroll down a couple of pages, I generally give up. Most people don't write stuff that keeps my attention that long.
3. Derailing a discussion into a critique of debating techniques
4. Posting links that are incredibly biased ie 'here are the stats on gun crime in the US' courtesy of the NRA's website or 9/11conspiracy.com or globalwarmingskeptics.com.




Magon, your points are good ones. Let me merge them with ones just posted:

1. This falls under "don't be evil" ie, don't waste other people's time. Forcing someone to watch a video or read a link without briefly summarizing the content is either trying to win by default or having everyone waste their collective time while you take the easy way out.

2. is a variation of 1, except that poster has invested time, just not enough. They should summarize what they've written. I'm guilty of the gigapost myself sometimes.

3. Is called threadjacking. A lot of good discussions come from threadjacks, but they should instantly launch into new threads. When I write my own software I'm going to design the it to do this automatically.

4. Geezer just posted something very similar, this should definitely be a rule, but I don't want such a rule to favor mainstream content over independent, and it needs some sort of framework. Maybe it's already been well framed by someone with an existing netiquette rule if anyone knows one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
i also see some 'why can't we all get along' pleas on this site, and while I agree that this is a better forum without insults, trolling and spamming - sometimes posters are going to post stuff that one or other finds offensive and there is going to be some heat in the posts that follow it.

Trying to find common ground isn't the only means of sorting stuff out - [close your eyes here DT - nazi reference following] but if I join a debate with a nazi who thinks that all jews should be exterminated, and we try to find common ground, we might end up agreeing that not all of them should be exterminated, as long as all of them get sent away to the north coast of Alaska, where they can lead impoverished lives in isolation (anyone read The Yiddish Policeman's Union).

Sometimes opinions are so extreme that they don't deserve the debate, only the 'your views are offensive to me in every possible way' kind of comment.


In my eyes, ( not being Jewish, even a little) , you're no better than a NAZI for your views

Quote:
I feel like that about a lot of the far right rhetoric in the US and elsewhere, that it deeply offends me, I disagree on almost every fundamental value and I don't want to find common ground, because that will lead me to lurching to the right and embracing a set of values which in every way goes against who I am.


You wanna know what offends me ?

Creationist. Young Earth mother fuckers who refuse to accept reality.

Racists. Inbred cock suckers who think that skin color or being bred on a certain part of the planet somehow grants them some sort of divine favor over all humanity.

History tells me that the Chinese, Mongols or Egyptians are the most advanced of any of us.

However, today ?

I'll favor the IDEAS of man's right to live in a free world as being superior to all others.

It's not skin color. It's not height. It's not which god / gods one prays to. It's none of that.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:58 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mal

Other people seem interested in the topic, just to answer your points here:

1) I'm laying down no rules at all.

2) Not interested in my thread? Give it a miss. This is for discussion of the topic of netiquette. Netiquette is not a set of rules, it's self help, for people who want to be heard. I have no objection to people who post like Kaneman or PN, it's just an ineffective way of being heard.

3) Let me retrace to a specific conversation on this forum about and involving PN: He misses his audience an alarming % of the time. He said his strategy is to fire a lot, and Mike said "That's no kind of marksmanship." All valid points. PN can continue his tactics, but I suspect he would be more successful if he applied some communication tactics of netiquette.

4) But the aren't rules. Feel free to ignore them. Just expect to be ignored. Not because people will disrespect you for ignoring the rules, just because the rules are designed by the collective wisdom of the web on "How to be heard" and have been added to the netiquette playbook of common knowledge over the years.

5) And to revisit 4. I specifically avoided a link to a netiquette website which would lay down "rules" corrupted with their own rules, even though I found some pretty good sites on the topic, because I thought that this *is* common knowledge, and people here should be allowed to collectively have input.

But again, no one is forcing you to follow this, this is about tactics that are successful and nice.

6) Think if this were a discussion on politics, it wouldn't be a list of positions, but a set of tactics that win elections. Would everyone have to follow them? No, you could ignore as many as you wanted, but if the people collectively over decades have decided that not following them loses elections, then sobeit. It's worth noting that PN and Kaneman basically have elected intentionally to not follow any rules of netiquette because they really have no interest in winning friends or influencing people.


7) This is not about how I think people should behave. The topic of netiquette came up, some people had never heard of it, others had and had ideas about it and wanted to discuss them, and little minidiscussions on things like godwin's law were springing up in threads, and those were threadjacks, so the *topic* deserved its own thread.

8) the reason the opening post is so *long* is that that I wanted to cover what we already knew, so we could skip forward to discussing new ideas, rather than rehashing old ones. I made only one suggestion above that was my own, the others I assumed 80-90% of the board already knew. And not the car girl, that was a joke.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 4:28 PM

DREAMTROVE


Magon

it's more about effective communication than it is about who is right or wrong. As I've posted before, my father's family was killed in the holocaust, yet ironically, I've had many arguments with Nazis. It took me years to be able to do this, and those years were largely a change in me, rather than a change in them.

Now I might begin such a topic with a Nazi by conceding a point. It goes something like this:
Quote:


Me: Yes, you're right, some of our leaders have done manipulative things that have hurt people. OTOH, so have leaders of other groups, am I not right?

Nazi: Okay, you have a point. But Jews are the most destructive influence in the US, maybe the world! If we got rid of them, we'd be free?

Me: All jews? Or particular jews.

Nazi: A fair number.

Me: The majority? Or just a small powerful elite.

Nazi: A small powerful elite.

Me: So, if we removed this small powerful elite, can we be sure that this vacuum would not be filled by someone else?

Nazi: No. But we have to try. It's hard to do worse.

Me: But possible. So, what attracts you to Nazi Germany? Isn't that sort of a losing brand name?

Nazi: Maybe. But I just am. It's an idealistic society.

Me: Up to a point.

Nazi: Well, it's misunderstood.

Me: (conceding a point again) Okay, I'll give you 1934-1937, there was some idealism, and some accomplishments, but surely 1938-1945 ended in disaster.

Nazi: Sure. But it didn't have to be this way.

Me: Yes, it never does. But often it is. Look at Lenin and the Soviet Union, in the early years. Then look how it turned out under Stalin.

Nazi: Why do you compare us to the Soviets?

Me: Not comparing you, just saying the regimes didn't end up the way they intended. Like Mao. Something went wrong. But everyone farms past failures, looking for good ideas. The VW was a good idea, and a good car. But if Toyota is drawing on that idea in creating the Prius, which I think maybe they are, they're not sticking a swastika on the side, or a rising sun.

Nazi: Of course not.

Me: But Toyota is a family business, they're big start was as an industrial power for the Empire of the Rising Sun, like Porsche's Volkswagen they're probably pretty proud of that. Why not commemorate that?

Nazi: Because it would be a stupid business move.

Me: So you concede that it's a losing brand name then. So why are you attracted to it.

Nazi: Hmm. Haven't you ever longed for something that was romantic or idealist? Rather than follow the in the drudgery of a mechanical society?

Me: (For the moment skipping the obvious fact that Nazi Germany was a mechanical drudge society) Yes, sure, I used to be a socialist. I have a Soviet flag in my room. I don't believe that any more, but I used to be pretty into it.

Nazi: Yes, like the USSR (curious reversal) It's the pageantry. It's colorful and beautiful like the ideas, it's the imagery, it's a shame that it ended so badly.

Me: Yes, it's a shame. Shame for the USSR too. So, why did it go badly? Did the Jewish peasantry shoot it down?

Nazi. No, they couldn't.

Me: No, of course not, but that's who died in the holocaust.

Nazi: It's a lie. Not nearly that many Jews died.

Me: Okay, sure, I have no idea how many jews died or didn't, but neither do you, but back to this idea of why Nazi Germany failed.

Nazi: Because Hitler went insane and invaded Russia.

Me: Okay, I'll concede that. It was a major factor.

Nazi: But the ideals themselves weren't bad.

Me: Okay, but even if I concede that, what would happen if you exterminated the Jews today? How would the US respond? Or Britain?

Nazi: I see your point.

Me: And let's say you were successful, would this make you friends in the world? or enemies?

Nazi: Some of each maybe

Me: And would your really get these elders of Zion you think are behind the conspiracy, or would they slip away and redefine themselves as something else?

Nazi: They'd probably slip away those shapeshifting lizardmen.

Me: So perhaps there's a better solution?

Nazi: I guess there has to be.


Now this is more or less the exact transcript of a conversation I had with a guy wearing an actual swastika.

I've had several. Early on they did not go well, but there were some fundamentals I needed to learn:

1) First off, I had to admit that the person I was discussing with was a reasonable human being who had arrived to his position through logic, and that his opinions were ones which he held because he believed they were right.

2) That he was motivated by a desire to correct the world's problems, not by a desire to do evil, and that he was not some form of subhumanoid mutant.

3) That he could be reasoned with. If you just treated his positions as rational, and granted him any points he might have, he was much more willing to listen to your suggestions.

The above discussion ended in us sitting down and watching Life is Beautiful together, a holocaust film by Roberto Benini.

My point: Even if your opponent in a discussion *is* a Nazi, that doesn't mean that they can't be reasoned with.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 4:44 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


DT, I think there is a time for not entering into discussion - for example when a person or group is using violence to force others to do their bidding/ or for the hell of it. I think you can enter discussions when there is an agreed end to violence, otherwise you stand the very real chance of endorsing their actions by association.

I think your reference to the modern day nazi misses the point - modern day nazis are pretty much universally abhored misfits with a third reich fetish - they are such losers they would probably have been exterminated by the real nazis. The Nazis that I refer to were powerful and popular and had a very real chance at world domination. Therefore having a debate and sitting down and watching Life is Beautiful or something similiar would not have happened...mainly because like many totalitarian regimes, you had to agree or facew the consequencess.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:26 PM

DREAMTROVE


Magon

1) There is always time for discussion. Fighting starts when talking stops.

2) I had the dishonor to have a conversation with a man who ran an SS camp in WWII. He was pathetic. He spend his later years trolling for gay prostitutes and dying of syphilis.

3) That's fairly exceptional. Most old world Nazis were much more reasonable than their modern counterparts, because they had no idea that they were supporting the holocaust.

4) We couldn't have watched Life is Beautiful because it hadn't been made. If this conversation had been had at the time, it never would have had to have been. The fact was that no world power was interested in saving the Jews.

5) The Nazis did not really have a shot at world domination. They had a chance at "capture all of the flags for a moment" They had no control over the vast majority of govts. they controlled, and their domination relied on allying themselves to Japan who was clearly much more powerful than they were.

6) The majority opinion of Nazis was that they should not own anything that did not speak German, but they were afraid that the other nations of the world would economically manipulate Germany to destroy it as they had in the past. Their real enemy was not jews or other nations, but economic influence. Iran is in a very similar situation right now.

7) The spread of Nazi Germany and the saving of the jews, as well as many more Russians and Poles could have been easily accomplish through an economic treaty that granted them economic self determination. The reality is that western powers were salivating at the idea that Germans and Russians would exterminate each other in a genocidal war with a little push, and might cleanse the earth of its jewish infection in the process.

Top among all world leaders ruminating this wet dream nightly was Winston Churchill. FDR would have joined Churchill in bed if he could have. He was too busy focusing on his own Manifest Destiny empire of the Pacific.

I'm pretty much certain of these last two, the last is given away by the US strategy to disband the Japanese army once we had won the war. My brother calls this the stupidest military decision in US history, and I'm force to agree. It created not only the Communist and Cultural revolution, and the following wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia, and half a dozen more still ongoing, not to mention the disaster in Indonesia, it also gave rise to North Korea, and far more importantly, Communist China which would eventually lead to the end of the US as the dominant world power.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:59 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
DT, I think there is a time for not entering into discussion - for example when a person or group is using violence to force others to do their bidding/ or for the hell of it.
That's funny. Because "using violence to force others to do their bidding" is exactly what legislation is all about. And exactly why I oppose GW legislation. By your standards, I probably shouldn't enter into a discussion with yourself.

Very interesting.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:02 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1) There is always time for discussion. Fighting starts when talking stops.
I agree completely.

I think talking is especially important for those who value ending violence and force.

How else can you end it?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:18 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
3) That's fairly exceptional. Most old world Nazis were much more reasonable than their modern counterparts, because they had no idea that they were supporting the holocaust.
I spent some time (several days) talking to a German veteran of WWII. I had never seen things from that point of view before. He had been drafted. He had no choice but to put on that uniform and fight. He said that from time to time, they would hear rumors of extermination camps. At the time, everyone dismissed those claims as urban legends, hoaxes, paranoid nutter conspiracy theories. Their government was many things, but it wouldn't do THAT. The few people who believed those stories were wackos of the lunatic fringe.

I can see how that could happen. I think to paint them all with one broad demonization brush is not quite accurate.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:11 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon

1) There is always time for discussion. Fighting starts when talking stops.

Some things are non negotiable as I stated above...
Quote:
3) That's fairly exceptional. Most old world Nazis were much more reasonable than their modern counterparts, because they had no idea that they were supporting the holocaust.

Nazis and most Germans were au fait with getting rid of the Jews and other 'undesirables'. They participated at all levels of society in persecuting Jews. The old argument that they had no idea of the death camps has been fairly extensively disproven - in so much as it was common knowledge that Jews were being sent east and not returning, that slave labour was acceptable (for Poles and Slavs and Gypsies as well)> Nazi philosophy was quite open on 'eutheniasing' those not worthy, the disabled etc. Jews were routinely hanged and murdered in very public ways. So it wasn't a great leap to make, even if the Final Solution wasn't publicised openly. Current nazis hold no significant power, they may be objectional loonies, but they're not about to invade Poland..

Quote:
4) We couldn't have watched Life is Beautiful because it hadn't been made.

Really? you surprise me. Here was me thinking it was a documentary made by Leni Riefinstahl.

Quote:
5) The Nazis did not really have a shot at world domination.

You don't think much of Europe, Asia, the Pacific, North Africa would not have constituted world domination? The Axis was immensely powerful. If Germany hadn't invaded Russia, but continued the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, much of the world would have been in deep shit. Thankfully, Hitler was a pretty terrible tactician and that if he had listen to his generals and not been so obsessed with annihilating the Jewish and Slavic population, they would have had a real chance.


Quote:
6) The majority opinion of Nazis was that they should not own anything that did not speak German,


You've lost me on that...are you talking about other countries? have you not heard of the Nazi idea of 'Lebensraum'...living space. Their idea was to invade other countries, particularly where the 'subhumans' such as slavic people lived, enslave or exterminate the population so that ordinary Germans could populate those areas. They wanted the land, but the people who lived there were expendable.

Quote:
7) The spread of Nazi Germany and the saving of the jews, as well as many more Russians and Poles could have been easily accomplish through an economic treaty that granted them economic self determination.

At what point do you think a Treaty should have been entered into? After Hitler was in power or before? Because Adolph had his plans laid out pretty clearly for the Jewish people in Mein Kampf

Quote:
The reality is that western powers were salivating at the idea that Germans and Russians would exterminate each other in a genocidal war with a little push, and might cleanse the earth of its jewish infection in the process.

Again, when are you talking about? Once Germany reached its pact with Russia and began invading, much of the world was pretty anxious.

Quote:
Top among all world leaders ruminating this wet dream nightly was Winston Churchill. FDR would have joined Churchill in bed if he could have. He was too busy focusing on his own Manifest Destiny empire of the Pacific.

Yeah, well I have a few problems with Churchill, but I think I can safely say that he well onto the threat that the Nazis posed fairly early on - much before Roosevelt, and wanted to go to war with the Soviets after Germany was defeated, but the general population was pretty curdled on the whole war business.

Damn, a long post.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:13 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
That's funny. Because "using violence to force others to do their bidding" is exactly what legislation is all about. And exactly why I oppose GW legislation. By your standards, I probably shouldn't enter into a discussion with yourself.

Very interesting.


I've never really understood that idea that legislation = being forced at gunpoint


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:13 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


gorram double post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:49 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1) There is always time for discussion. Fighting starts when talking stops.
I agree completely.

I think talking is especially important for those who value ending violence and force.

How else can you end it?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky



Let me give you an example. If you and someone else have an argument about, say GW, and to get their point across they start to beat the crap out of you. Do you keep trying to debate GW with them, or do you get them to stop in anyway you can - including
- ordering them to stop (not debating)
- defending yourself with force if necessary
- running away.

When the violence has stopped, you may start the debate again, but you'd be pretty clear that being beaten up is NON NEGOTIABLE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 7:57 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
]I spent some time (several days) talking to a German veteran of WWII. I had never seen things from that point of view before. He had been drafted. He had no choice but to put on that uniform and fight. He said that from time to time, they would hear rumors of extermination camps. At the time, everyone dismissed those claims as urban legends, hoaxes, paranoid nutter conspiracy theories. Their government was many things, but it wouldn't do THAT. The few people who believed those stories were wackos of the lunatic fringe.

I can see how that could happen. I think to paint them all with one broad demonization brush is not quite accurate.

I think that a lot of Germans from that era have done a bit of revising of their own. It would be a brave and stupid man who would say, "oh yeah, we knew about the death camps, but we all hated the Jews any anyway we made a lot of money purloining their stuff once they were carted away"

I'm sure there were many Germans who did not support the Nazi position on the Jewish people nad there were Nazis who thought that Hitler was taking things too far, but hatred of the Jews was indoctrinated into the German population - through a very successful propaganda campaign run for many years and particularly through indoctrinating the youth.

Richard J Evans "The Third Reich at War" http://www.amazon.com/Third-Reich-at-War/dp/1594202060 is an excellent account, which makes particular use of primary sources, letters from civilians and soldiers to demonstrate how viciousness and callousness towards other races had been successfully planted within the German psyche of the time.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 9:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've never really understood that idea that legislation = being forced at gunpoint

Why not ?

I mean, that's essentially what it IS.

I wrote up a good bit about that here before, about how even a measly parking ticket could, if someone refused to comply, result in a bloody and lethal confrontation, but damned if I can seem to find it at the moment and I don't have time to re-write it this insant...

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 9:36 PM

DREAMTROVE


Curious that an argument of the very nature of that being mocked on the opening post should break out on this thread. How ironic. I'll try to bear that in mind.


Also, as a holocaust victim descendant I find it highly ironic that I've been forced into the position of defending Nazi Germany.


Everything is negotiable. Most people are not motivated by evil, and Germans are no exception.

CTS is correct of course, any amount of research reveals this, as does any conversation with a German.

Jews had been deported to Israel, everyone who was in germany at the time knew that.

Internally, it was a far more reasonable society than a largely jewish hollywood portrays it, which is not at all surprising. When the muslims of the mideast make films about the Iraq war, they're not going to show us in a good light either.

Not to say that it was a sane society, it wasn't, just that it wasn't a more insane society than Stalin's Russia or Mao's China.

I don't actually buy the Final Solution, because I think that this was an effort to shift blame.

The holocaust was largely a corporate operation. The jews who had been given permission by both govts. Germany and Israel to migrate, were hijacked along the way, by Nazi SS and taken to camps, run by corporations, often headquartered in Germany, but just as often in Switzerland, France, Britain or the US. Evil corporations are always up for slave labor. When they ran out of jews they started grabbing random poles and russians and just calling them jews.

That much is well documented as well.


The thing is that the views of Europeans and others around the world were much more in line with the Nazis than anyone would care to admit. The Jews were mostly inferior for being slavs, something widely believed. Britain and France were still enslave and slaughtering racial inferiors in Africa even after the war. But the idea that Eugenics was a uniquely German perspective is simply not credible.

The point being that the jewish question could have been debated if anyone cared, which they didn't. The English and the Americans felt the same way.

The idea that Germany could have maintained control of even a random country like Nigeria, I find preposterous, let alone the whole world. It's one thing to capture a capital building and say you own the country in a time of war when your army is in that country, it's quite another to dominate it. The most serious domination pulled off yet was probably the Soviets in Eastern Europe, but it took all of their resources to quell a population 1/2 their size, and they eventually lost. China, BTW, is in a similar state now.

The reality is that Germany's main problem was Hitler. One bullet would have removed him, and put Goering in charge, which is what eventually happened (No, I don't buy the suicide theory either. The Germans shot the fuhrer so they could surrender before becoming a soviet territory.)

Goering opposed the war from the start, so if that bullet had been fired earlier, there would have been no war. Without a war there would be no holocaust, because you really can't carry something like that out without the cover of war.

There would have been a nasty deportation of 600,000 jews to Israel, the sort of thing that European govts. have done many times, recently 300,000 people were deported forcibly to Serbia from Croatia. This year, 30,000 from France to Romania. It wouldn't be unique, but it would have been unpleasant, and people would have died.

So, the Germans had racist policies. Sure. But you're not so naive as to think that's what the war was about. The English and Americans had racist policies. We wouldn't let jews in either.

Point 6 I'll chalk down to speculation. I know they intended to conquer everywhere that German was spoken, including places where other languages, such as Czech were spoken, as that's where my family lived, them being Czech jews, and not Germans.

7) At any point. Talking is always an option. It would have been far easier prior to 1938. It's worth remembering that the US and Germany were allies until '38, and since '37, we were fighting together against Japan.

I think the better solution would have been either a golden parachute, or a midnight coup. Hitler went to several summit meetings with other world leaders. Anyone could have just made sure, one way or another, that he didn't go home, and let Goering take over the country. That wouldn't have solved all the problems, but it would have solved the major one: Avoiding the war. At least, avoiding Germany starting the war. We would also have to make sure that Russia or Britain or the US didn't start it instead.

Quote:

Again, when are you talking about?


History. Well recorded history. Assume that this is a subject that I've studied in great detail, and that I have no love of Germany, and most certainly not of the Nazis. I'm simply arguing in favor of reason, which I think is always an option.

Churchill had said specifically that he wanted German and Russia to exhaust each other, and Churchill's own feeling towards the slavs as being an inferior race to be exterminated had been made loud and clear after WWI, he gave a rather famous speech on the subject.

FDR didn't give one lick about Europe, something that Europeans never understood: The US has always been obsessed with the west, the further west the better, and by WWII, that had become Asia. It still is the principle US obsession.

Also, no discussion of the topic is complete without a tacit admission that Germany had a point, not about jews, but about economics. The war was largely a conflict between Germany and the economic powers of the west. We had put them in a position where we had cut them off economically, and were cutting off their fuel supply. Our main gripe was that Germany wasn't part of the world currency market, as they had been under the Wiemar republic. This forced the Germans hand, and the more extreme elements pushed for all out war, which, sure, was an easy push.

But the situation is almost identical to the situation with Iran today, except that Iran is not socialist or led by a genocidal lunatic, but they are the loan isolationist industrial economy, and all this pressure for war is coming from the WTO. The BIS et al was the WTO of its day, and was playing both sides, but taking a German view of it for a sec, which I just posted in another thread:

The Nazis were preceded by the Wiemar Republic, which was nonstop poverty depression and starvation, which was preceded by Kaiser Wilhelm II, which was non-stop war, like his predecessor. Prior to that, Germans were a collection of independent states.

If you look at German from 1934-1937, even if you were jewish, it was a lot better than anything which had preceded as a German state. The radical transformation that happened in 1938 is something I don't fully understand yet, but I know at least three piece of the puzzle:

1) Germany was put under intense economic pressure to rejoin the world market, which was sure to put them back into economic serfdom

2) A decision was made to switch sides in China and join the Japanese, which put Germany in military opposition to the west on top of the economic.

3) There was a distinct change in power structure and influence that suggests to me a changing of the guard at some level.

The third one is one I need to research. Who changed at what positions that made the swing towards a radical policy change.

If you want to say "A racist policy towards jews and forcible deportation" is an automatic unstoppable road to genocidal war, then I would say this:

Today:

French policy towards Gypsies

US policy towards Latinos and Muslims

And we're approach perhaps Australian policy towards Asians? (this gets a lot of attention here, increasingly as asians are a growing upper class minority, but I don't know the specifics. We just get the occasional horror story.)

I think that this is just a very common state for countries to be in. The holocaust is more complex than simply the natural outgrowth of racist govt. I think it's rife with corporate corruption and international influence.

I certainly reject the notion that the holocaust was the deepest with of every German. I recall a 1937 poll by National Geographic that showed that only 2% of Germans had negative feelings towards the jews. (unfortunately, they happened to be in power) In just a few years, that was up to 50% (isn't propaganda wonderful?)

If you had asked people in the US what their feeling was about Mexicans a few years back before Bush first mentioned that we should hate them, you'd probably hit about 2%. You'd probably hit 50% today. Now the govt. is talking about forcibly deporting 11 million of them. Or detaining them in labor camps, which halliburton has built along the border. Don't you read Pirate News?

To say nothing of our treatment of muslims.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 9:38 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
That's funny. Because "using violence to force others to do their bidding" is exactly what legislation is all about. And exactly why I oppose GW legislation. By your standards, I probably shouldn't enter into a discussion with yourself.

Very interesting.


I've never really understood that idea that legislation = being forced at gunpoint



Of course it is. That's exactly what it is.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:50 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


see below.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 20, 2010 10:50 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've never really understood that idea that legislation = being forced at gunpoint

Why not ?

I mean, that's essentially what it IS.

I wrote up a good bit about that here before, about how even a measly parking ticket could, if someone refused to comply, result in a bloody and lethal confrontation, but damned if I can seem to find it at the moment and I don't have time to re-write it this insant...

-F

maybe that's the US. I don't see people being forced to comply at gunpoint, unless they themselves are due to committ violence. I might add that many countries in the world don't have police with guns, and still have legislation that the majority of people follow without feeling threatened.

It's one of those totally meaningless statements like "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

laws of one form or another have existed as long as people have. That's how societies function. If your cops are gun happy in their enforcement, take away their guns.

DT, meandering around for what point again? How about 'in a nutshell'?

I tried, I really did, to reply. But I really missed the relevance of it all. I find your view of history somewhat scewed and to discuss your post would lead us into a debate of the context of WW2, which wasn't ever the point was it? You are debating about a whole lot of stuff that I never said, never even inferred. You are making a lot of assumptions about what I believe.

I still assert that it's not always possible or desirable to find middle ground on extremist views, but carry on if you will about the history of WW2.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:28 AM

DREAMTROVE


Magon

I was simply pointing out the issues and times in which negotiation could have been had with Nazi Germany.

You stated that it couldn't be done, as if it were a religious belief, and seem to see no interest in why or how or when it actually *could* be done.

There's always room for negotiation, which is why police have negotiators. They didn't preselect psychos with guns to go negotiate with, they just believed that negotiation was always possible.

Decannonizing Nazi Germany as "Great Satan" and instead seeing it as a tragic failed state full of humans capable of reason is what we need to do if we're going to be able to negotiate with Jihadists, or Globalists or any of the current extremist ideologies currently roaming the planet.

Right now I think the closest parallel to Nazi Germany is the United States. We invade countries because we want the territory, we don't care about the people, we maintain torture chambers and prisons and concentration camps, kill millions of civilians, including some of our own citizens, largely based on their religion. Here at home our govt. claims as much power as it can possibly get away with, and the Patriot Act draws many of its ideas on power from the Germany emergency powers act, our Govt. seizes control of populations and corporations one way or another and forces them to support the war machine, which takes up the majority of our budget, plunges us into infinite debt, and we restrict the civil liberties of our citizens with abusive police forces while using a corrupt pro-govt. media empire to misinform and hide the truth.

Ultimately, being able to say that you could negotiate with Nazi Germany, which was your example but a good one, is necessary for us being able to negotiate with today's great satan, the United States.


Also, your argument suggests that sometimes "force is the answer." I feel I constantly have to remind people that in the subject of the holocaust we did NOT succeed. It's a common myth that we "found the answer" in force. No. We didn't. We failed. If we had succeeded, we would have prevented the holocaust. Our use of force clearly did not solve the problem. Maybe we should have tried negotiating.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:54 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
maybe that's the US. I don't see people being forced to comply at gunpoint, unless they themselves are due to committ violence.


Let's talk about this. Let's take a piece of hypothetical non-violent legislation you support. Say, mandatory cap-and-trade throughout Australia.

1. What would this law require Australians to do?
Let's say, limit themselves to 1000 liters of gasoline a year. If they go overboard, they are required to pay a fine, which would be routed to Aussies who used less than 1000 liters of gasoline.

2. Imagine someone who violated this law.
Bob used 2000 liters in one year. He was fined $500 for his overage. Bob did not pay his fine by his deadline.

3. What happens to this person when he doesn't comply and ignores this law?
Please help me understand what happens to Bob at this point.

4. What happens if this person continues to ignore this law (non-violently)?
How do Australian authorities enforce the law? Ultimately, what happens to Bob?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:06 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I still assert that it's not always possible or desirable to find middle ground on extremist views, but carry on if you will about the history of WW2.
Maybe your definition of "extreme" is more extreme than mine.

In all seriousness, maybe you categorize views as "extreme" a lot sooner than I would. If *I* don't think Nazis are extreme, surely it is possible and desirable for ME to find middle ground with their views? Or do you think I should abide by YOUR standard of "extreme," or the majority's standard of "extreme"?

If so, I should not be able (not possible) or should not be supported (not desirable) to have an earnest dialogue with the most unpopular views on the planet. Is this what you mean? Or do you only apply this "not possible/desirable" rule to yourself?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:18 AM

CANTTAKESKY


DT, thank you for taking the time to describe this view of WWII history. Some of it was consistent with what I know so far, but there was a lot that I wasn't aware of. It certainly peaks my interest to research it more. Thank you.

I have German friends who complain about the unending demonization of the German people and German WWII politics, esp in movies. I understand their point. After so much vilification, Germany has become a caricature. I think analyses like yours are important understand the complexity of the issues.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
3) There was a distinct change in power structure and influence that suggests to me a changing of the guard at some level.

The third one is one I need to research. Who changed at what positions that made the swing towards a radical policy change.
If you ever find this out, please let me know.

I do know that after this change, apparently things got very bad, very quickly. My high school German teacher left Germany at this point and never went back because the country carried too many bad memories.

I am afraid the same type of change might occur in the USA, where it goes from mild to moderate prejudice against Muslims and illegal aliens to radical policies and actions against them.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:34 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Let me give you an example. If you and someone else have an argument about, say GW, and to get their point across they start to beat the crap out of you. Do you keep trying to debate GW with them, or do you get them to stop in anyway you can -
I don't understand this analogy because "beating the crap out of you" never happened. The Nazi DT debated with did not beat the crap out of him.

Now let's consider original Nazis. Talking to an original Nazi when Nazis were in power is completely hypothetical. You can ASSUME that he would have just beat the crap out of you rather than debate, but you don't KNOW that. Therefore to preclude all hypothetical debate with a Nazi based on the assumption that he would have certainly beat the crap out of you is a bit premature.

Why not say, "Yes, it would be acceptable to have TRIED to negotiate with the Nazis in Germany. If they start to beat the crap out of you however, you would have had to stop debating until the violence ended." OK, I can live with that.

But what I hear you saying is (please correct me if I am wrong), "Nazi views are so utterly violent that it would be immoral to try to negotiate or compromise towards their position, whether they actually use violence on you during the negotiation or not. Any compromise would mean you have become more violent, which is unacceptable (because it would be immoral)."

I think DT (again, I may be wrong) is trying to point out that not every single one of their views was violent, and on those issues we could find common ground.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 6:26 AM

DREAMTROVE


The main point I want to make here is this:


We didn't solve the problem. Not talking to Nazi Germany resulted in millions of deaths. Not talking to Mao resulted in more. Talking to the Japanese could have avoided more deaths than any single action.

But it's not just our enemies we failed to negotiate with. We didn't talk to Stalin. Or Chiang Kai Shek.

Our war saved no one. In fact, it killed millions more. It was not a solution. If Japan had one the war, fewer people would have died, and that's pretty much a guarantee.


Now, sure, this is a thread jack because it's not about netiquette. But it is about communication. I was just detailing how you could possibly have used communication to solve a problem that violence very much has proven that it could not solve.


CTTS

I would agree that the Nazis were extreme, and wretched, but I would just say that if you don't debate with extremists you force yourself to resort to violence, a resoundingly failed policy.

But you are correct that if you *think* that Nazis can't be reasoned with, you guarantee your failure. If instead, you tell yourself that they can be reasoned with, you at least stand a chance.

Part of my view comes from the fact that the solution we chose did not only not prevent the holocaust, it may have caused it.

The original relocation plan worked out by Eichmann and the Zionist leaders of the Israeli colonial govt. in Palestine was to transport 600,000 german jews by rail to I think it was greece, where they were to be put on a boat for Israel.

The war increased the need for slave labor. The lack of the dialogue or any international oversight on the transfer allowed those jews to be sidelined into a slave labor program. As the war drew on, the need for slaves grew, as Germany was defeated, the panic set in. I don't know if this panic was an effort to kill all the remaining jews, I'm dubious because I think by this point they had largely ran out of actual jews, and were using poles and russians, whom they called jews but really weren't. It may have been that they simply didn't want to leave any witnesses to their horrible crimes.


Quote:
DT, thank you for taking the time to describe this view of WWII history. Some of it was consistent with what I know so far, but there was a lot that I wasn't aware of. It certainly peaks my interest to research it more. Thank you.


To be fair, I'm being more fair to Germany than I normally would be because I'm defending the process of negotiation as preferable to war.

Also, piques. Spell check doesn't catch everything.

Quote:

I have German friends who complain about the unending demonization of the German people and German WWII politics, esp in movies. I understand their point. After so much vilification, Germany has become a caricature. I think analyses like yours are important understand the complexity of the issues.


It happens when you lose a war. Also, our media is heavily jewish. It bothers me more that Germany is cannonized as Great Satan. This makes it #1 evil.

Think about it. If evil regimes could be put on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the Evilest, then Nazi Germany is a 10. I could then say Stalin was a 10, and Mao was a 10, and Pol Pot was a 10. And no one would disagree.

But then think about Nazis as #1 evil. Now if I say Stalin, Mao, or Sar are #1, I suddenly have an argument. I could argue:

Stalin killed more foreigners than any other regime in history

Mao killed more of his own people than anyone else

Saloth Sar killed a higher % of his own people. (Now rwanda has eclipsed that, but for the real history books it's Paraguay's Francisco Solano Lopez)

Lopez is actually the worst leader in world history, but you have to be a history geek to even have heard of him. He launched his country into multiple wars, ultimately killing 90% of his own population.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
3) There was a distinct change in power structure and influence that suggests to me a changing of the guard at some level.

The third one is one I need to research. Who changed at what positions that made the swing towards a radical policy change.


If you ever find this out, please let me know.


It's one of the things we're researching, I have a friend on the european history council and we're studying this particular transition because it's very key, and truly radical. Public policy in Germany at the end of '38 bears very little resemblance to public policy at the beginning of '38. I almost suspect that it may have been hijacked in a manner that US and British policy has recently been, where foreign advisors have more influence on policy than American voters, but that's just a hunch at the moment.

Quote:

I do know that after this change, apparently things got very bad, very quickly. My high school German teacher left Germany at this point and never went back because the country carried too many bad memories.


It's also seldom mentioned that many jews, even prominent members of society, were not particularly worried about their country's attitude until the transition. Prior to Kristallnacht, any jew could emigrate at will. It's also never mentioned that they could have gone anywhere, but Israel was just about the only country to take them in.

Lise Meitner tells the story of the increasing panic throughout '38 of her Jewish colleagues, who were working side by side with their christian colleagues. She says she thought they were being hysterical, and that there was no real threat, and Germany's nuclear power program was too important to German self sufficiency to be abandoned.

She is sometimes treated at "the hero that gave her the bomb" but she did not see what einstein saw. Einstein agreed to take her out of the country if she would smuggle the projects work on nuclear power with her, which she did. When she found out what Einstein was planning to do with the technology, she was horrified. She tried to convince scientists and politicians that this was madness to no avail, and eventually fled back to Sweden.

Another detail that the history books never tell: The German nuclear program did not involve a bomb, not because the Nazis would never do such a thing, they undoubtedly would, but it simply had never occurred to them. Einstein was just the kind of idiot savant needed to turn a nuclear steam engine into a bomb: He had all of the intense mathematical skills of a supergenius with none of the moral common sense that would tall someone that building a bomb that could exterminate massive civilian populations would not be a good idea.

Sometimes I wonder how many brilliant scienteists uncover some genome that would create a virus that would wipe out a targeted ethnic group, or the whole human race, and then decide to shelve it and not publish because they actually *do* have the common sense.

Quote:

I am afraid the same type of change might occur in the USA, where it goes from mild to moderate prejudice against Muslims and illegal aliens to radical policies and actions against them.


Yes and no.

We live in a different time and place. It's just not possible for an American govt. to get away with what the Nazis did, but it could still happen. It just wouldn't happen here.

We could run very massive exterminations, and some argue already have, of muslims in the middle east, or latinos in latin america. At the moment you're in a little luck because the anti-latino movement is on the back burner, it's a wedge issue to manipulate the ignorant. The NWO eugenics crowd is concerned about the population growth in S. America, but not nearly as concerned as they are about Africa and Asia.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 6:51 AM

DREAMTROVE


On this last point, it's simply not the case that there was no forum for debate. There were debates all throughout the war, it's just that we weren't willing to negotiate with either Germany or Japan.

Germans would not have been easy to negotiate, that much I grant. There very first demand would have been the right to their own economic structure separate from ours. This I think we were pigheaded in denying then, and we are pigheaded in denying to Iran now.

The second demand would have been for us to recognize borders that *they* considered to be Germany. This was much more problematic, because, though all of those areas had Germans, some of those areas also had a large number of non-Germans, and there was an additional problem that Austria, though full of German speaking people, had no desire at all to be ruled by Berlin.

Still, it was a place that negotiations could have started.

I would open with the economic issue, and the trade embargoes on energy. I would make sure to do so because I would want to start with "What we can do for you." I might add safe transport of Jews. This would give me three things to offer Germany.

Then my counter would be to make really strong demands. I would not just claim czechoslovakia, hungary, poland to be independent, I would claim Austria.

This would infuriate the Germans who would leave the room. That would be a most excellent starting point, because there would be people in the German govt. who would disagree with Hitler's entourage storming out. I would figure at the end of the series of negotiations, I would have lost Austria, but I certainly would have no intention of giving it away at the beginning.


It's worth noting that the whole situation is our fault. The allies that is, and I don't just mean the idiocy of the war debt. If David Lloyd George, with Wilson and Clemenceau hadn't decided to break up the empire, which was the most moronic thing to do, and was undoubtedly motivated by the misguided league of nations, then WWII would have been impossible.

Think about it. Germany invaded the newly independent states of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This was easy, none of them has a military, or a budget to speak of. If instead, Germany was forced with the option of invading the Hapsburg Archduchy of Austria, aka, the Empire, it would have been such obvious suicide that they never would have even considered it. In fact, I will virtually guarantee you that Hitler would have spent all of his time trying to negotiate Austria into an alliance, and would have been willing to sacrifice everything short of German independence to do so.

If we really wanted to defend against the rise of German militarism, reassembling the empire actually would have been worth doing, now that I think of it. That would be a far better negotiating position to be in than the outside.

Say in 1934 you see Germany as a radical rising power. By 1936 you're really scared. You still have two years to arrange to undo what you did in 1919.

The reality was that our NWO crowd was involved on both sides, and they didn't want to compromise with an OWO power like the Hapsburgs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 10:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:
The reality is that western powers were salivating at the idea that Germans and Russians would exterminate each other in a genocidal war with a little push, and might cleanse the earth of its jewish infection in the process.

The spread of Nazi Germany and the saving of the jews, as well as many more Russians and Poles could have been easily accomplish through an economic treaty that granted them economic self determination. The reality is that western powers were salivating at the idea that Germans and Russians would exterminate each other in a genocidal war with a little push, and might cleanse the earth of its jewish infection in the process

Top among all world leaders ruminating this wet dream nightly was Winston Churchill. FDR would have joined Churchill in bed if he could have. He was too busy focusing on his own Manifest Destiny empire of the Pacific.
Wow. You’re entitled to your reality, but I’m glad I don’t live in it. How you believe that an economic treaty could have saved the jews and others is beyond me...and did you mistype that, or were you actually saying “the spread of Nazi Germany could have been accomplished through economic treaty”? You really believe that? We’ll HAVE to agree to disagree on those points, I can’t even begin to debate them, they’re so out-there to me.

I’ll leave I to Magons’s post to constitute my own reply, as she’s done it quite well. I also disagree that legislation equals forced at gunpoint. Sure, some legislation would put you in jail, but most legislation involves financial penalties, etc., which is far from gunpoint. Refusing to comply to a parking ticket would only turn into a “bloodbath” if the person refusing made it so, otherwise it would be a legal matter. The vast majority of legislation has nothing to do with violence or forcing at gunpoint. To view it that way would be to say that not fastening my seat belt means a cop would shoot me. It’s way afield of reality, for me. In essence, again Magons has pegged it as far as I’m concerned, with
Quote:
I might add that many countries in the world don't have police with guns, and still have legislation that the majority of people follow without feeling threatened.... laws of one form or another have existed as long as people have. That's how societies function. If your cops are gun happy in their enforcement, take away their guns.
as well as with the rest of that post, from what I read going down the line.

That “The holocaust was largely a corporate operation” is well documented; well, I’d question the documentation, I’m afraid.

I also feel that “I still assert that it's not always possible or desirable to find middle ground on extremist views”. It’s just not possible with people who are truly extremists; they can’t hear you, they wouldn’t listen if they could; and nothing will change their minds. It’s commendable that you try, but a flat statement that communication is always possible isn’t logical, given the real world, to me. CTTS, I think the concept is about those who have extremely extreme views—we have them right here—who literally aren’t interested in communicating, only spouting. I’ve tried to have discussions with any number of them, but they respond with insults and attacks, and only repeat their points adamantly, no matter how hard you try to communicate. I gave up on most of those long ago, because there’s nothing to be gained by beating your head against a wall. I don’t think you could communicate with those of the Wesboro Church, for example.

I didn’t finish your last two posts, DT, it just got to be too much. I agree with what was said at the beginning of this thread, and what the thread was about, but while you explained why your first post was so long, all your OTHER posts were equally long or longer. I know my posts are frequently too long...part of the reason is that I’m only here in the morning, so go down a thread and reply to every post I think is worth responding to, so as long as the thread, so my responses are long. I should try breaking them up more. I will in future. Sometimes my threads are long for other reasons, but that’s the most common one. And I DEFINITELY see how a long thread is a turn-off, I don’t get through many of your threads DT because of their length, and the same for Frem’s, so I don’t expect anyone to necessarily want to get through mine. It’s just that for you to say “keep it short” is ironic to me.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 11:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I also disagree that legislation equals forced at gunpoint. Sure, some legislation would put you in jail, but most legislation involves financial penalties, etc., which is far from gunpoint.


Niki, what happens if I don't pay my "financial penalties"?

Quote:
Refusing to comply to a parking ticket would only turn into a “bloodbath” if the person refusing made it so, otherwise it would be a legal matter.
OK, let's pursue this. I refuse to comply with my parking ticket. I get a summons to go to court. I am ordered to pay it in court, but I still refuse to pay it. (Now let's assume I am a pacifist and refuse to resort to violence. But I also refuse to pay that parking ticket.)

What happens next?

Quote:
To view it that way would be to say that not fastening my seat belt means a cop would shoot me.
Eventually, the cop will use violence against me to enforce the seat belt law. He may not shoot me, but he will assault me, kidnap me, and incarcerate me against my will. If I resist being imprisoned with any force at all, even if it is to push back when he pushes me into his kidnap-mobile, he will MOST DEFINITELY put a gun to my head. If I resist with any more force than that, and he WILL shoot me.

That is where the "force" in "enforce" comes in.


--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:08 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Also, piques. Spell check doesn't catch everything.
Yeah, thanks. Brain farts are sure embarrassing. Sorry.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:15 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I also disagree that legislation equals forced at gunpoint. Sure, some legislation would put you in jail, but most legislation involves financial penalties, etc., which is far from gunpoint.


Niki, what happens if I don't pay my "financial penalties"?

Quote:
Refusing to comply to a parking ticket would only turn into a “bloodbath” if the person refusing made it so, otherwise it would be a legal matter.
OK, let's pursue this. I refuse to comply with my parking ticket. I get a summons to go to court. I am ordered to pay it in court, but I still refuse to pay it. (Now let's assume I am a pacifist and refuse to resort to violence. But I also refuse to pay that parking ticket.)

What happens next?

Quote:
To view it that way would be to say that not fastening my seat belt means a cop would shoot me.
Eventually, the cop will use violence against me to enforce the seat belt law. He may not shoot me, but he will assault me, kidnap me, and incarcerate me against my will. If I resist being imprisoned with any force at all, even if it is to push back when he pushes me into his kidnap-mobile, he will MOST DEFINITELY put a gun to my head. If I resist with any more force than that, and he WILL shoot me.

That is where the "force" in "enforce" comes in.


--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky



Okay, I'll weigh in. Without a doubt our police have been milatarized. From the guns they carry to the tanks at the station. That is all to make us fear the police and the PTB. It has been proven that the police use more and more force. They are increasingly tied to the national guard as well as the army. From Fusion centers to possible FEMA camps, planning for marshall law, and WTO security...local law enforcement is used.

Think ruby ridge.

How often do police kill, taze, abuse those that pay their salary?

Compared to the rest of the world, the land of the free jail how many?

Why?

Are most people in jail for violent offenses against another person? Or for violating a law made by politicians to pander to a group...drug laws, etc...?



But my point is go cross that imaginary line at area 51 and then ask...."did that guy just shoot me?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:18 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Wow. You’re entitled to your reality, but I’m glad I don’t live in it.


Unfortunately, my only other option is to be delusional.

Quote:
How you believe that an economic treaty could have saved the jews and others is beyond me…


I studied the subject, that's all.

Quote:
and did you mistype that, or were you actually saying “the spread of Nazi Germany could have been accomplished through economic treaty”? You really believe that?


No, that theory is called the EU. That was Goering's baby, EEC, its predecessor or "The fourth Reich" The Euro still carries Goering's fourth reich symbol on it. Make of that what you will, but..

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the german plan prior to the pivotal 1938 was one of self sufficiency. Through sanctions, blockades, energy embargoes and an unwillingness to negotiate, we pushed them towards plan B.

Quote:
I also disagree that legislation equals forced at gunpoint.


Why? That's what makes it legislation. If it weren't law, it would be optional. Like an economic incentive.

Quote:
I might add that many countries in the world don't have police with guns, and still have legislation


That's nonsense. Of course they have guns. They just don't let you have guns. But they have armies. If they didn't, you would never accept their ridiculous mandates. Come on, you disagree with govt. policies over the last ten years as much as anyone. You honestly mean to tell me that you wouldn't just walk into the Oval Office at some point when Bush was in the bathroom and sit down in the big chair and say "President Niki here, Okay, we're getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and no more torture." What's stopping you? You're respect for the sovereign authority and human genius of George W. Bush? Or the fact that his guys have guns and wouldn't let you do that?

Quote:
That “The holocaust was largely a corporate operation” is well documented; well, I’d question the documentation, I’m afraid.


Lol. I'm sorry. Allow me to appreciate the absurdity of the situation. I try to pin evil on international corporations, and you insist on pinning it on socialist big government. I think I woke up in bizarro world.

Quote:
It’s just not possible with people who are truly extremists; they can’t hear you


Nonsense. I know a guy who negotiates with islamic terrorists. You know what he says the most powerful interrogation tool is? The Koran. He says "Read it, know it, know it better than they do." Yes, they can be reasoned with as it turns out, all you have to do is have more information than they do. Extreme beliefs don't generally come from superior knowledge, but a lack of it.

Quote:
they wouldn’t listen if they could; and nothing will change their minds.


If they don't listen, you work on your diplomatic communication skills and try again.

Quote:
It’s commendable that you try, but a flat statement that communication is always possible isn’t logical


If you had to assume one, that I was either right or wrong, which world would you rather live in?

Quote:
I’ve tried to have discussions with any number of them


Try harder? I debated a guy who had actually run a concentration camp where 100,000 people were killed. It's hard to get more unreasonable than that. But I admit I've been bested. I was present for a debate between the state war reporter for the Serb Socialist forces debating a tortured prisoner of War from the Kosovar Mujahideen. Now, picture those two in a room together, having a debate about the war, the nature of the two societies, and how the situation could play out, and how the national character of the two played into the result. Now, I'll add that these two men had never met each other, they both entered the room where I was, and started this debate. I was in awe of both of them.

The conclusion of the debate was also interesting. They agreed that Serb military intelligence and the Mujahideen Imams should have debated the situation beforehand, and tried to persuade their ranks to support an overthrow of the Serb regime. Unless you might think that it was a debate victory for the Kosovar, it was actually the Serb who initially came up with the idea. The Kosovar was convinced at the beginning that a Serb, esp. a militant, could not be reasoned with, but the Serb persisted. Eventually they parted friends, and the Kosovar, who himself had been left to die in a locked and abandoned Serb prison for weeks, apologized to the Serb for any insult or injury he had caused the Serbian people.

It's very easy to assume from the outside going in that negotiation is impossible, but the actual results are very difficult, if not impossible, to predict.

Quote:
they respond with insults and attacks, and only repeat their points adamantly, no matter how hard you try to communicate.


It's what you try, not how hard.

Quote:
I don’t think you could communicate with those of the Wesboro Church, for example.


I take that as a challenge.

Quote:
I didn’t finish your last two posts, DT


That does weaken the credibility of the response.

Quote:
I don’t get through many of your threads DT because of their length, and the same for Frem’s, so I don’t expect anyone to necessarily want to get through mine.


Yes, this of course was not really a general audience targeted post, it was a response. I generally skip people's personal conversations, unless I am fascinated by the topic.

The real question here was whether or not negotiation was a tactic that could be applied everywhere. Magon suggested "Not in Nazi Germany." I decided to ignore the godwin and take the bait because I was sure that force, the only alternative offered, had not worked. Negotiation had not really been tried. The Nazis tried to talk the west into joining them, but the west hadn't really tried to compromise with Germany. Considering the absolute failure of that policy, perhaps it would have been worth a try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 1:14 PM

CANTTAKESKY


For what it's worth, I read your argument, DT and found it very illuminating.

I have studied genocides throughout history. I won't claim to be a thorough historian, but the little that I understood from history, I have found one common thread in all the genocides.

It's not ideology or hatred or superiority. It's economics.

Quote:
Lol. I'm sorry. Allow me to appreciate the absurdity of the situation. I try to pin evil on international corporations, and you insist on pinning it on socialist big government. I think I woke up in bizarro world.
I LOL'ed on that one too. You can't win, DT. You can't win.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 1:16 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT, again I can’t get through your long post. I did get far enough to notice that
Quote:
I try to pin evil on international corporations, and you insist on pinning it on socialist big government.
Totally untrue. I blame what happened on many, many factors, none of which is “socialist big government”. You make too many assumptions as to what I think and state them as fact. I wish you would stop doing that.

So I should have said “not possible with SOME extremists”. I’d like to see you try and communicate with one of the hard-core Westborough Church members, or any number of terrorists. To say you can communicate with ANYONE, that if you can’t it’s the fault of your communication skills. You’re talking in absolutes; THAT alone leaves no room for communication!

Try harder? Jezus, DT, where have you been for the last year? It’s not a matter of “communicating”—ANYTHING I write, literally anything, gets a come-back of the nastiest kind. Often not having anything to do with my post, just nasty spewing. You’re really going black-and-white here; if you haven’t seen the ways in which they “communicate” with me, there can be no discussion. You’re deliberately ignoring the fact that there is no attempt to communicate, only to attack!

Interestingly, this thread started out about how people get wrapped up in someone being “wrong” on the internet. That seems to be precisely what you’ve been doing with me, and I think I’m going to pay attention to the very first comic posted and get OUT of these long-winded, non-communication debates. You aren’t being realistic in telling me I could communicate with Kane, Whozit and their ilk if I just “communicated better”.

You started out with a lecture on netiquette; jumped off into Nazi Germany, and now have rolled around to lecturing me on something that I really think, if you thought about it objectively for one good moment, you'd find is absurd.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 21, 2010 1:46 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You make too many assumptions as to what I think and state them as fact. I wish you would stop doing that.
To be fair, everyone in RWED seems to have done it. Maybe not Anthony. But everyone else.

I wish everyone would stop doing it.

Hey, we've come around full circle to the topic of this thread!

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:07 - 7471 posts
Biden admin quietly loosening immigration policies before Trump takes office — including letting migrants skip ICE check-ins in NYC
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:47 - 1 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:36 - 12 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:28 - 941 posts
LOL @ Women's U.S. Soccer Team
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:20 - 119 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL