Fascism Alive and Well in 2012


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 788 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

deusvult wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:


There are a lot of things about Japan vs. Us that haven't been taught until recently. Few people know of the rather sketchy embargo the US placed on Japan either.
Benicio Del Espada wrote:


There we were, a nice, peaceful country, just minding our own business and enjoying all the freedom and prosperity our government creates, when out of the blue, those nasty _______________s just attacked us for no reason, except to enslave the world to their inferior political and/or religious system.

Wow, really? I've held my tongue at the 'blame America first' sentiments loudly and proudly voiced in this thread but I can't let that one go.

The embargo, while perhaps misguided in the belief that it may prevent a war with Japan, was hardly 'sketchy'. Japan had been invading their Asian neighbors for NINE years by that point. Cutting off gas and oil was intended to halt the conquest, not serve some 'white devils are going to take over the world' master plan.

But was it some '9/11 was an inside job' style conspiracy to bring us into WW2? Give me a break, go back and watch your 'Loose Change: Nth edition- All new allegations after all our old ones have been debunked!' video.

I'm not sure where you're getting blame America first from what I said. An embargo is just that- an embargo. When a third party does it, with a slight bend towards some sort of profit from one of the parties involved in the conflict, that makes it sketchy to me. But hey, that's just me. Should I have said "mercenary" instead?


Quote:
college studends then and especially now just so hate to think they'd be gullible enough to be the pawns of 'backwards, old curmudgeons

As opposed to farmers, blue collar workers, union members, the upper middle class and anyone that's NOT currently sitting on top of the heap?


deusvult wrote:
Wow, really? I've held my tongue at the 'blame America first' sentiments loudly and proudly voiced in this thread but I can't let that one go.

You really should. That "blame America first" right-wing dog whistle just never made sense.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
proudgeek159 wrote:
Good Lord! How stupid! What really pisses me off is that it's going to be even more diffficult for me, as a conservative, to have principled discussions with liberals. Thanks to this yahoo, it'll give liberal bigots even more of an excuse to write me off as an ignorant racist.

I'm fairly left wing by Canadian standards which probably puts me in the loony fringe by American standards.

But I totally agree that a great many conservatives are reasonable, rational, educated, principled people. Most certainly not ignorant racists even though I disagree with them on a lot of issues.

Unfortunately (at least from looking at things from a Canadian perspective) the rational conservatives seem to have completely lost control of the Political Right. As a result, it now really does seem rational to view the Political Right as a whole (NOT individuals in it) as racist, bigoted, and ignorant morons.


pauljathome wrote:
Unfortunately (at least from looking at things from a Canadian perspective) the rational conservatives seem to have completely lost control of the Political Right. As a result, it now really does seem rational to view the Political Right as a whole (NOT individuals in it) as racist, bigoted, and ignorant morons.

It's the same here. There certainly are rational conservatives who don't want to play games with hot-button issues, and don't care if you're wearing a flag pin or not.

They're just not getting any attention. The Sarahs and Ricks are, for some reason.


What really bothers me currently is the fact Boehner is willing to hold tax cuts hostage in order to get what he wants. Just like they did the budget.

I mean is there anything really more juvenile than the "I'm going to hold my breath until you give me my way" bull that he keeps pulling?

Yet here in Indiana when the Democrats pull the same stunts then it's a hideous crime and they are being horrible people.


Abraham spalding wrote:

What really bothers me currently is the fact Boehner is willing to hold tax cuts hostage in order to get what he wants. Just like they did the budget.

I mean is there anything really more juvenile than the "I'm going to hold my breath until you give me my way" bull that he keeps pulling?

Yet here in Indiana when the Democrats pull the same stunts then it's a hideous crime and they are being horrible people.

Republicans and Democrats both do this kind of crap. It's how politics works. Honestly, I'd rather not have parties at all, and have politicians run and vote on their beliefs instead of party lines.


I would rather cut the word beliefs out of it (honestly 'beliefs' as used in politics has almost become a dirty word to me), and have them vote on facts and logic -- though those have become almost as tainted through the extended use of "pull numbers out of our butts" supposed 'think tanks'.


Abraham spalding wrote:
though those have become almost as tainted through the extended use of "pull numbers out of our butts" supposed 'think tanks'.

I haven't heard much about this issue.

Sovereign Court

Freehold DM wrote:


I'm not sure where you're getting blame America first from what I said...

Well in all honesty wasn't so much specifically you, as the relentless tide of support in the thread for the agenda-toting teachers in Arizona preaching a sermon to American citizens that they're in reality victimized inhabitants of occupied Northern Mexico.

Your little gem was just the cherry on top of the sundae ;)

So here's an attempt to offer something constructive to the discussion.

If fascism is alive and well today, how would you know? Just what IS fascism, anyway? Political science can't even really agree how to define it. Me, it's a case of "I know what's good for you better than you do." Parents aren't being fascists when they parent their children.. the children really DON'T know what's best for them. It IS fascist when a government tries to parent to its citizenry.

And in my definition, the 'you can't smoke here' 'you can't send your kids to private school' 'we have to tax crappy food so you don't eat it so much' 'you're too rich, more of your money should go to the less well-to-do in the form of taxes' crowds are the fascists.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Unfortunately (at least from looking at things from a Canadian perspective) the rational conservatives seem to have completely lost control of the Political Right. As a result, it now really does seem rational to view the Political Right as a whole (NOT individuals in it) as racist, bigoted, and ignorant morons.

It's the same here. There certainly are rational conservatives who don't want to play games with hot-button issues, and don't care if you're wearing a flag pin or not.

They're just not getting any attention. The Sarahs and Ricks are, for some reason.

By Canadian standards, aren't the Democrats rational conservatives?

Generally, the rational conservatives have fled the Republican party as it was taken over by the extremists, which meant candidates had to become more extreme to win nominations, which drove more moderates out, which meant candidates had to become more extreme, etc...

I can only hope that ratcheting up the crazy, as all the remaining presidential candidates are doing to win the nomination will come back to haunt them when they try to swing back to the center for the general.

Part of me is laughing at them, because all the craziness is just ensuring Obama's re-election and hopefully spilling over to the downticket races. Part of me wants a real sane opposition back. All of this is gutting the country.


deusvult wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:


I'm not sure where you're getting blame America first from what I said...

Well in all honesty wasn't so much specifically you, as the relentless tide of support in the thread for the agenda-toting teachers in Arizona preaching a sermon to American citizens that they're in reality victimized inhabitants of occupied Northern Mexico.

Your little gem was just the cherry on top of the sundae ;)

So here's an attempt to offer something constructive to the discussion.

If fascism is alive and well today, how would you know? Just what IS fascism, anyway? Political science can't even really agree how to define it. Me, it's a case of "I know what's good for you better than you do." Parents aren't being fascists when they parent their children.. the children really DON'T know what's best for them. It IS fascist when a government tries to parent to its citizenry.

And in my definition, the 'you can't smoke here' 'you can't send your kids to private school' 'we have to tax crappy food so you don't eat it so much' 'you're too rich, more of your money should go to the less well-to-do in the form of taxes' crowds are the fascists.

In other words: fascism is bad and I'll call any government I don't like fascist.

Fascism is actually fairly well defined. It involves closely linked government and corporate power, intense nationalism and demonisation of minority groups to distract the masses from who's really screwing them over.
You can argue about whether any of the things you list are good or not, but they've got nothing to do with fascism.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:


In other words: fascism is bad and I'll call any government I don't like fascist.

I think we agree that more or less, when someone or something is described as fascist, this is the definition the name-caller is operating under. Like basically in this thread.

Quote:


Fascism is actually fairly well defined. It involves closely linked government and corporate power, intense nationalism and demonisation of minority groups to distract the masses from who's really screwing them over.
You can argue about whether any of the things you list are good or not, but they've got nothing to do with fascism.

Fascism is in fact a term whos definition is highly disputed by academics. Sure, it has features that can be more or less agreed upon. But if you can make a definition that gets the political science professors to all nod in agreement, you're a better man than has yet ventured into that arena.

Realistically, 'fascist' is so over (not to mention mis-)used that it is essentially a meaningless pejorative. Calling something fascist is no more scathing than calling it a bully. You just sound like you know bigger words when you do it, is all.


deusvult wrote:
thejeff wrote:


In other words: fascism is bad and I'll call any government I don't like fascist.

I think we agree that more or less, when someone or something is described as fascist, this is the definition the name-caller is operating under. Like basically in this thread.

Quote:


Fascism is actually fairly well defined. It involves closely linked government and corporate power, intense nationalism and demonisation of minority groups to distract the masses from who's really screwing them over.
You can argue about whether any of the things you list are good or not, but they've got nothing to do with fascism.

Fascism is in fact a term whos definition is highly disputed by academics. Sure, it has features that can be more or less agreed upon. But if you can make a definition that gets the political science professors to all nod in agreement, you're a better man than has yet ventured into that arena.

Realistically, 'fascist' is so over (not to mention mis-)used that it is essentially a meaningless pejorative. Calling something fascist is no more scathing than calling it a bully. You just sound like you know bigger words when you do it, is all.

You are correct in that fascism isn't clearly defined. The famous Mussolini quote equating it with corporatism isn't to be found in his writings.

It certainly sounds like something he might say, but he didn't say it, in so many words.

It encompasses governmental and economic controls, as well as social controls, though how that was (or could be) done varies.

I think plutocracy or oligarchy are better terms, if only because they're better defined. They exist outside of what a government calls itself.


deusvult wrote:
thejeff wrote:


In other words: fascism is bad and I'll call any government I don't like fascist.

I think we agree that more or less, when someone or something is described as fascist, this is the definition the name-caller is operating under. Like basically in this thread.

Quote:


Fascism is actually fairly well defined. It involves closely linked government and corporate power, intense nationalism and demonisation of minority groups to distract the masses from who's really screwing them over.
You can argue about whether any of the things you list are good or not, but they've got nothing to do with fascism.

Fascism is in fact a term whos definition is highly disputed by academics. Sure, it has features that can be more or less agreed upon. But if you can make a definition that gets the political science professors to all nod in agreement, you're a better man than has yet ventured into that arena.

Realistically, 'fascist' is so over (not to mention mis-)used that it is essentially a meaningless pejorative. Calling something fascist is no more scathing than calling it a bully. You just sound like you know bigger words when you do it, is all.

Is this to say that bullying is okay, however? That it's okay for someone who has more cash/power/control over a situation to exploit those who do not? If your answer is "no, and I didn't say that" then that's fine to a certain extent, but taken to an extreme it's also the problem- in order for something like fascism to work even in a very limited sense, it needs individuals who are to jaded to ask questions that challenge widely-held beliefs, which seems to be the perspective you are encouraging.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:


By Canadian standards, aren't the Democrats rational conservatives?

The Democrats are significantly more conservative than the Canadian Conservative Party, even though the latter has become far more Conservative than it used to be.

From a Canadian perspective, though, the Democrats seem mostly incompetent :-). We watch with bemusement as the Republicans seem to routinely out manoeuvre the Democrats in the courts, in the media (the whole myth of "Liberal bias in the media" is especially incomprehensible), and in esoteric rules in the Senate. 40%+1 Republicans in the Senate seem a lot more powerful than 40%+1 Democrats.

Some of that is probably a result of selective reporting.

Sovereign Court

Freehold DM wrote:


Is this to say that bullying is okay, however? That it's okay for someone who has more cash/power/control over a situation to exploit those who do not? If your answer is "no, and I didn't say that" then that's fine to a certain extent, but taken to an extreme it's also the problem- in order for something like fascism to work even in a very limited sense, it needs individuals who are to jaded to ask questions that challenge widely-held beliefs, which seems to be the perspective you are encouraging.

Well, depends on what one considers 'ok'. Obviously noone likes to be bullied. And on an individual basis, pretty much noone finds bullying acceptable.

However when you scale up from individuals to entire societies, 'bullying' IS inevitable. If for no other reason, because whatever is made to happen, there will be people who didn't want it to happen. And they will say/feel as if they were bullied by those who made it happen. The moral right and wrong of whatever that thing was, from a theoretical third party perspective, is irrelevant to whether the aggreived party feels bullied.

Example: The guy who kills his children because he doesn't want to feed them and spend his money instead on hookers and drugs would feel 'bullied' by the society that says he was obliged to care for his kids and sends him to prison in punishment. (editorial: the pick-and-choose hypocricy or the Moral Relativism view is nothing short of astonishing)

Saying that fatalistically exusing 'bullying' as being unpreventable is the gateway to a totalitarian government is laughable outside a purely theoretical, idealistic discussion. Me, I'm staying on the realistic side of things.

Those with power simply are able to exploit a situation to a greater degree than those who do not. It's the natural order of the world. It's what power IS. Whether one finds it acceptable or not is a purely theoretical discussion.. it is what it is and what one thinks won't change it. And short of being god, there's nothing one can do to change it, either ;D


pauljathome wrote:
thejeff wrote:


By Canadian standards, aren't the Democrats rational conservatives?

The Democrats are significantly more conservative than the Canadian Conservative Party, even though the latter has become far more Conservative than it used to be.

From a Canadian perspective, though, the Democrats seem mostly incompetent :-). We watch with bemusement as the Republicans seem to routinely out manoeuvre the Democrats in the courts, in the media (the whole myth of "Liberal bias in the media" is especially incomprehensible), and in esoteric rules in the Senate. 40%+1 Republicans in the Senate seem a lot more powerful than 40%+1 Democrats.

Some of that is probably a result of selective reporting.

Some selective reporting and some the result of decades of propaganda work while the Dems rested on their laurels.

Here's how I see the difference 40%+1 effect playing out in the Senate though: It's largely the result of two factors. One, a significant number of Democrats are as much on the corporate payroll on any particular issue as most of the Republicans are. So the Democratic majority on any issue isn't as big as it seems. Which Dems varies from issue to issue.
Two, the way the Senate rules work, 40%+1 senators can stop anything, but they can't actually do anything. This gives a huge advantage to the Republicans because they're perfectly happy not doing anything most of the time. It goes right along with their government is bad propaganda. Democrats actually want government to work and this means they have to compromise with at least a few Republicans to make things happen. That gives those few the ability to dictate terms.

Or in simpler terms, in a game of Chicken, the advantage goes to the guy who everyone thinks is willing to crash.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
The Democrats are significantly more conservative than the Canadian Conservative Party, even though the latter has become far more Conservative than it used to be.

So much so I'm not sure they (CCP) are not nowadays more conservative than the US's Democrats. Harper's CCP is way closer to the Reform Party than to Mulroney's CPP, and exert a very tight control over the media and the federal bureaucracy in order push its social agenda.

Informed comparison by the political compass:

Canada : http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011
USA : http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CunningMongoose wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
The Democrats are significantly more conservative than the Canadian Conservative Party, even though the latter has become far more Conservative than it used to be.

So much so I'm not sure they (CCP) are not nowadays more conservative than the US's Democrats. Harper's CCP is way closer to the Reform Party than to Mulroney's CPP, and exert a very tight control over the media and the federal bureaucracy in order push its social agenda.

Informed comparison by the political compass:

Canada : http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011
USA : http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Comparisons are very hard to do and are often quite subjective, especially when one is using very ill defined terms lie "conservative"

Economically, the Canadian Conservatives are probably more conservative than the Democrats.

But socially Canada is still substantially to the Left of America in many ways. And the Conservatives are (so far) reasonably afraid to try and move things too far or too quickly.

Take Gun Control as an example. While even many left wing pinkos like me admit that things probably got taken too far there is pretty much nobody advocating American style rules for handguns, automatics, etc.

But we're definitely moving to the Right both economically and socially and pinkos like me are VERY afraid of how far things will go under Harper.


thejeff wrote:
Contracts, which even though one-sided, were likely not even lived up to as the Iranian government had no oversight of the AIOC's books and had to accept their word as to the totals they were getting a share of.

The history of 20th-century American interventionism in Latin America on behest of United Fruit is replete with similar examples. "Oh, Senior Arbenz, you want to tax us for what the land is really worth? Commie!" [Trigger overthrow of government and 50+ years of death-squad rule.]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Japan had been invading their Asian neighbors for NINE years by that point.

As opposed to the USA, which had been invading their Asian and Latin American neighbors for ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Japan had been invading their Asian neighbors for NINE years by that point.
As opposed to the USA, which had been invading their Asian and Latin American neighbors for ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

Oh, right. My bad. Because as you so deftly suggested, Japan had only recently gotten onto the 'invasion train' and was doing nothing more than getting a late start on what the US had been doing for a dozen decades already. If the US had just never invented the idea of taking what you wanted from someone too weak to stop you the world would have been such a more ideal place today.


Thank you Steven Tindal and the others for silencing the "Hate & blame Whites for everything" crowd. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, you speak for many.
Thank you!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Could be worse. You could be listening to the tripe the Tea Party want in Tennessee.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Contracts, which even though one-sided, were likely not even lived up to as the Iranian government had no oversight of the AIOC's books and had to accept their word as to the totals they were getting a share of.
The history of 20th-century American interventionism in Latin America on behest of United Fruit is replete with similar examples. "Oh, Senior Arbenz, you want to tax us for what the land is really worth? Commie!" [Trigger overthrow of government and 50+ years of death-squad rule.]

So sad but so true


Oh, right. My bad. Because as you so deftly suggested, Japan had only recently gotten onto the 'invasion train' and was doing nothing more than getting a late start on what the US had been doing for a dozen decades already. If the US had just never invented the idea of taking what you wanted from someone too weak to stop you the world would have been such a more ideal place today.

If we don't want to trade with people... we don't have to trade with people. There's nothing that forces us to trade with anyone who wants to, we CAN say "No, i really don't want our stuff funding YOUR empire"

The stuff Unit 731 ALONE was doing was enough to rate an alignment south of the US's border I mean, the us was bad, but japan was WAY worse.


Aretas wrote:

Thank you Steven Tindal and the others for silencing the "Hate & blame Whites for everything" crowd. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, you speak for many.

Thank you!

for myself your thanks are appreciated but I was simply trying to point out that what the teachers were doing in teaching that type of message is just as wrong as excluding the amazing contributions of someone because of their race/gender or both.

I guess a North Carolina public school education from the 80's was more balanced than I thought.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Oh, right. My bad. Because as you so deftly suggested, Japan had only recently gotten onto the 'invasion train' and was doing nothing more than getting a late start on what the US had been doing for a dozen decades already. If the US had just never invented the idea of taking what you wanted from someone too weak to stop you the world would have been such a more ideal place today.

If we don't want to trade with people... we don't have to trade with people. There's nothing that forces us to trade with anyone who wants to, we CAN say "No, i really don't want our stuff funding YOUR empire"

The stuff Unit 731 ALONE was doing was enough to rate an alignment south of the US's border I mean, the us was bad, but japan was WAY worse.

That was truly disgusting, and that is a good example of something that isn't taught much in Japan.


Nicos wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Contracts, which even though one-sided, were likely not even lived up to as the Iranian government had no oversight of the AIOC's books and had to accept their word as to the totals they were getting a share of.
The history of 20th-century American interventionism in Latin America on behest of United Fruit is replete with similar examples. "Oh, Senior Arbenz, you want to tax us for what the land is really worth? Commie!" [Trigger overthrow of government and 50+ years of death-squad rule.]
So sad but so true

This also shouldn't be forgotten.


I will do my best to refrain from voting for you in any elections, should you run for office. Your perspective smacks far too much of ends justifying the means style rationalization.

deusvult wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:


Is this to say that bullying is okay, however? That it's okay for someone who has more cash/power/control over a situation to exploit those who do not? If your answer is "no, and I didn't say that" then that's fine to a certain extent, but taken to an extreme it's also the problem- in order for something like fascism to work even in a very limited sense, it needs individuals who are to jaded to ask questions that challenge widely-held beliefs, which seems to be the perspective you are encouraging.

Well, depends on what one considers 'ok'. Obviously noone likes to be bullied. And on an individual basis, pretty much noone finds bullying acceptable.

However when you scale up from individuals to entire societies, 'bullying' IS inevitable. If for no other reason, because whatever is made to happen, there will be people who didn't want it to happen. And they will say/feel as if they were bullied by those who made it happen. The moral right and wrong of whatever that thing was, from a theoretical third party perspective, is irrelevant to whether the aggreived party feels bullied.

Example: The guy who kills his children because he doesn't want to feed them and spend his money instead on hookers and drugs would feel 'bullied' by the society that says he was obliged to care for his kids and sends him to prison in punishment. (editorial: the pick-and-choose hypocricy or the Moral Relativism view is nothing short of astonishing)

Saying that fatalistically exusing 'bullying' as being unpreventable is the gateway to a totalitarian government is laughable outside a purely theoretical, idealistic discussion. Me, I'm staying on the realistic side of things.

Those with power simply are able to exploit a situation to a greater degree than those who do not. It's the natural order of the world. It's what power IS. Whether one finds it acceptable or not is a purely theoretical discussion.. it is what it is and what one thinks won't change it. And short of being god, there's...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

Thank you Steven Tindal and the others for silencing the "Hate & blame Whites for everything" crowd. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, you speak for many.

Thank you!

hate and blame whites for everything? Just as bad as holding them, or any groups in history, utterly blameless.


deusvult wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Japan had been invading their Asian neighbors for NINE years by that point.
As opposed to the USA, which had been invading their Asian and Latin American neighbors for ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

Oh, right. My bad. Because as you so deftly suggested, Japan had only recently gotten onto the 'invasion train' and was doing nothing more than getting a late start on what the US had been doing for a dozen decades already. If the US had just never invented the idea of taking what you wanted from someone too weak to stop you the world would have been such a more ideal place today.

That's ridiculous; I never suggested any such thing.

I do feel foolish for typing "Senior" when I meant "Senor," though.


Freehold DM wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Thank you Steven Tindal and the others for silencing the "Hate & blame Whites for everything" crowd. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, you speak for many.

Thank you!
hate and blame whites for everything? Just as bad as holding them, or any groups in history, utterly blameless.

I agree freehold. That's what makes history so much fun to read. NO "group" is ever going to be blameless for anything depending how far back you go.

Revisionist history is what should concern everybody.
History should be a collection of facts based on the evidence presented and then opinions can be formed.

In my history class we had a mock Nirenberg trial to help drive home the atrocities the Nazis committed and I brought in my great uncle that fought in WW2 to help us put it in perspective.

Betcha didn't know that a common trophies for a U.S. solider to send back to his sweetheart was a boiled skull from a Japanese solider. In times of war atrocities are common on both sides.

Again no one group is blameless or totally responsible for ALL of the worlds ills.
That's all I've been trying to say, race is not a factor or at least it shouldn't be!?


Steven Tindall wrote:

Revisionist history is what should concern everybody.

History should be a collection of facts based on the evidence presented and then opinions can be formed.

And when new facts and evidence are found, sometimes revision of the common viewpoint is necessary.

Also, sometimes earlier generations of historians are just wrong. For example, without "revisionism" we'd all still be taught in school that post-Civil War Reconstruction failed because blacks are incapable of governing themselves. In this case, yay revisionism!


It's fine to talk about revisionist history, but (seconding Comrade Anklebiter here) plenty of history is "revised" by better research.

As for Blame America First: well only in cases where we're actually to blame, but when we are, we are. There certainly shouldn't be a Blame America Last movement, should there?

As far afield as this thread has gone, keep in mind that a state where people can be stopped for looking like illegal aliens has stopped teaching the history of that minority. I may not have a simple definition for Fascism, but that's a spot-on description.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Steven Tindall wrote:

Revisionist history is what should concern everybody.

History should be a collection of facts based on the evidence presented and then opinions can be formed.

And when new facts and evidence are found, sometimes revision of the common viewpoint is necessary.

Also, sometimes earlier generations of historians are just wrong. For example, without "revisionism" we'd all still be taught in school that post-Civil War Reconstruction failed because blacks are incapable of governing themselves. In this case, yay revisionism!

the key statement I agree with comrade is that "when new FACTS and evidence are found, sometimes revision of the common viewpoint is necessary"

That holds true of any other science, that's learning.

As far as earlier generations of historians go we may judge them to be wrong now but at the time with the facts that were in evidence at that point they could only draw certain conclusions. Yes I will be the first to admit that everybody colors history as they see fit, nobodies perfect but that again is where everybody has to decide their own truth based on the known facts.


How the West Was Won at 5:30.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
How the West Was Won at 5:30.

OK I saw it. I do not understand what it was I was supposed to see other than the fact that there was a dispute over land ownership north of the Rio grande that was settled to both governments satisfaction during the Mexican American war.

The following is from the Wikipedia citation concerning that event.

"The Mexican–American War, also known as the First American Intervention, the Mexican War, or the U.S.–Mexican War was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution.

American forces invaded New Mexico, the California Republic, and parts of what is currently northern Mexico; meanwhile, the American Navy conducted a blockade, and took control of several garrisons on the Pacific coast of Alta California, but also further south in Baja California. Another American army captured Mexico City, and forced Mexico to agree to the cession of its northern territories to the U.S.

American territorial expansion to the Pacific coast was the goal of President James K. Polk, the leader of the Democratic Party. However, the war was highly controversial in the U.S., with the Whig Party and anti-slavery elements strongly opposed. Heavy American casualties and high monetary cost were also criticized. The major consequence of the war was the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California and New Mexico to the U.S. in exchange for $18 million. In addition, the United States forgave debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as its national border, and the loss of Texas. "

Plain and simple Mexico LOST!! end of story. No one is disputing the fact that the territory used to belong to Mexico but they took it from the Spanish after they took it from the Indians and then America took it from them? again plain and simple. Me I enjoyed reading about the navy kicking ass but then again I love naval history as an personal point of interest.

If I have missed something then please explain it comrade. No snark intended just not sure what point or relevance the film clip had.


It was mostly a joke. Red River isn't about the Mexican War but it does have John Wayne killing a Mexican and stealing their lands, so I thought I'd link it for shiznit and giggles.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
It was mostly a joke. Red River isn't about the Mexican War but it does have John Wayne killing a Mexican and stealing their lands, so I thought I'd link it for shiznit and giggles.

OK now I'm having a serious DOH! homer Simpson moment for taking myself waaaay to seriously.


'Tis alright. In case you haven't noticed, I kind of specialize in irritating people. Hee hee!


Freehold DM wrote:
That was truly disgusting, and that is a good example of something that isn't taught much in Japan.

Its not taught much in the US either. All the focus is on the holocaust and how bad it was (persecution of jews is wrong, mmkay?)

I ran accross it while researching something for a dark matter (d20 modern) campaign. I was looking for something about testing katanas of peasants for a magic item and well...


Freehold DM wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Thank you Steven Tindal and the others for silencing the "Hate & blame Whites for everything" crowd. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, you speak for many.

Thank you!
hate and blame whites for everything? Just as bad as holding them, or any groups in history, utterly blameless.

What are you advocating is the next step, collective racial punishment?

If America is as fascist as some say how are advocates of social justice or revisionist historians allowed to say their piece?

Just saying....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arizona was ranked 13th highest poverty rate in the US. Tuscon itself (where the program was) has a rate around 20%, which puts it right around the level of Mississippi (worst in the nation). Latinos in Tuscon have an even higher poverty rate.

The program had a success of putting more of these kids on track to go to college.

Higher education has been shown to be one of the most effective means of reducing poverty.

Removing the program has increased the chances that these kids will grow up to be poor. Being poor, they are more likely to rely on an "entitlement society".

This was a local program, where the local community had decided what it wanted in its schools. If the parents had a problem with it, they could have voted in a new school board. Instead, some non-local government office holder decided they didn't like how that community ran itself and got their group to impose its will on the local community.


Aretas wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Thank you Steven Tindal and the others for silencing the "Hate & blame Whites for everything" crowd. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, you speak for many.

Thank you!
hate and blame whites for everything? Just as bad as holding them, or any groups in history, utterly blameless.

What are you advocating is the next step, collective racial punishment?

If America is as fascist as some say how are advocates of social justice or revisionist historians allowed to say their piece?

Just saying....

Those words really don't fit in my mouth, so please don't try shoving them in there....

That's what she said!!!

More seriously, no. Didn't say that, and I'm thinking I may not be able to have much of a rational conversation with you if this is the direction you're taking things in. Besides, collective racial punishment has been performed several times throughout history with horrid, stomach churning results.


I do find it a bit humorous for some to suggest that the US stole Arizona and Texas from Mexico. Let's remember that Mexico was also settled with Europeans and most Mexicans today are the descendants of Europeans and the Native people (which, despite superficial appearances might be true of US citizens as well).

So one group of people came in and stole/conquered the land from the native people and then another group of people came in and stole/conquered the land from them.

That is kind of like a guy who just robbed a convenience store complaining that he got mugged when he tried to get away through the park.


... and the entire thread becomes one big tu quoque. Nice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

... more like the entire Internet.

Shadow Lodge

NO U

201 to 250 of 788 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Fascism Alive and Well in 2012 All Messageboards