Cultural/Political/Social Trends & Divergence Thread

[DieselDaisy]

During the war we locked up Mosley and hung Lord Haw Haw. Also Streicher was hung at Nuremberg. All of these cases were/are contentious issues. Also the US and Japanese internment camps. Freedom was, ''more honour'd in the breach than the observance''. 

[action]

On ‎01‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 11:28 PM, DieselDaisy said:

And regarding the Nazis they themselves prohibited rival political organisations and their propaganda. In other words, prohibiting far-right ideology makes you no better than the far-right. You would find yourself employing the exact same tactics as the Nazis!

this is the main problem of the far-left. Tactics and means are fundamentally a-political. Suppressing freedom of speech isn't something reserved to the nazis. Every extreme regime uses this tactic, to this day. That's "a problem".

By the very nature of extreme regimes, they need force and violence in order to survive. During the second world war we had the two sides of the spectrum (hitler: extreme right, stalin: extreme left) and both sides killed people by the millions.

I always have to chuckle when I see these freedom marches on television. "We want peace, with violence if necessary".

Incidently, I find that extremism has a strong correlation with vocality. The more vocal or passionate someone is, the more extreme they usually are in their thoughts.

A moderate person would be more reserved, more invisible. Make no mistake; the vast majority of people are moderate. Extremes, on both sides, are the exception (otherwise, thet wouldn' be called extreme). The revolution eventually eats it's own children.

The biggest contributors to society are not politicians, but workers. Hard work is the engine of society. Politicians should be invisible. When I see a vocal politician, I can't help but think about what a cunt he or she seems. Law and order is needed, but freedom is equally as important. Freedom, personal initiative is what makes society advance. Not rigid legal frameworks conceived by narrow minded politicians.

[action]

More on "the revolution eventually eats their own children".

I remember, during the height of terrorist activity on western soil, people were confused and asking for "solutions". I remember saying then, on this board, that we should do nothing at all. Because "the revolution eats their own children". Extreme people, while vocal, are the minority by their very nature. To put it bluntly: when every terrorist blows himself up, there arent any left.

I was honed away back then, but look now: terrorist attacks has decreased dramatically in frequency. All these jihadi's you remember from cruel execution videos? Most of them are dead. Either blown up themselves or bombarded by the western armies.

the same with the extremist regimes of the second world war. Stalin, Hitler... Where are they? Gone. Hitler committed suicide, and nazism as a leading party vanished. Stalinism died with stalin. The french revolution: where are the radicals? Died on the french guillotines.

Extreme regimes don't last. They are not the right answer. Eventually, people will react and reclaim their freedoms. Eventually, the revolution will eat their own children.

[Ace Spade]

On 4/1/2018 at 7:50 AM, AtariLegend said:

British or Northern Irish and yes I do.

Some of us have grand parents that were still alive in the 1940's when 50 odd million people died as a result of people who rose to power on "propaganda".

Then you yourself, are a fascist. Just like the Nazis!

Can you see the irony?

Edited April 30, 2018 by Ace Spade

[Len Cnut]

On 01/04/2018 at 9:23 AM, DieselDaisy said:

''Tommy Robinson'' does not sound like a white supremacist's name. It sounds more like a lower league midfielder's name. 

He took the name off a fat lad on the Hatters firm (Lutons hooligan squad). 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

He took the name off a fat lad on the Hatters firm (Lutons hooligan squad). 

Completely off-topic but there is a young cricketer, Hampshire allrounder, Australian born/English qualified, called: Felix Organ. 

I'm sure he isn't a white supremacist by the way - as I said, off-topic. 

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Completely off-topic but there is a young cricketer, Hampshire allrounder, Australian born/English qualified, called: Felix Organ. 

I'm sure he isn't a white supremacist by the way - as I said, off-topic. 

Felix Organ eh?  I envision an undercover American homosexual with close relations to Her Majestys Secret Service.

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Felix Organ eh?  I envision an undercover American homosexual with close relations to Her Majestys Secret Service.

There are some curious cricketers' names - you are already acquainted with Bumrah,

Josh Tongue, Worcs quick (apparently pronounced ''tong''- and yes, I and many others were calling him for at least a season after that thing in your mouth with your taste buds on). 

Dickwella, Sri Lankan bat

Quentin de Kock, SA wicketkeeper-batsman 

Pat Cummins, Aussie quick

Travis Head, S. Australian bat. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There are some curious cricketers' names - you are already acquainted with Bumrah,

Josh Tongue, Worcs quick (apparently pronounced ''tong''- and yes, I and many others were calling him for at least a season after that thing in your mouth with your taste buds on). 

Dickwella, Sri Lankan bat

Quentin de Kock, SA wicketkeeper-batsman 

Pat Cummins, Aussie quick

Travis Head, S. Australian bat. 

Further corroborating the long standing theory that cricket is for benders

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Further corroborating the long standing theory that cricket is for benders

My club had Graeme Onions (bowling for Lanky as I speak) and Phil Mustard for years: ''c. Mustard b Onions''. All you need is the hot dog and the bun.

How much must poor Felix's parents have hated him? He already had a silly surname! Let's just compound the silliness with a silly Christian name!

[Len Cnut]

35 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

My club had Graeme Onions (bowling for Lanky as I speak) and Phil Mustard for years: ''c. Mustard b Onions''. All you need is the hot dog and the bun.

How much must poor Felix's parents have hated him? He already had a silly surname! Let's just compound the silliness with a silly Christian name!

Sort of like Zowie Bowie or Roland Bolan   The Bolan one perhaps worst of all because Bolan ain’t that bad a surname, so basically your old man went out of his way to make you look a cunt   Zappa called one of his kids something PROPER ridiculous, like fuckin’ rocket ship or something!

[classicrawker]

On 4/3/2018 at 4:32 AM, action said:

More on "the revolution eventually eats their own children".

I remember, during the height of terrorist activity on western soil, people were confused and asking for "solutions". I remember saying then, on this board, that we should do nothing at all. Because "the revolution eats their own children". Extreme people, while vocal, are the minority by their very nature. To put it bluntly: when every terrorist blows himself up, there arent any left.

I was honed away back then, but look now: terrorist attacks has decreased dramatically in frequency. All these jihadi's you remember from cruel execution videos? Most of them are dead. Either blown up themselves or bombarded by the western armies.

the same with the extremist regimes of the second world war. Stalin, Hitler... Where are they? Gone. Hitler committed suicide, and nazism as a leading party vanished. Stalinism died with stalin. The french revolution: where are the radicals? Died on the french guillotines.

Extreme regimes don't last. They are not the right answer. Eventually, people will react and reclaim their freedoms. Eventually, the revolution will eat their own children.

How do you explain China, M Korea, Cuba, etc etc...then? People have yet to reclaim their freedoms.

What are they waiting for?

 

[AtariLegend]

On April 30, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Ace Spade said:

Then you yourself, are a fascist. Just like the Nazis!

Can you see the irony?

The argument of a 10 year old.

You don't even know what the word means.

[Ace Spade]

On 5/1/2018 at 1:52 PM, AtariLegend said:

The argument of a 10 year old.

You don't even know what the word means.

 

The reply of a 10 year old.

I know that my relatives didn't fight the Nazis in the war just so Britain can slowly turn into a Nazi Germany like fascist, totalitarian police state itself. It's a disgrace to them and their sacrifice that they made.

The fact that you and others like you, don't even realize it means that you're part of the problem. 

Maybe you should stick to the wrestling thread...you mark.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Ace Spade

[action]

On ‎30‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 7:15 PM, classicrawker said:

How do you explain China, M Korea, Cuba, etc etc...then? People have yet to reclaim their freedoms.

What are they waiting for?

 

china has gone through a process of "democratisation" for quite some years now.

North Korea goes through economical hell, and as a consequence, kim yong un tries to mend ties with the rest of the world. the absolute unthinkable is happening.

Cuba, is also removing most of the more radical elements of "castrocism".

Name me one extreme regime, a radical regime, that relies on force and violence to survive, that has stood the test of time. They all have to face the biggest force in society: the masses. And they all lose. It's like King Canute trying to hold back the waves. Or like when King louis XVI, at the start of the french revolution, saw the masses, and he remarked "c'est une revolte", to which la rochefoucauld-liancourt replied "mais non, sire, c'est une revolution". 

Edited May 3, 2018 by action

[classicrawker]

7 hours ago, action said:

china has gone through a process of "democratisation" for quite some years now.

North Korea goes through economical hell, and as a consequence, kim yong un tries to mend ties with the rest of the world. the absolute unthinkable is happening.

Cuba, is also removing most of the more radical elements of "castrocism".

Name me one extreme regime, a radical regime, that relies on force and violence to survive, that has stood the test of time. They all have to face the biggest force in society: the masses. And they all lose. It's like King Canute trying to hold back the waves. Or like when King louis XVI, at the start of the french revolution, saw the masses, and he remarked "c'est une revolte", to which la rochefoucauld-liancourt replied "mais non, sire, c'est une revolution". 

China is far from a Democracy and still relies on force to maintain their power. Their "President" Xi Jinping  basically mde himself ruler for life.  I think you are confusing the  introduction of capitalism with Democracy....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2017/04/11/why-does-china-pretend-to-be-a-democracy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.63f3084b9df9

We will see what comes out of the N Korea/S Korea talks but there is no stipulation or mention of civil rights being a issue in negotiations. Cuba is still a totalitarian regime who controls their citizens so while there have been changes in China and Cuba  still rely on repression to keep their leaders in power.......and what is you definition of test of time? 10 years, 50 years, 100 years??

Other examples are Libya and Iraq...if not for Western intervention they would still be radical regimes.......

Edited May 3, 2018 by classicrawker

[Dazey]

7 hours ago, action said:

china has gone through a process of "democratisation" for quite some years now.

North Korea goes through economical hell, and as a consequence, kim yong un tries to mend ties with the rest of the world. the absolute unthinkable is happening.

Cuba, is also removing most of the more radical elements of "castrocism".

Name me one extreme regime, a radical regime, that relies on force and violence to survive, that has stood the test of time. They all have to face the biggest force in society: the masses. And they all lose. It's like King Canute trying to hold back the waves. Or like when King louis XVI, at the start of the french revolution, saw the masses, and he remarked "c'est une revolte", to which la rochefoucauld-liancourt replied "mais non, sire, c'est une revolution". 

Errrrr, Russia? 

[action]

6 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Errrrr, Russia? 

putin is immensely popular in russia. he does not rely on force to stay in power (apart from killing an opponent here and there).

the masses accept him, and as long as they do, I see him staying on his throne for a long time coming

Also, putin more or less does what his people expect from him. That's the difference with a radical: a radical wants change, and goes into what the masses want. that's when force and terror becomes necessary. I'm under the impression that the vast majority of russians accept putin's politics. as for the rest, it doesnt really matter what you or me think about putin.

[classicrawker]

As Bil Maher said recently during a monologue on his show...I am paraphrasing.....

Putin won reelection by 77% and 23% of the  Russian population suddenly disappeared............

Edited May 3, 2018 by classicrawker

[action]

1 minute ago, classicrawker said:

As Bil Maher said recently during a monologue on his show...I am paraphraasing.....

Putin won reelection by 77% and 23% of the  Russian population suddenly disappeared............

putin can hardly be described as a radical though. he's as conservative as they come.

my original point was in reference to terrorists, which are radicals by nature. terrorism is of all times and it's always based on radicalism. but radicals, by nature, are the exception and thus do not have a backing by the masses. hence the need for terror. but the revolution eats their own children, and so radicalism erodes from within and disappears as time goes by.

a dictatorship does not necessarily equal radicalism though. some of the biggest dictators werent radicals. napoleon was one of the biggest dictators history has known, but he was actually fighting against the radicals, and a bit of a conservative twat really

[classicrawker]

3 minutes ago, action said:

putin can hardly be described as a radical though. he's as conservative as they come.

my original point was in reference to terrorists, which are radicals by nature. terrorism is of all times and it's always based on radicalism. but radicals, by nature, are the exception and thus do not have a backing by the masses. hence the need for terror. but the revolution eats their own children, and so radicalism erodes from within and disappears as time goes by.

a dictatorship does not necessarily equal radicalism though. some of the biggest dictators werent radicals. napoleon was one of the biggest dictators history has known, but he was actually fighting against the radicals, and a bit of a conservative twat really

fair enough mate

[Ace Nova]

Just starting to discover some of Jordan Peterson's views/interviews, etc.  I don't know whether I agree with everything he says but I like the way he thinks.  It's certainly a breath of fresh air and demonstrates an open mindedness and free thinking that I haven't seen in a long time.   I'll probably get his book in order to get a better grasp of his thought process...and then go from there. 

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, Kasanova King said:

Just starting to discover some of Jordan Peterson's views/interviews, etc.  I don't know whether I agree with everything he says but I like the way he thinks.  It's certainly a breath of fresh air and demonstrates an open mindedness and free thinking that I haven't seen in a long time.   I'll probably get his book in order to get a better grasp of his thought process...and then go from there. 

He's done some good interviews with Sam Harris on his podcast that are worth a listen.

 

[soon]

wild times these are

Edited May 14, 2018 by soon

[soon]

In my experience there is a great deal of over lap between anti-pc people with those who believe in the conservative value of personal responsibility. That is to say that a large group of people hold both of those ideas. Also, many only hold one of the two, of course.

Anti-pc people generally make an accusation that people are limiting free speech.  Now, clearly that is a bold and mostly overstated accusation that more often means simply that refuting the merits of whats been said is not allowed.That you arent allowed to say anything back to the "free speech" and arent supposed to hold anyone to account for their use of free speech. 

But for the sake of argument, lets just say that someone should say anything they want and the anti-pc people get their way and no one tries to hold anyone to account. I get really curious how saying hate filled things with the intention of inciting violence should be permitted by a group of people that also holds the value of personal responsibility? Would it not come down to personal responsibility to not incite violence?