Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I would like to point out that a number of the most prominent voices labelling Trump a fascist lately are themselves conservatives.

Even if he isn't technically fascist, some of the rhetoric coming from him is pretty dang authoritarian. Though it's with a pretty massive dose of the showmanship he puts in.

[scriver]

Caesar was also all about genociding inferior people and taking their land and giving it to good Roman soldiers (locus vitae?). Also autobahns, and also liked dogs, probably.

Is that why half of Gaul allied with him?  Because he was genociding them and they wanted to get in on the fun?

I'm about 95% certain that scriver's comment was sarcastic.

The comparison to Hitler was a joke (I thought the dog part made it obvious), but Caesar did genocide the Gaul (through indiscriminate slaughter of civilians as well as mass enslavement) to the point of them never regaining their strength, even if it was not a deliberate "genocide campaign" in the spirit of the holocaust or the armenian genocide. And once Gaulish land were then granted to Roman immigrants, colonists, and veterans (as was common procedure), so the "lebensraum" analogue isn't completely unfounded, even if I wouldn't make it with a super serious face.

[Zangi]

So on the scale of genocide... would it be closer to the Age of Exploration in Central-South America or the Colonial Period-Western Times of North America?

[Frumple]

... probably less than that. Those are up there with hitler's stuff, by and large. Significantly more effective than caesar's doings. More due to diseases than anything, iirc, but... still.

[Tawa]

I don't think those count as genocide. Genocide is intentional by definition.

EDIT: Not that those weren't terrible times, or that huge numbers of people didn't die, mind. But calling killing people because of the bringing over of diseases, unless you think the colonists intended to kill the natives using science they almost certainly didn't understand, is not genocide, exactly.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, I mean, mass killing is about as old as human civilization. The 20th century just made it big because people started to say that maybe it wasn't such a hot idea at the same time that technology had advanced far enough to make it both practical and relatively feasible to actually intentionally exterminate large populations in a thorough manner.

[Shadowlord]

Hey, guys, can we put YHWH on trial for genociding everything on the planet in the Great Flood*? Just wondering. 99+% of everything on the planet. #NoGodOfMine

* which there is no historical/scientific/etc evidence for unless you are a creation scientist**, and believe that all the layers with fossils were laid down during the flood etc etc.
** not an actual science

[TheBiggerFish]

***Actually there was a flood in the right area but not nearly world-covering, so I heard once.

[smjjames]

There definetly WAS flooding as the Ice Age ended and some places had it worse than others.

[RedKing]

I think what BiggerFish is referencing is that there is geological and archaeological evidence of major floods at Sumerian sites such as Ur, Kish and Shupparak. However, it's not altogether clear if these are even from the same event. There are also a variety of Mesopotamian flood myths which form the basis for the later Hebrew flood myth. Not that surprising, considering that if you live in major flood plains, you're going to get some major damn flooding every so often. Eventually, oral tradition turns that into a prototypical flood myth and later cultures copy it. The Hebrews, being a Semitic people of the more arid Levantine, probably picked up the flood myth in Babylonia and incorporated it into their own oral (and later, written) traditions.

None of that equals "whole world flooded". Though Ben Carson would probably beg to differ.

[Shadowlord]

RedKing: There's quite a bit, apparently, that was plagiarized from older polytheistic religions which were considered false, with the serial numbers filed off, but that copying was apparently common practice back then.

[Reelya]

I would like to point out that a number of the most prominent voices labelling Trump a fascist lately are themselves conservatives.

Even if he isn't technically fascist, some of the rhetoric coming from him is pretty dang authoritarian. Though it's with a pretty massive dose of the showmanship he puts in.

Business leaders are autocratic by nature. That's just what the business is about.

[Shazbot]

Shazbot:

Putin's Russia, Communist China, and North Korea control their media as completely as they can, broadcasting propaganda, altering news, showing entirely fake news, suppressing inconvenient news, to indoctrinate their population with the "proper" viewpoint, make them loyal and trusting, to keep them from rising up, and to turn them against the enemies of the State or Party, whoever those may happen to be at the time. Russia goes so far as to fund internet trolls to spam news and twitter and comments with Russian conspiracy theories and pro-Russia nonsense, to ensure that their propaganda extends even into cyberspace.

Have you noticed the similarities between them and your conservative media? The rest of the world has. You think the rest of the world is biased against you. The citizens of Russia think the rest of the world is biased against them. Everyone else in the world thinks you are both being manipulated.

You claim that the "average American doesn't trust the media." Conservative media is part of the media.

Have you considered the possibility that the world is right and you are wrong?

I have always presumed sides are lying through their teeth, but to propose I am categorically wrong and the world is categorically right is a rather impossible, as the world does not agree with itself. The world is also kind of fucked up at the moment. Furthermore everything you're accusing state-run media of doing, line by line, I can think of an example of "non-conservative" media doing the same, old analogue broadcasts included. I mean, even this forum was incredulous over the CNBC debate. So with the latest press drive being "Trump is Hitler", and the quote in question being an agreement to a rather nonspecific "that" after giving his usual wall spiel, why should I trust the media? Any media? Anything? That 'conservative' sources are joining in the Hitler chorus is unsurprising; there are primary candidates flailing for purchase and an establishment willing to do anything to keep the Presidency inside the club. Understand me, I don't like Trump. But to say I'm wrong and the world is right and Trump is reading from some secret Nazi playbook is to say these paranoid delusions and gotcha-question journalistic bullshit are an acceptable standard for the press. Anne frankly I don't think that's reich.

[RedKing]

You're still missing the point. This furor (and my comment) wasn't about his immigration banter, it was about his notion of forcing all Muslims in the US (including US citizens) to be listed in some kind of government registry. Germany and the NSDP had a very similar registration requirement for Jews in 1938.

This isn't vague "I don't like Trump, therefore he's Hitler" ad hominem, this is a specific comparison of a policy that was enacted and a policy that Trump has espoused support for.

[Shazbot]

I've seen the question and answer session in question and the only way you can draw that conclusion is confirming one's own biases. It was literally a screwball question thrown in the signature line after a speech by a faux fan (who happens to be a Hillary backer and former Talking Points Memo writer). Trump redirects to his border control wall spiel, and when asked if he would implement "that", agrees. Presto chango, "that" means armbands and concentration camps. CNN even selectively edits the tape to remove his words about building a wall, so "that" is clearly the registry suggested by the operative.

How do you not see this as bullshit?