Print

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

[helmacon]

So, because this thread by nature will have a predisposition to uncivilized behavior there will be a few guidelines.

1. If a discussion becomes hostile/offencive as determined by either party, the discussion is immediately dropped.

2. By posting in this thread, you understand that people might not agree with you. The thread is entirely based around this idea. You agree to keep discussion civil.

3. By reading past this post, you understand that there is a possibility you will find ideas you find disagreeable/offencive. You agree to keep discussion civil.

Hopefully people on this forum are good enough that they won't need any more guidelines than this, but more may be added if necessary. If things do get out of control, I won't hesitate to lock this thread. (to be honest, I'm a little hesitant about opening it in the first place)

[\]

Now that thats out of the way, this thread if for any ideas or topics you want to talk about that may stretch the boundaries of "polite conversation". This could be anything from "consumerism is a positive force" to "I actualy like Trump" to "Imperialism was good for the world". This is also for people to openly discuss the merit (or lack thereof) of these ideas in a civil and constructive way.

Hopefully the discussion on this thread will allow us to better understand why each of us believe what we believe, and better understand why other people believe as they do as well. Stay respectful and courteous, and have fun!

[Loud Whispers]

Tbh all ideas are controversial

[helmacon]

I suppose I have an obligation to post the first idea, so here goes.

When people defend the hijab as an expression of culture, it is the same as people defending the confederate flag as a cultural symbol and I disagree with both.

edit: whoops, loud whispers got in a post before me. lol.

[Loud Whispers]

Also what we all consider our base standards of acceptability and controversy all vary immensely, hence why all ideas are ultimately controversial when dialogue is international.
An amusing thought, is the idea that all ideas are controversial, controversial?

If there's something you want to say that would fall within the rules, but you're worried about saying it because it's unpopular, well, don't be. Your opinions are yours, right or wrong, and they should matter to you more than those of random people on here who you'll never meet. If you want to open up a thread saying 'I like Trump' (though that would likely serve better as a post in Ameripol...) or 'Imperialism was great' or 'The hijab is analagous to the confederate flag', do it, and ignore the slings and arrows.

Aye, moreover you could easily make those example opinions on bay12 and people would argue with you in polite manner. With exception to tree puns, American elections and the gender helicopter arsenal, bay12 is proper tolerant of disagreements. It's where you'll find jolly cooperation between all peoples even when leaders are redrawing the new world order for a laff

[helmacon]

Seems a poor idea to me - we already have guidelines for what is allowed to be posted on the forum, and the makers of the more contentious threads (say, Ameripol, Europol, etc) do a good job staying within them without curtailing them significantly.

Basically, anything that anyone wanted to say but was unable to in other threads, probably wouldn't be permitted on the forum by Toady anyway.

If there's something you want to say that would fall within the rules, but you're worried about saying it because it's unpopular, well, don't be. Your opinions are yours, right or wrong, and they should matter to you more than those of random people on here who you'll never meet. If you want to open up a thread saying 'I like Trump' (though that would likely serve better as a post in Ameripol...) or 'Imperialism was great' or 'The hijab is analagous to the confederate flag', do it, and ignore the slings and arrows.

It's a fair point, but whereas the expression of ideas in those threads would be perfectly tolerated and perhaps discussed there alongside the other topics, this thread was created specifically for the discussion of disparate ideas. Think of this as an experiment in empathy and perspective.
While the action in this thread is the discussion of theses ideas, the purpose is to understand the basis for them. That is, to understand the way of thinking that creates the ideas, and the worldview of other groups that hold them.
Posting your own controversial ideas is not for your own benefit, but the benefit of others seeking to challenge thier own worldview. (thus, no post it elsewhere and suffer the slings and arrows)

Still, if enough people think this thread is unnecessary, I may shut the thread down anyways. It's just something I thought id try.

An amusing thought, is the idea that all ideas are controversial, controversial?

To argue against it only adds to its validity.



**To clarify, The three examples I put in the OP are only that. Examples.

[George_Chickens]

Huey Long did nothing wrong.

[Loud Whispers]

Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skulls

[George_Chickens]

Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skulls

We need Genghis Khan times a thousand, plus one.

[Starver]

[helmacon]

I see what you mean in terms of grouping them together and allowing people to challenge themselves. For me personally, it just seems a bit apropos to nothing. Like, I know my opinion about the Streamline dub of Laputa: Castle in the Sky being vastly superior to the Disney version is a very unpopular one, despite being indisputably objectively correct for all of time and infinity+1. But I can't see myself bringing it up unless we were already having a discussion elsewhere about dubbing or the film or something similar.

I am interested to see unpopular opinions what other people have, though, so I hope it goes well.

Well, thank you. I think the fact that we were able to start off with such a polite discussion of our disagreements bodes well for the stability of the thread.


This is getting silly rather quickly. Lets try to stay on topic please.


edit:
In general ignorance on the subject, what do people say Huey Long did wrong?

[Helgoland]

Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skulls

Well, Russia has been acting up lately... But I think there's better ways of dealing with that than going full Hitler on them.

My controversial idea:

We should split up Germany into several interlinked states. The German psyche is ill-suited to a powerful and semi-hegemonic country, our neighbors in Europe fear our power, and we are not living up to the responsibilities that come with it. My proposed New Little Germanies are:

- The Old Republic: North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, Hessia, the Saarland, and maybe the southern part of Lower Saxony join together in the spirit of the pre-1989 Republic. Bonn becomes its capital, and learning French in school will be mandatory.

- The New Hanseatic League: Lower Saxony (at least the costal parts), Hamburg, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern join together in a rough approximation of the Hanseatic League of old. Hamburg becomes its capital.

- The New East: Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, Thuringia, and Berlin join together in a truncated version of the GDR. Berlin becomes its capital, and the Trabant is put back into production.

- Bavaria: The current Bavaria, with Munich still as its capital. Seehofer rules surpreme as its emperor, and the New East starts supplying weapons to Franconian rebels longing for independence. The régime is propped up by Austria. The UN looks on, powerless to stop the many atrocities, and slowly the conflict warps into a religious one, pitting Protestant rebels against Catholic loyalists. The rest of Germany takes it as the final indicator that it was a good idea to get rid of the fucking Bavarians.

[misko27]

Seems a poor idea to me - we already have guidelines for what is allowed to be posted on the forum, and the makers of the more contentious threads (say, Ameripol, Europol, etc) do a good job staying within them without curtailing them significantly.

So would you call the idea of this thread unpopular, or controversial?

My controversial idea:

We should split up Germany into several interlinked states. The German psyche is ill-suited to a powerful and semi-hegemonic country, our neighbors in Europe fear our power, and we are not living up to the responsibilities that come with it.

I say this should have been done after WW1. You know what Machiavelli would say: there's no point to humiliating someone you've defeated. You either leave them be or destroy them utterly. Anything else is a half-measure and will invite revenge-seekers.

[Loud Whispers]

Well, Russia has been acting up lately... But I think there's better ways of dealing with that than going full Hitler on them.

Nah, the Finngolian Empire would not stop at Russia

My controversial idea:
We should split up Germany into several interlinked states. The German psyche is ill-suited to a powerful and semi-hegemonic country, our neighbors in Europe fear our power, and we are not living up to the responsibilities that come with it. My proposed New Little Germanies are:
- The Old Republic: North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, Hessia, the Saarland, and maybe the southern part of Lower Saxony join together in the spirit of the pre-1989 Republic. Bonn becomes its capital, and learning French in school will be mandatory.
- The New Hanseatic League: Lower Saxony (at least the costal parts), Hamburg, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern join together in a rough approximation of the Hanseatic League of old. Hamburg becomes its capital.
- The New East: Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, Thuringia, and Berlin join together in a truncated version of the GDR. Berlin becomes its capital, and the Trabant is put back into production.
- Bavaria: The current Bavaria, with Munich still as its capital. Seehofer rules surpreme as its emperor, and the New East starts supplying weapons to Franconian rebels longing for independence. The régime is propped up by Austria. The UN looks on, powerless to stop the many atrocities, and slowly the conflict warps into a religious one, pitting Protestant rebels against Catholic loyalists. The rest of Germany takes it as the final indicator that it was a good idea to get rid of the fucking Bavarians.

Protestants and catholics but tfw no caliphate? I think you're neglecting the might of neo-umayyads in a Germania devoid of Charlemagnes. Likewise, it is preferable to fix the broken psyche than break the body to fit the unstable mind, for these broken states would naturally still be led by broken psyche. Also Hannover, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is rightful English clay

[Helgoland]

The psyche ain't broken, it's just too small for such a big country. And changing borders is easier that changing how people think - two world wars and three different systems of government haven't managed, so we probably won't either.

[redwallzyl]

Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skulls

No no no no. Timur. Though be wary if you try to dig up his corpse; it didn't go well the last time. He was exhumed the 19th of June, 1941, and re-buried in the middle of November, 1942. I'll quote the Wikipedia article here:

It is alleged that Timur's tomb was inscribed with the words, "When I rise from the dead, the world shall tremble." It is also said that when Gerasimov exhumed the body, an additional inscription inside the casket was found, which read, "Whomsoever opens my tomb shall unleash an invader more terrible than I."

didn't Timur basically kill 5% of the entire worlds population at the time? i wonder what % Genghis killed.