14 hours ago, Zarovichx said:

Couple things....Nazi is short for National Socialist. Socialism isn't a right ideology, its on the left.

Second thing... fascism is a left ideology and all fascist regimes in the history of our world have been on the left.

If Trump was a fascist, the liberal media wouldn't exist today. They would of been sleeping with the fishes a few years ago.

Good lord, I honestly didn't realise there were people this thick anywhere near these boards.

The Nazis used the word 'Socialist' the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea uses the word Democratic. I.e, it's total bull****.

It's a sham. An image. Fascism is, by every shred of cogent political thought and definition, the dangerous extremity of the right wing. The Nazis used the term Socialist as a brazen attempt to appeal to the disenfranchised working class of debt crippled Weimar Germany. There was nothing socialist about them.

I'm honestly staggered at how poorly educated you are. The 20th century wars and interbellum period are, like, the easiest parts of human history to study and comprehend. They're incredibly well documented, and for the most part astonishingly black and white.

uh, i started this by saying Trump 2020

1 minute ago, GuacCousteau said:

Good lord, I honestly didn't realise there were people this thick anywhere near these boards.

The Nazis used the word 'Socialist' the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea uses the word Democratic. I.e, it's total bull****.

It's a sham. An image. Fascism is, by every shred of cogent political thought and definition, the dangerous extremity of the right wing. The Nazis used the term Socialist as a brazen attempt to appeal to the disenfranchised working class of debt crippled Weimar Germany. There was nothing socialist about them.

I'm honestly staggered at how poorly educated you are. The 20th century wars and interbellum period are, like, the easiest parts of human history to study and comprehend. They're incredibly well documented, and for the most part astonishingly black and white.

Why do people call Nazi's far-right? Is that because we're all bigots , or am i misinformed?

21 minutes ago, ImperialYeet said:

uh, i started this by saying Trump 2020

Why do people call Nazi's far-right? Is that because we're all bigots , or am i misinformed?

Oh it’s because you're grossly misinformed.

Far right politics is often leads to oppression of various groups, racial supremacists, and all out genocide. These are ALL things the nazis did. Nazis are the quintessential poster children of far right politics and where it can lead.

Sorry to burst your bubble... The left has been the party of racism in America for a very long time. Examples include, Civil War slave owners, Jim Crow, Klu Klux Clan, Dixiecrats etc.

We even see it today, the left will always be the first to throw the race card or label someone that disagrees with them. They are a Marxist party pretending to be a party of unity.

23 minutes ago, Zarovichx said:

Sorry to burst your bubble... The left has been the party of racism in America for a very long time. Examples include, Civil War slave owners, Jim Crow, Klu Klux Clan, Dixiecrats etc.

We even see it today, the left will always be the first to throw the race card or label someone that disagrees with them. They are a Marxist party pretending to be a party of unity.

Preach!

1 hour ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

Oh it’s because you're grossly misinformed.

Far right politics is often leads to oppression of various groups, racial supremacists, and all out genocide. These are ALL things the nazis did. Nazis are the quintessential poster children of far right politics and where it can lead.

Anything to back it up?

He has nothing to back it up. The Nazis party thought race was one of the most important, defining characteristics of an individual. The left here in America believes the same thing.

19 minutes ago, Zarovichx said:

He has nothing to back it up. The Nazis party thought race was one of the most important, defining characteristics of an individual. The left here in America believes the same thing.

True, and to Reps race means nothing, which is probably why the call us racist(Not calling u a Rep,but...)

Oh my goodness this is like watching my parents talk politics. Lots of methane huffing with these two.

13 minutes ago, KCDodger said:

Oh my goodness this is like watching my parents talk politics. Lots of methane huffing with these two.

These two......?

I may regret posting this, but this is important. It is about people's lives.

Fascism (and I'm not NECESSARILY saying Trump is a fascist, but rather responding to points made about fascism) is not a far left ideology. It is the epitome of far right ideology.

Fascism has the opportunity to arise when there is general unhappiness with the material conditions in a given country, and that unhappiness is explained via a scapegoat. It could theoretically be any group, but historically the scapegoated (is that a word?) groups are usually along lines of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Notice that these are some of the more prevalent forms of discrimination in non-fascist societies as well. Fascism always utilizes pre-existing material conditions and stigmas in order to gain power.

Now, the natural response to unrest, particularly economic unrest, is a turn towards collectivism, and thus to various forms of socialism. And people know that. So fascism takes that unrest and turn towards socialism, and masquerades as a leftist movement.

In reality though, it is as far from leftist as one can get.

Fascism separates people into an "us" and a "them", though who is in each group will differ from society to society.

The confusion, whether in good faith or bad, comes from the idea that the modern left also categorizes people, often along the same lines. This, however, misrepresents the arguments being made. If a group has been historically discriminated against (for the sake of example let us say African Americans), then achieving legal equality won't result in societal equality (although it is a good step). Let's look at economics. If ones parents are rich, you will be much more likely able to go to a good college, not have to work during your schooling age, thus be able to get a better education, a better job, pay off your student loans faster, etc. And all of this is in a country where active discrimination is illegal. So legality is not enough.

So, in order to allow marginalized or historically marginalized groups to be on equal footing, they need to be given a perceived advantage. Thus comes one aspect of "identity politics". It is about observing what groups are marginalized, and working towards true equality given our recognition of societal biases.

That was a long post. I may or may not regret it, we'll see. Anyway, here are some sources/further reading:

So You Want to Talk About Race, Ijeoma Oluo (great introductory book to modern anti-racism, both in regards to praxis and theory)

Ur-Fascism, Umberto Eco (stellar essay about the roots of fascism, written by someone who experienced Musolini's Italy firsthand. It is only a few pages long and available as a free pdf online. Honestly I think it should be required reading for the modern society)

Edit: honestly there is a lot more I could and maybe should go into, but if this post gets much longer no one will read it lol.

Boy this is entertaining. I'll keep my views private for now but this is fun to read for various reasons.

Oh gosh please let this thread die fast. This is such a strange place to have this conversation. No matter how hilariously entertaining this is, take it somewhere else please. We're here to talk about one of the greatest tabletop games, not politics

On 11/9/2020 at 9:07 PM, KCDodger said:

Sometimes, we agree. I'm extremely glad our agreement is through the things that truly matter....

To be fair I think we've only ever really disagreed about one one topic in particular. It just happens to be a topic very prevalent on this forum.

Actual, important, real life events? That's different.

1 hour ago, Npmartian said:

Boy this is entertaining...

That word you are using. I do not think it means what you think it means. It's pretty terrifying just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

3 hours ago, bllaw said:

Oh gosh please let this thread die fast. This is such a strange place to have this conversation. No matter how hilariously entertaining this is, take it somewhere else please. We're here to talk about one of the greatest tabletop games, not politics

Never, this post will last FOREVER!!!! *Evil crackle*

5 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

To be fair I think we've only ever really disagreed about one one topic in particular. It just happens to be a topic very prevalent on this forum.

Actual, important, real life events? That's different.

I can clearly see you're not a bad person. FTS after this, I'm willing to set aside any and all past differences. Truce?

17 hours ago, gryffindorhouse said:

I may regret posting this, but this is important. It is about people's lives.

Fascism (and I'm not NECESSARILY saying Trump is a fascist, but rather responding to points made about fascism) is not a far left ideology. It is the epitome of far right ideology.

Fascism has the opportunity to arise when there is general unhappiness with the material conditions in a given country, and that unhappiness is explained via a scapegoat. It could theoretically be any group, but historically the scapegoated (is that a word?) groups are usually along lines of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Notice that these are some of the more prevalent forms of discrimination in non-fascist societies as well. Fascism always utilizes pre-existing material conditions and stigmas in order to gain power.

Now, the natural response to unrest, particularly economic unrest, is a turn towards collectivism, and thus to various forms of socialism. And people know that. So fascism takes that unrest and turn towards socialism, and masquerades as a leftist movement.

In reality though, it is as far from leftist as one can get.

Fascism separates people into an "us" and a "them", though who is in each group will differ from society to society.

The confusion, whether in good faith or bad, comes from the idea that the modern left also categorizes people, often along the same lines. This, however, misrepresents the arguments being made. If a group has been historically discriminated against (for the sake of example let us say African Americans), then achieving legal equality won't result in societal equality (although it is a good step). Let's look at economics. If ones parents are rich, you will be much more likely able to go to a good college, not have to work during your schooling age, thus be able to get a better education, a better job, pay off your student loans faster, etc. And all of this is in a country where active discrimination is illegal. So legality is not enough.

So, in order to allow marginalized or historically marginalized groups to be on equal footing, they need to be given a perceived advantage. Thus comes one aspect of "identity politics". It is about observing what groups are marginalized, and working towards true equality given our recognition of societal biases.

That was a long post. I may or may not regret it, we'll see. Anyway, here are some sources/further reading:

So You Want to Talk About Race, Ijeoma Oluo (great introductory book to modern anti-racism, both in regards to praxis and theory)

Ur-Fascism, Umberto Eco (stellar essay about the roots of fascism, written by someone who experienced Musolini's Italy firsthand. It is only a few pages long and available as a free pdf online. Honestly I think it should be required reading for the modern society)

Edit: honestly there is a lot more I could and maybe should go into, but if this post gets much longer no one will read it lol.

Yeah, us America and them world. I'm not saying they are lesser(them), but that just sounds like patriotism. And dude, the KKK,and the confederates were Democrats...... (Which is racists, not facists((Lets face it))) https://www.prageru.com/video/the-inconvenient-truth-about-the-democratic-party/

15 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

That word you are using. I do not think it means what you think it means. It's pretty terrifying just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Well, to be completely honest it does worry me how wrong some people here seem to be from my perspective. I'm just trying to not explicitly take a side in this because I know if I get pulled into it I'll never escape (and probably end up looking like an idiot along the way).

18 minutes ago, Npmartian said:

Well, to be completely honest it does worry me how wrong some people here seem to be from my perspective. I'm just trying to not explicitly take a side in this because I know if I get pulled into it I'll never escape (and probably end up looking like an idiot along the way).

Your perspective is welcome, challenging one's beliefs makes them stronger.

1 hour ago, ImperialYeet said:

Your perspective is welcome, challenging one's beliefs makes them stronger.

I'm aware it would be welcome, I just don't feel like discussing politics.

53 minutes ago, Npmartian said:

I'm aware it would be welcome, I just don't feel like discussing politics.

I'll play nice.

22 hours ago, gryffindorhouse said:

I may regret posting this, but this is important. It is about people's lives.

Fascism (and I'm not NECESSARILY saying Trump is a fascist, but rather responding to points made about fascism) is not a far left ideology. It is the epitome of far right ideology.

Fascism has the opportunity to arise when there is general unhappiness with the material conditions in a given country, and that unhappiness is explained via a scapegoat. It could theoretically be any group, but historically the scapegoated (is that a word?) groups are usually along lines of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. Notice that these are some of the more prevalent forms of discrimination in non-fascist societies as well. Fascism always utilizes pre-existing material conditions and stigmas in order to gain power.

Now, the natural response to unrest, particularly economic unrest, is a turn towards collectivism, and thus to various forms of socialism. And people know that. So fascism takes that unrest and turn towards socialism, and masquerades as a leftist movement.

In reality though, it is as far from leftist as one can get.

Fascism separates people into an "us" and a "them", though who is in each group will differ from society to society.

The confusion, whether in good faith or bad, comes from the idea that the modern left also categorizes people, often along the same lines. This, however, misrepresents the arguments being made. If a group has been historically discriminated against (for the sake of example let us say African Americans), then achieving legal equality won't result in societal equality (although it is a good step). Let's look at economics. If ones parents are rich, you will be much more likely able to go to a good college, not have to work during your schooling age, thus be able to get a better education, a better job, pay off your student loans faster, etc. And all of this is in a country where active discrimination is illegal. So legality is not enough.

So, in order to allow marginalized or historically marginalized groups to be on equal footing, they need to be given a perceived advantage. Thus comes one aspect of "identity politics". It is about observing what groups are marginalized, and working towards true equality given our recognition of societal biases.

That was a long post. I may or may not regret it, we'll see. Anyway, here are some sources/further reading:

So You Want to Talk About Race, Ijeoma Oluo (great introductory book to modern anti-racism, both in regards to praxis and theory)

Ur-Fascism, Umberto Eco (stellar essay about the roots of fascism, written by someone who experienced Musolini's Italy firsthand. It is only a few pages long and available as a free pdf online. Honestly I think it should be required reading for the modern society)

Edit: honestly there is a lot more I could and maybe should go into, but if this post gets much longer no one will read it lol.

Equity over Equality in effect. The issue with Equity is that it requires supreme governmental oversight and over reach to work properly and to put everyone at a baseline destroys both the advantaged and disadvantaged for different reasons. If people are born into an equal footing why work hard through life to make things better for your children, the state will ensure they have what they need regardless. Presumably any wealth earned can't be inherited else generation over generation we just get back to where we are with disparity.

In a country like the US equity is won't work due to a myriad of cultural or regional clashes, someone always gets the short end. Even setting aside cultural differences you have people who like to be the victim, they'll find a reason why they are worse off than someone else and you have those who like to be superior. Those deviations will eventually recreate the imbalance unless quashed.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to try but it really would only reliably work in a monocultural nationalist ethnostate which people tend to frown upon. Reason being multicultural societies are by default more tribal and you'll have a **** of a time getting everyone on board to collectively improve everyone life instead of just their own. In small scale societies it works but in continent sprawling countries in won't.

Re: Fascism

It's the right wing version of totalitarianism and authoritarian governments. All equally bad but differing in the details. Calling Trump a Fascist is a scare tactic and dilutes the meaning.

On 11/8/2020 at 3:21 PM, FTS Gecko said:

Too many political leaders in the last few years (on both sides of the Atlantic) have run campaigns based on division and fear. The only way we're going to move forwards as national, international and global communities is through unity.

We shouldn't be putting up walls in this day and age, we should be taking them down.

But how can one 'unify' with a side, that for years have been calling those on your side evil, nazis, bigots, racists no matter WHO YOU ARE (such as when several liberals called black commentators, uncle toms just cause they were conservatives)? How can we really 'building bridges', with folks, who in some ways, Celebrated seeing antifa and blm attack trump supporters?

On 11/9/2020 at 9:46 AM, Jo Jo said:

Like the Democrats did for 4 years? Heck, Hillary Clinton said last week on the NY Times Podcast: “I was the candidate that they basically stole an election from,".

Bit Hypocritical to just say accept the results and shut up. As close as the election was in some states, it would almost be negligence to not look into some of the results. Will they find enough evidence of fraud or manipulation to swing a state or three back? No, probably not.

Not just that, but when they've practically been FIGHTING That election victory, with the faux impeachment based on a lie (the steel dossier), its kind of hypocritical for them to now demand WE STOP whining, and 'just accept it'.

As to the "negligence to not look into all these "Irregularities", i agree. WITH THE amount of affidavits, we've seen, alleging fraud, and wrong doings, i DO Feel it would be grossly negligent, to NOT INVESTIGATE them all..

On 11/10/2020 at 8:00 AM, Ebak said:

I\She lost the vote by electoral college, despite having the popular vote. Legally there is no grounds for her to say it was stolen, but I can understand the logic of "I had more votes, yet I lost, why is the system like that?" compared to Trump who has not conceded.

Because the founders, realized a TRUE democracy, is not the best way.. as that way leads to mob rule...

On 11/10/2020 at 8:37 AM, FTS Gecko said:

Finding that common ground isn't going to be easy, especially with the politics on both sides being so incredibly partisan. Trump tried his best to hurt, hinder or revoke his predecessor's policies. Biden has already announced he intends to immediately revoke some of Trump's. Even simple things - like Biden pleading with the American public to wear masks - are going to cause outrage and be used as ammunition.

We're facing near unprecedented economical, medical and social issues. We can't move forward as a society if we're split down the middle, and we're not going to change that by ignoring other's opinions or pretending they don't exist. There's a lot of healing to be done.

And when we've seen folks like AOC, flat out ask "WHERE are the lists of those who supported trump, so we can go after them", or others in the DNC (or their mouth pieces in the media), who have called for 'Truth and reconsiliation like committees", how can we 'heal the wounds', with folks who feel that way?

On 11/10/2020 at 10:23 AM, FTS Gecko said:

Sure, this is an Off-Topic discussion, but this is the Off-Topic forum 😉

I do find it surprising, this thread has not already gotten locked.

There's a # of forums i've been on over the years, who Flat out prohibit ANY TALKS about politics, even ones asking about politics in RELATION TO THE GAME WORLD (Such as are the planets in the inner sphere, under the house Davion, more of a socialist or democratic governorship." (From one of my battle tech sites). The mods let that thread exist for barely 2 days, before some of the posters, made things too "HEated" and it got locked.

Or from one of my Starwars d6 sites i remember someone posting that he was designing an out of the way star system, that was going to be a Matriarchal society. And was wondering, How would that sort of society do things different, than a patriarchal one. What would the imperials try to DO to that matriarchal society?"

It got deleted in less than 2 hrs after being posted, for "Violating the no politics rule"..

BOTH were not even OUT OF game talk, but talk about things IN GAME, but hit on politics. SO while this may be an off topic forum, is politics really something we want here? Especially since for all the folks know, there may be quite a few members, who are trump supporters, and seeing threads starting out like this did, couldn't it be seen that maybe those folk are not being seen as 'welcome here' now??

On 11/11/2020 at 9:01 AM, Zarovichx said:

We even see it today, the left will always be the first to throw the race card or label someone that disagrees with them. They are a Marxist party pretending to be a party of unity.

Even when the person the left is calling a racist, is BLACK or latino or asian....

19 hours ago, ImperialYeet said:

Never, this post will last FOREVER!!!! *Evil crackle*

MUAHAAHAHAHHHA.... (twirls mustasche!)

On 11/10/2020 at 5:13 AM, Ebak said:

Genuinely, thank you for posting this, this will offer an interesting perspective, not saying it will change my mind but it’s important to see different views.

Before you waste too much time, take a look at their "sources". Should show quickly how much bull they peddle as fact.

15 hours ago, LTuser said:

But how can one 'unify' with a side, that for years have been calling those on your side evil, nazis, bigots, racists no matter WHO YOU ARE (such as when several liberals called black commentators, uncle toms just cause they were conservatives)? How can we really 'building bridges', with folks, who in some ways, Celebrated seeing antifa and blm attack trump supporters?

The hypocrisy of this is mad.

You're angry about being lumped in with racists and bigots but accuse the whole other political "side" of doing this .

Like, surely if you don't like people assuming all Reps are nazis then you shouldn't assume all Dems are ANTIFA or BLM (even assuming those were in any way equivalent, which they most assuredly are not)? Would that not be the most basic *** for tat extension of the benefit of the doubt? The seed of the sort of unity Gecko is talking about?

You can't possibly make the case "some Reps are good so why are all the Dems mad about all of us".

Blaming the left for being the obstacle to national political bi-partisanship. ****ing hilarious, honestly.

15 hours ago, LTuser said:

And when we've seen folks like AOC, flat out ask "WHERE are the lists of those who supported trump, so we can go after them",

This is a gross misrepresentation of what AOC said and a classic case of intellectual dishonesty.

It wasn't about 'going after them' at all. It was to prepare for counterargument. What she was talking about is no different from holding a politician to account based on their voting record. It was simply a statement of "remember what these people are posting about now so that you can undercut their argument when they inevitably change their tune". It's effectively an anti gaslighting measure.

It's not, in any respect, persecution. And the victim complex possessed by all those who felt attacked by her comments is truly remarkable, given the vast amount of **** flung by the US government towards any voice of criticism over the last 4 years.