|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 22 2026 08:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 22 2026 07:37 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 07:01 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 06:17 Vivax wrote:On March 22 2026 06:05 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this. Oh absolutely, I’d be very surprised if that didn’t occur Kirk wasn't investigating Trumps Russian connections that he suspected he was blocking from being investigated, he was publically verbally attacking minorities and got shot by a dude who was friends with a trans. It's a bit too much as a reaction but it's the US. Since it can't be fined in the US, a bit of arson might have been enough. You want to set Charlie Kirk on fire instead of shooting him, or like burn down his house or something? I’m not sure what a bit of arson means in a context of Kirk’s speech. Moreover the cross-section of people cheering, excusing, or simply silent r.e. Kirk now want to be very mad that Trunp said he was glad someone who he actually interacted with is dead. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Even worse imo since Kirk was assassinated but Mueller was not. Now obviously Trump shouldn't say that even if he feels it. What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from. Isn't the outrage directed towards Trump when he says stuff like this pretty much universal among like, every single person who isn't a complete piece of shit? Also, how is what he said about Rob Reiner 'way worse'? The guy said 'Good, I’m glad he’s dead', I really struggle seeing how it gets 'much worse' than that. I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. Presumably, there's not even going to be another election where you're forced to choose between your political opinions and your morality anyway - you can say "Trump is vile disgusting man. Petty and pathetic, you are a hypocrite who reeks of weakness and insecurities with no moral core. Regardless of the politics, the American people should be embarrassed and ashamed for ever having entrusted you with leadership" or “When you die, Americans, and people around the world, will dance in the streets for weeks because you’re a low, degenerate, criminal fraud who left a full stain on the presidency.” or “What a sick human being. A permanent disfiguring scar on the dignity of our nation.” without really losing face or whatever, but instead you insist on trying to be like 'meh no biggie'. See my follow up reply. Or even the reply I gave to you the other day. I've said Trump is a terrible person a million times but I'd prefer if the conversation didn’t just stop there. Unfortunately that's where it seems like people want to dwell. It gets hard to discuss things worth discussing, like Iran, ICE enforcement, trade, or anything else. If every conversation has to come back to "Tump is a bad man" then we probably aren’t getting anywhere. Heck Trump himself said something like "Kirk loved his enemies, I hate my enemies." So I don't see where I've sold my soul since evey time I'm asked I say he's a bad person. People are using as a way to avoid talking about other things. Edit: my recollection is that Trunp blamed Reiner's murder on TDS. I think that's worse, especially since A) Riener was murdered, didn't just die B) Mueller did go on a months long witch hunt against Trump so was in some sense "an enemy" in a way that a Democrat film director wasn't.
Your posts are strange because it is like you think there is distance between Trump and the Republican party and totally missed where he purged everyone he could that disagreed with him and now it's like 95+% Trump. They are not a serious party anymore, just tripping over themselves to agree with him. If you are voting Republican you are supporting Trump and his agenda, which amounts to enriching himself.
|
On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. I was with you on adopting an arguable position until you went here. Are you sure that you're not throwing in with the crowd that "argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs?" To quote you.
I'm reading (1) both statements are bad and indefensible (2) the Rob Reiner statement was worse as a matter of degree and (3) it was somebody else on the same page that explicitly compared it to Charlie Kirk and people who won't be mad at this.
So how am I supposed to read this other than you're taking for granted that the disagreements on Trump comments/Kirk comments are only undertaken by somebody that has already sold their soul, and now you're playing the part of the condescending radical just bemused at why it was done? I'm trying to find the path here that you're not just another bad faith person trying to portray nuance as Faustian. It sounded like you believed that it was negative arguing away from the point and towards the person's entire posting history, but here you are standing as its exemplar as best I can tell.
|
Norway28778 Posts
On March 22 2026 07:52 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 02:30 dyhb wrote:On March 21 2026 18:49 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded? https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-publicHitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews. Deeper into the war his rhetoric shifter towards total destruction of the jewery in Europe, language vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent. I mean, It's pretty obvious, do you think german citizens would vote in a guy that from day one ran a campaing on mass murder of every single jew? That would be a big misconception of how things like the holocaust happen On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:37 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, they literally wrote a book about doing it and it's not like Kristallnacht was secret either. If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war? Most people didn't know, sure, the ones that read mein kampf, the ones that paid close attention and were smart enough knew, and many fled. The soviets did the same thing, Stalin publicly promised "the elimination of the kulak class" and everybody cheered, most didn't know they were going to get killed. You'll note how the original question, the replied and bolded "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews ... yet they did in secret" was summarily dropped. The goalposts moved to, "Was there any violence" and "Let's count emigration" and "Was there violent antisemitism." So you can tell broad agreement with the claim by how quickly it was silently accepted and changed. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum online resources are right about it, for those that clicked your link. The lies were to conceal what they were doing, and not totally ineffective because they had told everyone exactly what they planned to do from the start. You get fuzzy later, since forced transfer or children/prevention of births can be considered "genocide." It's not just about murdering an ethnic/religious minority. Are you talking about my post here? I didn't think there would be pushback saying that Nazis were intent on exterminating all the Jews. That kind of blindsided me to be honest.
Eh, there's a timeline here. Nazis are not talking about exterminating jews before 1939. Even in 1940 they're seemingly more about forcibly relocating the jews to Madagascar than about extermination. Hitler does, in Mein Kampf, mention that gassing some thousands of jews could have made the sacrifice of millions (during WW1) not be in vain, but as a whole, Mein Kampf doesn't include any plans for genocide (understood as killing, not as expulsion) - and while there's obviously no question that his antisemitic attitudes were genuine and dangerous for Jews - the actual extermination rather than expulsion and various other forms of heinous discrimination and mistreatment - is at the earliest mentioned in early 1939.
Now baal is clearly wrong to have said 'millions' of jews in germany because only 200000 remained at the start of ww2 and there were never more than 600000 but the overarching point that the holocaust wasn't something Hitler campaigned on is correct.
From 1941-42 onward, it's explicitly stated that this is a goal of theirs.
|
On March 22 2026 08:20 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:09 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 22 2026 07:37 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 07:01 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 06:17 Vivax wrote:On March 22 2026 06:05 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this. Oh absolutely, I’d be very surprised if that didn’t occur Kirk wasn't investigating Trumps Russian connections that he suspected he was blocking from being investigated, he was publically verbally attacking minorities and got shot by a dude who was friends with a trans. It's a bit too much as a reaction but it's the US. Since it can't be fined in the US, a bit of arson might have been enough. You want to set Charlie Kirk on fire instead of shooting him, or like burn down his house or something? I’m not sure what a bit of arson means in a context of Kirk’s speech. Moreover the cross-section of people cheering, excusing, or simply silent r.e. Kirk now want to be very mad that Trunp said he was glad someone who he actually interacted with is dead. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Even worse imo since Kirk was assassinated but Mueller was not. Now obviously Trump shouldn't say that even if he feels it. What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from. Isn't the outrage directed towards Trump when he says stuff like this pretty much universal among like, every single person who isn't a complete piece of shit? Also, how is what he said about Rob Reiner 'way worse'? The guy said 'Good, I’m glad he’s dead', I really struggle seeing how it gets 'much worse' than that. I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. Presumably, there's not even going to be another election where you're forced to choose between your political opinions and your morality anyway - you can say "Trump is vile disgusting man. Petty and pathetic, you are a hypocrite who reeks of weakness and insecurities with no moral core. Regardless of the politics, the American people should be embarrassed and ashamed for ever having entrusted you with leadership" or “When you die, Americans, and people around the world, will dance in the streets for weeks because you’re a low, degenerate, criminal fraud who left a full stain on the presidency.” or “What a sick human being. A permanent disfiguring scar on the dignity of our nation.” without really losing face or whatever, but instead you insist on trying to be like 'meh no biggie'. See my follow up reply. Or even the reply I gave to you the other day. I've said Trump is a terrible person a million times but I'd prefer if the conversation didn’t just stop there. Unfortunately that's where it seems like people want to dwell. It gets hard to discuss things worth discussing, like Iran, ICE enforcement, trade, or anything else. If every conversation has to come back to "Tump is a bad man" then we probably aren’t getting anywhere. Heck Trump himself said something like "Kirk loved his enemies, I hate my enemies." So I don't see where I've sold my soul since evey time I'm asked I say he's a bad person. People are using as a way to avoid talking about other things. Edit: my recollection is that Trunp blamed Reiner's murder on TDS. I think that's worse, especially since A) Riener was murdered, didn't just die B) Mueller did go on a months long witch hunt against Trump so was in some sense "an enemy" in a way that a Democrat film director wasn't. Your posts are strange because it is like you think there is distance between Trump and the Republican party and totally missed where he purged everyone he could that disagreed with him and now it's like 95+% Trump. They are not a serious party anymore, just tripping over themselves to agree with him. If you are voting Republican you are supporting Trump and his agenda, which amounts to enriching himself.
No, my belief is that the morality of a person does not have much influence on whether a given policy is good or bad or if the implementation is good or bad. Having poltical leaders who are, or at least try to act good or bad matters, but if Democrats elected Che president and he removed tarriffs that wouldn't make tarriffs good or bad.
|
Norway28778 Posts
On March 22 2026 08:20 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. I was with you on adopting an arguable position until you went here. Are you sure that you're not throwing in with the crowd that "argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs?" To quote you. I'm reading (1) both statements are bad and indefensible (2) the Rob Reiner statement was worse as a matter of degree and (3) it was somebody else on the same page that explicitly compared it to Charlie Kirk and people who won't be mad at this. So how am I supposed to read this other than you're taking for granted that the disagreements on Trump comments/Kirk comments are only undertaken by somebody that has already sold their soul, and now you're playing the part of the condescending radical just bemused at why it was done? I'm trying to find the path here that you're not just another bad faith person trying to portray nuance as Faustian. It sounded like you believed that it was negative arguing away from the point and towards the person's entire posting history, but here you are standing as its exemplar as best I can tell.
Introvert literally states 'What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from.' Note 'way' worse, and 'outrage is a bit much'.
I happened to agree that cheering for Kirk's murder was fucked, but the idea that 'well, some people cheered for Kirk being killed so I don't get why people are outraged that the president says 'he's happy this guy is dead'. That there's an element of 'posting history involved' - sure, I can get by that, but this is because this post is another part of that posting history - where introvert isn't able to criticize Trump without some type of addendum to lessen the criticism, in the sense that he needs to justify the continued association with a republican party which does not entirely think Trump is a dumpster fire of a human being, because 'the other side is just as bad'.
|
On March 22 2026 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:20 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. I was with you on adopting an arguable position until you went here. Are you sure that you're not throwing in with the crowd that "argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs?" To quote you. I'm reading (1) both statements are bad and indefensible (2) the Rob Reiner statement was worse as a matter of degree and (3) it was somebody else on the same page that explicitly compared it to Charlie Kirk and people who won't be mad at this. So how am I supposed to read this other than you're taking for granted that the disagreements on Trump comments/Kirk comments are only undertaken by somebody that has already sold their soul, and now you're playing the part of the condescending radical just bemused at why it was done? I'm trying to find the path here that you're not just another bad faith person trying to portray nuance as Faustian. It sounded like you believed that it was negative arguing away from the point and towards the person's entire posting history, but here you are standing as its exemplar as best I can tell. Introvert literally states 'What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from.' Note 'way' worse, and 'outrage is a bit much'. I happened to agree that cheering for Kirk's murder was fucked, but the idea that 'well, some people cheered for Kirk being killed so I don't get why people are outraged that the president says 'he's happy this guy is dead'. That there's an element of 'posting history involved' - sure, I can get by that, but this is because this post is another part of that posting history - where introvert isn't able to criticize Trump without some type of addendum to lessen the criticism, in the sense that he needs to justify the continued association with a republican party which does not entirely think Trump is a dumpster fire of a human being, because 'the other side is just as bad'.
Because I've come to learn that merely denouncing Trump and leaving it there is completely useless. And because most things nowadays in some apprently must involve Trump...therefore it is important to point out that when people are spinning themselves up over the last Trump thing they maybe should be reminded of how they approached a similar, though granted not identical, occasion previously. If we really are trying to hold on to some standards here then they have to be as universal as we can make them. People get mad at me for "but Democrats" when this thread is filled the brim of "but Trump." I am one person, posting a few times a month.
I'll be blunt. What people want is for me to make them feel better. They want me to say "I'm a conservative but Trump is bad, therefore eveything he does or says is the worst thing ever." I am not going to do that. And yeah, maybe you wouldn't say it is what you want, but it's the only remaining explanation for your colleagues at least.
|
On March 22 2026 08:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:20 Billyboy wrote:On March 22 2026 08:09 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 22 2026 07:37 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 07:01 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 06:17 Vivax wrote:On March 22 2026 06:05 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this. Oh absolutely, I’d be very surprised if that didn’t occur Kirk wasn't investigating Trumps Russian connections that he suspected he was blocking from being investigated, he was publically verbally attacking minorities and got shot by a dude who was friends with a trans. It's a bit too much as a reaction but it's the US. Since it can't be fined in the US, a bit of arson might have been enough. You want to set Charlie Kirk on fire instead of shooting him, or like burn down his house or something? I’m not sure what a bit of arson means in a context of Kirk’s speech. Moreover the cross-section of people cheering, excusing, or simply silent r.e. Kirk now want to be very mad that Trunp said he was glad someone who he actually interacted with is dead. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Even worse imo since Kirk was assassinated but Mueller was not. Now obviously Trump shouldn't say that even if he feels it. What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from. Isn't the outrage directed towards Trump when he says stuff like this pretty much universal among like, every single person who isn't a complete piece of shit? Also, how is what he said about Rob Reiner 'way worse'? The guy said 'Good, I’m glad he’s dead', I really struggle seeing how it gets 'much worse' than that. I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. Presumably, there's not even going to be another election where you're forced to choose between your political opinions and your morality anyway - you can say "Trump is vile disgusting man. Petty and pathetic, you are a hypocrite who reeks of weakness and insecurities with no moral core. Regardless of the politics, the American people should be embarrassed and ashamed for ever having entrusted you with leadership" or “When you die, Americans, and people around the world, will dance in the streets for weeks because you’re a low, degenerate, criminal fraud who left a full stain on the presidency.” or “What a sick human being. A permanent disfiguring scar on the dignity of our nation.” without really losing face or whatever, but instead you insist on trying to be like 'meh no biggie'. See my follow up reply. Or even the reply I gave to you the other day. I've said Trump is a terrible person a million times but I'd prefer if the conversation didn’t just stop there. Unfortunately that's where it seems like people want to dwell. It gets hard to discuss things worth discussing, like Iran, ICE enforcement, trade, or anything else. If every conversation has to come back to "Tump is a bad man" then we probably aren’t getting anywhere. Heck Trump himself said something like "Kirk loved his enemies, I hate my enemies." So I don't see where I've sold my soul since evey time I'm asked I say he's a bad person. People are using as a way to avoid talking about other things. Edit: my recollection is that Trunp blamed Reiner's murder on TDS. I think that's worse, especially since A) Riener was murdered, didn't just die B) Mueller did go on a months long witch hunt against Trump so was in some sense "an enemy" in a way that a Democrat film director wasn't. Your posts are strange because it is like you think there is distance between Trump and the Republican party and totally missed where he purged everyone he could that disagreed with him and now it's like 95+% Trump. They are not a serious party anymore, just tripping over themselves to agree with him. If you are voting Republican you are supporting Trump and his agenda, which amounts to enriching himself. No, my belief is that the morality of a person does not have much influence on whether a given policy is good or bad or if the implementation is good or bad. Having poltical leaders who are, or at least try to act good or bad matters, but if Democrats elected Che president and he removed tarriffs that wouldn't make tarriffs good or bad.
And plunging the US into massive debt, ruining trade, wrecking alliances, losing trust with the world and starting an extremely expensive war that is bringing about a financial crisis make its worth all his moral failings? Which include making himself and his family ultra rich at the expense of the tax payer?
|
On March 22 2026 08:40 Introvert wrote:
I'll be blunt. What people want is for me to make them feel better. They want me to say "I'm a conservative but Trump is bad, therefore eveything he does or says is the worst thing ever." I am not going to do that. And yeah, maybe you wouldn't say it is what you want, but it's the only remaining explanation for your colleagues at least.
We're pointing out Republican hypocrisy in general because our belief is Republicans have no real convictions, just hatred and tribalism. Nobody is asking you to do anything about it, you decided to participate in the conversation to explain that you have no defense for the blatant hypocrisy either.
|
On March 22 2026 08:44 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:26 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 08:20 Billyboy wrote:On March 22 2026 08:09 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 22 2026 07:37 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 07:01 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 06:17 Vivax wrote:On March 22 2026 06:05 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this. Oh absolutely, I’d be very surprised if that didn’t occur Kirk wasn't investigating Trumps Russian connections that he suspected he was blocking from being investigated, he was publically verbally attacking minorities and got shot by a dude who was friends with a trans. It's a bit too much as a reaction but it's the US. Since it can't be fined in the US, a bit of arson might have been enough. You want to set Charlie Kirk on fire instead of shooting him, or like burn down his house or something? I’m not sure what a bit of arson means in a context of Kirk’s speech. Moreover the cross-section of people cheering, excusing, or simply silent r.e. Kirk now want to be very mad that Trunp said he was glad someone who he actually interacted with is dead. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Even worse imo since Kirk was assassinated but Mueller was not. Now obviously Trump shouldn't say that even if he feels it. What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from. Isn't the outrage directed towards Trump when he says stuff like this pretty much universal among like, every single person who isn't a complete piece of shit? Also, how is what he said about Rob Reiner 'way worse'? The guy said 'Good, I’m glad he’s dead', I really struggle seeing how it gets 'much worse' than that. I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. Presumably, there's not even going to be another election where you're forced to choose between your political opinions and your morality anyway - you can say "Trump is vile disgusting man. Petty and pathetic, you are a hypocrite who reeks of weakness and insecurities with no moral core. Regardless of the politics, the American people should be embarrassed and ashamed for ever having entrusted you with leadership" or “When you die, Americans, and people around the world, will dance in the streets for weeks because you’re a low, degenerate, criminal fraud who left a full stain on the presidency.” or “What a sick human being. A permanent disfiguring scar on the dignity of our nation.” without really losing face or whatever, but instead you insist on trying to be like 'meh no biggie'. See my follow up reply. Or even the reply I gave to you the other day. I've said Trump is a terrible person a million times but I'd prefer if the conversation didn’t just stop there. Unfortunately that's where it seems like people want to dwell. It gets hard to discuss things worth discussing, like Iran, ICE enforcement, trade, or anything else. If every conversation has to come back to "Tump is a bad man" then we probably aren’t getting anywhere. Heck Trump himself said something like "Kirk loved his enemies, I hate my enemies." So I don't see where I've sold my soul since evey time I'm asked I say he's a bad person. People are using as a way to avoid talking about other things. Edit: my recollection is that Trunp blamed Reiner's murder on TDS. I think that's worse, especially since A) Riener was murdered, didn't just die B) Mueller did go on a months long witch hunt against Trump so was in some sense "an enemy" in a way that a Democrat film director wasn't. Your posts are strange because it is like you think there is distance between Trump and the Republican party and totally missed where he purged everyone he could that disagreed with him and now it's like 95+% Trump. They are not a serious party anymore, just tripping over themselves to agree with him. If you are voting Republican you are supporting Trump and his agenda, which amounts to enriching himself. No, my belief is that the morality of a person does not have much influence on whether a given policy is good or bad or if the implementation is good or bad. Having poltical leaders who are, or at least try to act good or bad matters, but if Democrats elected Che president and he removed tarriffs that wouldn't make tarriffs good or bad. And plunging the US into massive debt, ruining trade, wrecking alliances, losing trust with the world and starting an extremely expensive war that is bringing about a financial crisis make its worth all his moral failings? Which include making himself and his family ultra rich at the expense of the tax payer?
They‘re the chosen ones. Chosen ones are the honorary Guidos of the world. The law doesn‘t apply to them.
There‘s ongoing and past international conflict about who qualifies as a chosen one. Usually detonating a grenade in your ass makes you eligible.
Of course the feds know about it, they just can‘t keep up with all the new shit they keep organizing lol.
|
On March 22 2026 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:20 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. I was with you on adopting an arguable position until you went here. Are you sure that you're not throwing in with the crowd that "argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs?" To quote you. I'm reading (1) both statements are bad and indefensible (2) the Rob Reiner statement was worse as a matter of degree and (3) it was somebody else on the same page that explicitly compared it to Charlie Kirk and people who won't be mad at this. So how am I supposed to read this other than you're taking for granted that the disagreements on Trump comments/Kirk comments are only undertaken by somebody that has already sold their soul, and now you're playing the part of the condescending radical just bemused at why it was done? I'm trying to find the path here that you're not just another bad faith person trying to portray nuance as Faustian. It sounded like you believed that it was negative arguing away from the point and towards the person's entire posting history, but here you are standing as its exemplar as best I can tell. Introvert literally states 'What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from.' Note 'way' worse, and 'outrage is a bit much'. I happened to agree that cheering for Kirk's murder was fucked, but the idea that 'well, some people cheered for Kirk being killed so I don't get why people are outraged that the president says 'he's happy this guy is dead'. That there's an element of 'posting history involved' - sure, I can get by that, but this is because this post is another part of that posting history - where introvert isn't able to criticize Trump without some type of addendum to lessen the criticism, in the sense that he needs to justify the continued association with a republican party which does not entirely think Trump is a dumpster fire of a human being, because 'the other side is just as bad'. Statement on Rob Reiner:
"A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through has massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!
Read that and tell me, first, if it was worse, and second, if you have to sell out your soul to Trump in order to declare that it was worse. Trump blamed Reiner's TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME for causing his and his wife's death at the hands of their own son.
I think you're reading way too much into a direct comparison. I don't think it was done to "to lessen the criticism." I thought the whole point of comparing outrage to outrage is that it isn't about the thing itself, but the reaction to the thing. Introvert didn't even bring up the Kirk comparison, it was literally somebody else. Put simply, I think you're doing this for no good, grounded reason, and you have ample opportunity to review the posts and come to the opposite conclusion. I certainly did. You strike me as the type of person that doesn't let ego get in the way of admitting that first impressions were wrong.
|
On March 22 2026 08:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 22 2026 08:20 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. I was with you on adopting an arguable position until you went here. Are you sure that you're not throwing in with the crowd that "argue against people's posting history or against the associated beliefs of various statements or beliefs?" To quote you. I'm reading (1) both statements are bad and indefensible (2) the Rob Reiner statement was worse as a matter of degree and (3) it was somebody else on the same page that explicitly compared it to Charlie Kirk and people who won't be mad at this. So how am I supposed to read this other than you're taking for granted that the disagreements on Trump comments/Kirk comments are only undertaken by somebody that has already sold their soul, and now you're playing the part of the condescending radical just bemused at why it was done? I'm trying to find the path here that you're not just another bad faith person trying to portray nuance as Faustian. It sounded like you believed that it was negative arguing away from the point and towards the person's entire posting history, but here you are standing as its exemplar as best I can tell. Introvert literally states 'What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from.' Note 'way' worse, and 'outrage is a bit much'. I happened to agree that cheering for Kirk's murder was fucked, but the idea that 'well, some people cheered for Kirk being killed so I don't get why people are outraged that the president says 'he's happy this guy is dead'. That there's an element of 'posting history involved' - sure, I can get by that, but this is because this post is another part of that posting history - where introvert isn't able to criticize Trump without some type of addendum to lessen the criticism, in the sense that he needs to justify the continued association with a republican party which does not entirely think Trump is a dumpster fire of a human being, because 'the other side is just as bad'. + Show Spoiler +
Because I've come to learn that merely denouncing Trump and leaving it there is completely useless. And because most things nowadays in some apprently must involve Trump...therefore it is important to point out that when people are spinning themselves up over the last Trump thing they maybe should be reminded of how they approached a similar, though granted not identical, occasion previously. If we really are trying to hold on to some standards here then they have to be as universal as we can make them. People get mad at me for "but Democrats" when this thread is filled the brim of "but Trump." I am one person, posting a few times a month.
I'll be blunt. What people want is for me to make them feel better. + Show Spoiler +They want me to say "I'm a conservative but Trump is bad, therefore eveything he does or says is the worst thing ever." I am not going to do that. And yeah, maybe you wouldn't say it is what you want, but it's the only remaining explanation for your colleagues at least.
This is where I landed with Serm regarding Democrats (and Republicans) materially supporting genocide.
|
United States43729 Posts
On March 22 2026 08:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 07:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 02:30 dyhb wrote:On March 21 2026 18:49 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded? https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-publicHitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews. Deeper into the war his rhetoric shifter towards total destruction of the jewery in Europe, language vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent. I mean, It's pretty obvious, do you think german citizens would vote in a guy that from day one ran a campaing on mass murder of every single jew? That would be a big misconception of how things like the holocaust happen On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:37 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, they literally wrote a book about doing it and it's not like Kristallnacht was secret either. If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war? Most people didn't know, sure, the ones that read mein kampf, the ones that paid close attention and were smart enough knew, and many fled. The soviets did the same thing, Stalin publicly promised "the elimination of the kulak class" and everybody cheered, most didn't know they were going to get killed. You'll note how the original question, the replied and bolded "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews ... yet they did in secret" was summarily dropped. The goalposts moved to, "Was there any violence" and "Let's count emigration" and "Was there violent antisemitism." So you can tell broad agreement with the claim by how quickly it was silently accepted and changed. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum online resources are right about it, for those that clicked your link. The lies were to conceal what they were doing, and not totally ineffective because they had told everyone exactly what they planned to do from the start. You get fuzzy later, since forced transfer or children/prevention of births can be considered "genocide." It's not just about murdering an ethnic/religious minority. Are you talking about my post here? I didn't think there would be pushback saying that Nazis were intent on exterminating all the Jews. That kind of blindsided me to be honest. Eh, there's a timeline here. Nazis are not talking about exterminating jews before 1939. Even in 1940 they're seemingly more about forcibly relocating the jews to Madagascar than about extermination. Hitler does, in Mein Kampf, mention that gassing some thousands of jews could have made the sacrifice of millions (during WW1) not be in vain, but as a whole, Mein Kampf doesn't include any plans for genocide (understood as killing, not as expulsion) - and while there's obviously no question that his antisemitic attitudes were genuine and dangerous for Jews - the actual extermination rather than expulsion and various other forms of heinous discrimination and mistreatment - is at the earliest mentioned in early 1939. Now baal is clearly wrong to have said 'millions' of jews in germany because only 200000 remained at the start of ww2 and there were never more than 600000 but the overarching point that the holocaust wasn't something Hitler campaigned on is correct. From 1941-42 onward, it's explicitly stated that this is a goal of theirs.
I think you’re overlooking the pogroms like Kristallnacht. baal’s argument is actually the exact inverse of true. baal is arguing that we can extrapolate what they knew from whether they fled and they didn’t flee and therefore they didn’t know. But the majority of Jews living in Germany in 1933 did flee by 1939, despite facing considerable restrictions and being forced to forfeit all their property to the state. Therefore, per baal’s argument, we can conclude that they did know they would be killed.
Right up until the war started we had German Jewish parents putting their young children on trains and sending them out of Germany. The parents had no plans for reunification, no knowledge of where the children would end up, whether siblings would be kept together, whether they would be abused, allowed to keep their faith etc. They just put children on the train and trusted that someone would meet them at the station and attempt to connect them with foster parents of some sort.
As a parent I can imagine at least some of what it took to do that. To abandon a six year old knowing that you'd almost certainly never see them again but that by putting them on a train and sending them away they might survive what was coming. They knew.
|
The purpose of life is now to piss off billionaires.
Just be happy without them, they hate that shit.
|
On March 22 2026 08:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:20 Billyboy wrote:On March 22 2026 08:09 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 22 2026 07:37 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 07:01 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 06:17 Vivax wrote:On March 22 2026 06:05 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this. Oh absolutely, I’d be very surprised if that didn’t occur Kirk wasn't investigating Trumps Russian connections that he suspected he was blocking from being investigated, he was publically verbally attacking minorities and got shot by a dude who was friends with a trans. It's a bit too much as a reaction but it's the US. Since it can't be fined in the US, a bit of arson might have been enough. You want to set Charlie Kirk on fire instead of shooting him, or like burn down his house or something? I’m not sure what a bit of arson means in a context of Kirk’s speech. Moreover the cross-section of people cheering, excusing, or simply silent r.e. Kirk now want to be very mad that Trunp said he was glad someone who he actually interacted with is dead. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Even worse imo since Kirk was assassinated but Mueller was not. Now obviously Trump shouldn't say that even if he feels it. What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from. Isn't the outrage directed towards Trump when he says stuff like this pretty much universal among like, every single person who isn't a complete piece of shit? Also, how is what he said about Rob Reiner 'way worse'? The guy said 'Good, I’m glad he’s dead', I really struggle seeing how it gets 'much worse' than that. I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. Presumably, there's not even going to be another election where you're forced to choose between your political opinions and your morality anyway - you can say "Trump is vile disgusting man. Petty and pathetic, you are a hypocrite who reeks of weakness and insecurities with no moral core. Regardless of the politics, the American people should be embarrassed and ashamed for ever having entrusted you with leadership" or “When you die, Americans, and people around the world, will dance in the streets for weeks because you’re a low, degenerate, criminal fraud who left a full stain on the presidency.” or “What a sick human being. A permanent disfiguring scar on the dignity of our nation.” without really losing face or whatever, but instead you insist on trying to be like 'meh no biggie'. See my follow up reply. Or even the reply I gave to you the other day. I've said Trump is a terrible person a million times but I'd prefer if the conversation didn’t just stop there. Unfortunately that's where it seems like people want to dwell. It gets hard to discuss things worth discussing, like Iran, ICE enforcement, trade, or anything else. If every conversation has to come back to "Tump is a bad man" then we probably aren’t getting anywhere. Heck Trump himself said something like "Kirk loved his enemies, I hate my enemies." So I don't see where I've sold my soul since evey time I'm asked I say he's a bad person. People are using as a way to avoid talking about other things. Edit: my recollection is that Trunp blamed Reiner's murder on TDS. I think that's worse, especially since A) Riener was murdered, didn't just die B) Mueller did go on a months long witch hunt against Trump so was in some sense "an enemy" in a way that a Democrat film director wasn't. Your posts are strange because it is like you think there is distance between Trump and the Republican party and totally missed where he purged everyone he could that disagreed with him and now it's like 95+% Trump. They are not a serious party anymore, just tripping over themselves to agree with him. If you are voting Republican you are supporting Trump and his agenda, which amounts to enriching himself. No, my belief is that the morality of a person does not have much influence on whether a given policy is good or bad or if the implementation is good or bad. Having poltical leaders who are, or at least try to act good or bad matters, but if Democrats elected Che president and he removed tarriffs that wouldn't make tarriffs good or bad.
Yeah because absolutely piece of shit people don’t do piece of shit things. You elect an absolutely garbage human being to the highest office in the world and you don’t think bad things are going to come out of it.
That’s pretty stupid on top of being morally repugnant.
|
Northern Ireland26416 Posts
On March 22 2026 10:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 08:26 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 08:20 Billyboy wrote:On March 22 2026 08:09 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 22 2026 07:37 Introvert wrote:On March 22 2026 07:01 dyhb wrote:On March 22 2026 06:17 Vivax wrote:On March 22 2026 06:05 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 03:58 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm confident all the people who were outraged about statements like "Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been murdered but he wasn't a good person" are going to be blowing their tops about this. Oh absolutely, I’d be very surprised if that didn’t occur Kirk wasn't investigating Trumps Russian connections that he suspected he was blocking from being investigated, he was publically verbally attacking minorities and got shot by a dude who was friends with a trans. It's a bit too much as a reaction but it's the US. Since it can't be fined in the US, a bit of arson might have been enough. You want to set Charlie Kirk on fire instead of shooting him, or like burn down his house or something? I’m not sure what a bit of arson means in a context of Kirk’s speech. Moreover the cross-section of people cheering, excusing, or simply silent r.e. Kirk now want to be very mad that Trunp said he was glad someone who he actually interacted with is dead. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Even worse imo since Kirk was assassinated but Mueller was not. Now obviously Trump shouldn't say that even if he feels it. What he said about Rob Riener was way worse though. Trump is an a-hole, but the outrage is a bit much considering where it is coming from. Isn't the outrage directed towards Trump when he says stuff like this pretty much universal among like, every single person who isn't a complete piece of shit? Also, how is what he said about Rob Reiner 'way worse'? The guy said 'Good, I’m glad he’s dead', I really struggle seeing how it gets 'much worse' than that. I also struggle understanding why you're insisting on selling your soul for some guy you according to yourself you haven't voted for and do not like. Presumably, there's not even going to be another election where you're forced to choose between your political opinions and your morality anyway - you can say "Trump is vile disgusting man. Petty and pathetic, you are a hypocrite who reeks of weakness and insecurities with no moral core. Regardless of the politics, the American people should be embarrassed and ashamed for ever having entrusted you with leadership" or “When you die, Americans, and people around the world, will dance in the streets for weeks because you’re a low, degenerate, criminal fraud who left a full stain on the presidency.” or “What a sick human being. A permanent disfiguring scar on the dignity of our nation.” without really losing face or whatever, but instead you insist on trying to be like 'meh no biggie'. See my follow up reply. Or even the reply I gave to you the other day. I've said Trump is a terrible person a million times but I'd prefer if the conversation didn’t just stop there. Unfortunately that's where it seems like people want to dwell. It gets hard to discuss things worth discussing, like Iran, ICE enforcement, trade, or anything else. If every conversation has to come back to "Tump is a bad man" then we probably aren’t getting anywhere. Heck Trump himself said something like "Kirk loved his enemies, I hate my enemies." So I don't see where I've sold my soul since evey time I'm asked I say he's a bad person. People are using as a way to avoid talking about other things. Edit: my recollection is that Trunp blamed Reiner's murder on TDS. I think that's worse, especially since A) Riener was murdered, didn't just die B) Mueller did go on a months long witch hunt against Trump so was in some sense "an enemy" in a way that a Democrat film director wasn't. Your posts are strange because it is like you think there is distance between Trump and the Republican party and totally missed where he purged everyone he could that disagreed with him and now it's like 95+% Trump. They are not a serious party anymore, just tripping over themselves to agree with him. If you are voting Republican you are supporting Trump and his agenda, which amounts to enriching himself. No, my belief is that the morality of a person does not have much influence on whether a given policy is good or bad or if the implementation is good or bad. Having poltical leaders who are, or at least try to act good or bad matters, but if Democrats elected Che president and he removed tarriffs that wouldn't make tarriffs good or bad. Yeah because absolutely piece of shit people don’t do piece of shit things. You elect an absolutely garbage human being to the highest office in the world and you don’t think bad things are going to come out of it. That’s pretty stupid on top of being morally repugnant.
I think as a general principle it’s grand if I’m picking Intro up right. I’d bite your hand off to have some lefty firebrand who could win elections and enact policies I like but is a bit of a bastard over the ineffectual Saint
There are degrees to it of course. Somebody like, I don’t know, Donald Trump is so morally bankrupt that it’s clearly detrimental. Although equally a problem is his rank incompetence.
|
I could see a real moral dilemma in something like, should I vote for someone that's moderately racist or homophobic if they were the only one that could pass universal healthcare and thus save countless thousands of lives? I don't know the answer to that, but I wouldn't judge anyone who picked either side.
Hardly the same thing as voting for a child molester because he's the only one that could establish secret police and concentration camps for immigrants. lol.
|
On March 22 2026 10:28 LightSpectra wrote:
I could see a real moral dilemma in something like, should I vote for someone that's moderately racist or homophobic if they were the only one that could pass universal healthcare and thus save countless thousands of lives? I don't know the answer to that, but I wouldn't judge anyone who picked either side.
Hardly the same thing as voting for a child molester because he's the only one that could establish secret police and concentration camps for immigrants. lol.
That he did.
Trump is the patron saint of the front runners.
Everyone gets the society they deserve.
|
On March 21 2026 20:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:
If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war You're showing your ignorance pretty badly here. A great many did leave Germany. For example you may have heard of Anne Frank. Although the famous Anne Frank house is in Amsterdam she was actually a German Jew, she was born in Frankfurt, her family left in 1934. She wasn't alone, by 1939 the German Jewish population was only 200,000.
You deliberately cut my post where I literally said "many fled"
This is what I mean when I say arguments in bad faith.
But they faced problems in leaving.
1. Nazi Germany faced constant and severe deficits in foreign currency which was generally blamed on Jews. That meant German Jews fleeing Germany were not able to obtain foreign currency, the banks simply would not give them currency that could be used outside of Germany.
So they decided to die instead of losing money? that kinds of racist lol
2. German Jews were subjected to a series of seizures, especially in the wake of Kristallnacht (the Judenvermögensabgabe). They also had gold and jewelry seized. They were deliberately stripped of their assets by the state.
So according to you, Hitler rose to power in 33 everybody knew he was going to kill every jew, they remained in Germany, 5 years later they got their assets seized, and they decided to still remain in Germany to be killed.
3. Foreign nations refused entry to Jews, especially those without any assets which was a lot of them, as caused by German policy. It was not as simple as fleeing, they had to flee to somewhere. Jewish refugee ships were famously refused docking.
north africans cross the mediterranean in makeshift rafts just for better economic opportunities, you don't think someone fleeing eminent death would try even harder?
4. Germany wouldn't let them leave. There were movement restrictions.
Germany forbad emigration in 1941, 8 years after Hitler's election and 3 years after the war begun, if everybody knew Hitler was going to murder them why would they remain?
the reason millions of German Jews didn’t flee Nazism is because they didn’t know Nazis hated Jews. This exchange really ought to be a wake up call for you. Somehow you’ve made it to this point in your life without noticing that you literally don’t know very much about the world. It might be time to open a book.
Another bad faith argument, I never claimed people didn't knew the Nazis hated jews, I said the Nazis used vague language for possible deniability that their goal was genocide and not just expulsion.
Instead of suggestions about me reading how about if you learn how to debate honestly and intelligently?
|
On March 21 2026 21:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
So, eating the rich, unless it was said by a group of cannibals, doesn't seem particularly relevant here, so going to move on.
So if neonazis chanted eat the jews unless they were cannibals it would be fine?
- People chanting "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" have been arrested and indicted for hate speech crimes in the UK. Although they didn't seem to have been found ultimately to be guilty. www.jewishnews.co.uk But it is clearly something that is recognised as near enough hate speech to bring to court over it, so what's your point exactly?
There has been many rallies of hundreds chanting it, do you think nazis chanting their songs would recieve the same response?
What about "globalize the intifada" or "from the river to the sea" or they do the bloody hands thing, clearly actions that call for the murders of jews, how come they dont send those to jail?
My point is that "hate speech" is ambiguous, whimsically enforced at the consideration of the "minister of truth" in charge, and that is why the concept is a bad idea.
- The most recent seig heil incident i could find was www.bbc.com, however, the woman then went on to hit someone, which is why she was sent to jail for 2 weeks (the conviction was for assault, not hate speech). She ended up not paying a fine, so came out a little better than Count Dankula. The point was that she wasn't found guilty of hate speech.
As far as i can see, both incidents went up to court for hate speech and neither got a conviction, so it doesn't feel that different?
To your final point:
Sorry, "total destruction of the jewery in Europe" is vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent? I mean, what do the words mean to you?
Vague enough that they can deny it means genocide, if somebody says I want the destruction of white supremacy I dont snap think that they want white genocide, they might tho, thats the point. of not using the word murder, kill etc.
To wrap this up, the nazis came to be known for their Final Solution. The symbol is tied up to that, which is why it became toxic to the point where Germans still feel national shame about it. It's a point I didn't think I had to make, but nevertheless, here we are. The hammer and sickle has a much more varied background and it is normally associated with seizing the means of production, not "gassing the jews". This is why, although a bit more edgy nowadays, it isn't a banned symbol.
The hammer and sickle had a better PR team but every time that flag rose death followed in a scale that would make the nazis look like amateur mass murderers.
|
On March 22 2026 08:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2026 07:52 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 22 2026 02:30 dyhb wrote:On March 21 2026 18:49 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:20 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 21 2026 14:09 baal wrote:On March 19 2026 17:08 EnDeR_ wrote:
Happy to include denying the holodomor illegal. Is there a big group of people going around denying that it happened? YES! almost every hard communist and tankie I've talked with denies de holodomor, its a mainstream hard leftist idea, just as its common hard right wingers deny the holocaust. I don't think you can make the equivalence of the hammer and sickle and nazi swastikas; one stands for an ideology about resource distribution, the other stands for white supremacy and antisemitism. It is obviously true that atrocities have been committed under the banner of communism, but the stated intent was never "eradicate the jews" or "purify the white race" for any of these regimes, if you see what I mean. The key difference is intent, even if the outcomes aren't too dissimilar in practice. The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews, yet they did in secret just like the stated intent of Soviets wasn't to exterminate the Kulaks, yet they did in secret. -When somebody says "eat the rich" they don't actually mean to kill the rich, despise that historically they always have done it, it just means, redistribute. -When a muslim chants in the streets "Khaibar Khaibar ya Yahud" they don't actually mean to massacre the jews like they did in Khaibar, its just a chant of the oppressed against Israel. -When somebody says "seig heil" oh ok that is hate speech, arrest him. That's ridiculous hates speech laws are enforced however the people in power see fit, and as I've said before, there will be a time where the people in power think very different than you and will apply these laws in ways you won't like. Source for the bolded? https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deceiving-the-publicHitler before 1939 spoke exclusively of expulsion of the jews. Deeper into the war his rhetoric shifter towards total destruction of the jewery in Europe, language vague enough to maintain deniability of genocide intent. I mean, It's pretty obvious, do you think german citizens would vote in a guy that from day one ran a campaing on mass murder of every single jew? That would be a big misconception of how things like the holocaust happen On March 21 2026 19:08 baal wrote:On March 21 2026 15:37 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, they literally wrote a book about doing it and it's not like Kristallnacht was secret either. If everybody knew do you think so many millions of jews were stupid enough to not leave Germany before the war? Most people didn't know, sure, the ones that read mein kampf, the ones that paid close attention and were smart enough knew, and many fled. The soviets did the same thing, Stalin publicly promised "the elimination of the kulak class" and everybody cheered, most didn't know they were going to get killed. You'll note how the original question, the replied and bolded "The stated intent of the Nazi party was never to exterminate the jews ... yet they did in secret" was summarily dropped. The goalposts moved to, "Was there any violence" and "Let's count emigration" and "Was there violent antisemitism." So you can tell broad agreement with the claim by how quickly it was silently accepted and changed. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum online resources are right about it, for those that clicked your link. The lies were to conceal what they were doing, and not totally ineffective because they had told everyone exactly what they planned to do from the start. You get fuzzy later, since forced transfer or children/prevention of births can be considered "genocide." It's not just about murdering an ethnic/religious minority. Are you talking about my post here? I didn't think there would be pushback saying that Nazis were intent on exterminating all the Jews. That kind of blindsided me to be honest. Eh, there's a timeline here. Nazis are not talking about exterminating jews before 1939. Even in 1940 they're seemingly more about forcibly relocating the jews to Madagascar than about extermination. Hitler does, in Mein Kampf, mention that gassing some thousands of jews could have made the sacrifice of millions (during WW1) not be in vain, but as a whole, Mein Kampf doesn't include any plans for genocide (understood as killing, not as expulsion) - and while there's obviously no question that his antisemitic attitudes were genuine and dangerous for Jews - the actual extermination rather than expulsion and various other forms of heinous discrimination and mistreatment - is at the earliest mentioned in early 1939. Now baal is clearly wrong to have said 'millions' of jews in germany because only 200000 remained at the start of ww2 and there were never more than 600000 but the overarching point that the holocaust wasn't something Hitler campaigned on is correct. From 1941-42 onward, it's explicitly stated that this is a goal of theirs.
Thank you again, why is it so hard to find reasonable people in this thread?
What is concerning is not only that obviously Hitler didn't run on the "kill all jews" campaign, but that if he did he wouldn't have won the elections, it's such a misread of history and human nature to believe that tens of millions of normal German citizens just happened to be so evil that they all wanted kill all jews.
It distorts the past to a point where any lesson to be learned from, is lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
