|
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 23 2026 22:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 16:17 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 22:57 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2026 19:11 baal wrote:
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history" Getting baal to read a goddamn history book challenge, difficulty impossible. Neither Hitler, nor the party he led, came to power through free elections. He came to power through appointment by Hindenburg. Literally anyone who has read any book about the rise to power of the Nazis knows this. Getting KwarK to argue the point challenge, difficulty impossible. The point: -The Nazi party was the biggest and most popular party in Germany at the time, if they were openly advocating for the mass murder of every jew they wouldn't be, unless you believe that 1/3 of German citizens were monsters and actually wanted to kill every jew. This is the heart of baal's issue. He's coming here and going "Do you really think that a party could be that openly genocidal against nonwhites in early 20th century Europe? Who would vote for such a party? Those voters would have to implicitly be willing to tolerate all sorts of atrocities in the name of national greatness. Nobody would do that. It doesn't make sense." Man, when he first reads a book on European/American history he's going to be shocked. Like it turns out that Americans actually knew about slavery the whole time. And the eradication of the Native Americans. And the British knew about India etc. Or there's Trump on the campaign trail in 2016 going "You know I've been thinking about all these people who are resisting our occupation of their countries in the Middle East and I really think the best way forwards is if we start killing their families". Or Hesgeth in the declaration of the intervention in Iran proudly shouting out a policy of no quarter as if it was the coolest thing he'd ever heard of.
Yeah that pretty much is my point, but it's important to clarify that its not "nobody would" but "not nearly half of the population would, also this majority were pretty keen on actually kicking them on, seizing etc, just not putting them in gas chambers.
Perhaps why we keep butting heads on this is because we see the world in a different light, it feels to me that you look the world and history as a clash of moral and immoral people, I believe theres a little SS soldier and a little Schindler in all of us.
Too philosophical for the thread mood, we are going nowhere lets drop it shall we?
|
On March 24 2026 15:28 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 21:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 23 2026 18:45 baal wrote:
If you believe everybody knew from the begging that means that Germans are ontologically evil where 1/3 of them thirsted for the blood of every jew in the continent, it's a ridiculous misreading of history that actually prevents to understanding any lessons of the holocaust. meh, a big contributing factor: the Allies grossly mishandled Germany at the end of WW1. It is sad and fascinating that the echoes of these bad moves still exist today. As I stated earlier, Nathan Fielder demonstrates this effectively because if you live in Germany you can't buy a Summit Ice Winter Jacket to endure those cold northern winters. Clearly, Germany still struggles to effectively process historical events that happened 80+ years ago. This is fucking hilarious Summit Ice believes that brand loyalty and Holocaust education should begin as early as possible. That’s why we’ve designed a baby onesie that is both cute and stylish. These little suckers are 100% cotton and feature snap closures for easy diaper changes. How can Germany censor this stupidity? It's interesting how different cultures deal with guilt, Geramy struggles with it, but the US is still talking about reparations from stuff happening hundreds of years ago while Japan forgot about what they did in Manchuria in like 15 minutes.
Germany was never really an empire, and is a pretty new nation. Old nations and empires do not feel guilt. They had the right to do what they did, because they are ---insert old nation/empire---.
|
On March 24 2026 15:58 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 15:28 baal wrote:On March 23 2026 21:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 23 2026 18:45 baal wrote:
If you believe everybody knew from the begging that means that Germans are ontologically evil where 1/3 of them thirsted for the blood of every jew in the continent, it's a ridiculous misreading of history that actually prevents to understanding any lessons of the holocaust. meh, a big contributing factor: the Allies grossly mishandled Germany at the end of WW1. It is sad and fascinating that the echoes of these bad moves still exist today. As I stated earlier, Nathan Fielder demonstrates this effectively because if you live in Germany you can't buy a Summit Ice Winter Jacket to endure those cold northern winters. Clearly, Germany still struggles to effectively process historical events that happened 80+ years ago. This is fucking hilarious Summit Ice believes that brand loyalty and Holocaust education should begin as early as possible. That’s why we’ve designed a baby onesie that is both cute and stylish. These little suckers are 100% cotton and feature snap closures for easy diaper changes. How can Germany censor this stupidity? It's interesting how different cultures deal with guilt, Geramy struggles with it, but the US is still talking about reparations from stuff happening hundreds of years ago while Japan forgot about what they did in Manchuria in like 15 minutes. Germany was never really an empire, and is a pretty new nation. Old nations and empires do not feel guilt. They had the right to do what they did, because they are (insert old nation/empire).
The Holy Roman Empire wants a word with you
|
On March 24 2026 16:05 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 15:58 Slydie wrote:On March 24 2026 15:28 baal wrote:On March 23 2026 21:13 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 23 2026 18:45 baal wrote:
If you believe everybody knew from the begging that means that Germans are ontologically evil where 1/3 of them thirsted for the blood of every jew in the continent, it's a ridiculous misreading of history that actually prevents to understanding any lessons of the holocaust. meh, a big contributing factor: the Allies grossly mishandled Germany at the end of WW1. It is sad and fascinating that the echoes of these bad moves still exist today. As I stated earlier, Nathan Fielder demonstrates this effectively because if you live in Germany you can't buy a Summit Ice Winter Jacket to endure those cold northern winters. Clearly, Germany still struggles to effectively process historical events that happened 80+ years ago. This is fucking hilarious Summit Ice believes that brand loyalty and Holocaust education should begin as early as possible. That’s why we’ve designed a baby onesie that is both cute and stylish. These little suckers are 100% cotton and feature snap closures for easy diaper changes. How can Germany censor this stupidity? It's interesting how different cultures deal with guilt, Geramy struggles with it, but the US is still talking about reparations from stuff happening hundreds of years ago while Japan forgot about what they did in Manchuria in like 15 minutes. Germany was never really an empire, and is a pretty new nation. Old nations and empires do not feel guilt. They had the right to do what they did, because they are (insert old nation/empire). The Holy Roman Empire wants a word with you
Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
|
|
|
On March 24 2026 15:08 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. If you want to make this argument, you should substantiate your points. For example, I'd like to hear your take on how "proving that something is a bad idea" "kills the bad idea". Sure, lets get into it. It's hard to get data or precise evidence since these topics are by nature ambiguous and very difficult to test however Nazism is a good example. Only a few countries in Europe have hate-speech laws forbidding Nazism but we don't see Nazism sprouting in other countries and another holocausts, because everyone reads about it in school, watches it in TV, movies etc, pretty much world-wide we agree that Nazism is bad (real Nazism not hyperbole). Sure the idea will never completely die, there's some dark tribal impulses in all of us that can get carried away. If censorship worked we would see Nazism grow at areas where it's not censored yet we don't. I could argue that communism has lacked "sun light" and thats why it's festering, but lets focus first on the other example.
I mean, technically, there is no new party called the nazi party anywhere, so in that sense, what you're saying makes sense. However, I could easily argue that many of the elements of what made up Nazi ideology (besides the gassing the Jews bit) are rather popular today.
However, I think that that's a bad example as it is hard to define an experiment or methodology that unambiguously proves a political ideology wrong, because it's a thing that is hard to measure, besides the obvious "maybe don't set up a plan to gas millions of Jews to death".
I was more interested in how you think the psychology of this works, so the actual mechanism.
Take something that it is much easier to prove: "vaccinations save lives". There is overwhelming scientific evidence that this is true. You couldn't prove that statement any harder. Yet, the antivax movement has not stopped growing. When confronting an antivaxxer with this absolute mount of evidence, they just dig in and their antivax sentiment is reinforced. What's your take on the psychological mechanism at play here? Why does shining light on this topic, proving with absolute mounds of evidence that it is wrong, not kill the idea?
|
On March 24 2026 16:39 Silvanel wrote:Well at its peak the German Empire inlcuding colonies had around 3mln square kilometers. Thats about 2/3 of Roman Empire at its greatest extent: https://www.thecollector.com/maps-resources/german-empire-map/There were certainly a lot of smaller and weaker states in history that has been called an empire.
Germany was only formed in 1870, and Bavaria had its own king until 1918. I don't think that is enough time to claim rights similar to Japan, China, Britain or Russia.
|
Why does shining light on this topic, proving with absolute mounds of evidence that it is wrong, not kill the idea?
I find this very interesting too, and I spent a long time investigating the flat earth movement for this reason. There is a whole YouTube category debunking FE, and it reached a climax when 2 flatearthers were flown to Antarctica to watch the 24h sun with there their own eyes.
Anyway, the key is tribalism, and the same happens with every religion as well. When your brain is hard-wired and the group you identify with is under attack, hard evidence does not matter.
|
On March 24 2026 17:14 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Why does shining light on this topic, proving with absolute mounds of evidence that it is wrong, not kill the idea?
I find this very interesting too, and I spent a long time investigating the flat earth movement for this reason. There is a whole YouTube category debunking FE, and it reached a climax when 2 flatearthers were flown to Antarctica to watch the 24h sun with there their own eyes. Anyway, the key is tribalism, and the same happens with every religion as well. When your brain is hard-wired and the group you identify with is under attack, hard evidence does not matter.
And that group doesn't even need to truly be under attack either; sometimes the echo chamber and propaganda perpetuate a strong enough false narrative that believers are convinced they're being attacked no matter what. Every observation they make (or fabricate) feeds into the conspiracy, making it ever harder to undo the damage with even the strongest of evidence and the gentlest of approaches. Sometimes we see doubling down even in the face of the best possible arguments, often because the believer might otherwise face an identity crisis.
|
On March 24 2026 16:43 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 15:08 baal wrote:On March 23 2026 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. If you want to make this argument, you should substantiate your points. For example, I'd like to hear your take on how "proving that something is a bad idea" "kills the bad idea". Sure, lets get into it. It's hard to get data or precise evidence since these topics are by nature ambiguous and very difficult to test however Nazism is a good example. Only a few countries in Europe have hate-speech laws forbidding Nazism but we don't see Nazism sprouting in other countries and another holocausts, because everyone reads about it in school, watches it in TV, movies etc, pretty much world-wide we agree that Nazism is bad (real Nazism not hyperbole). Sure the idea will never completely die, there's some dark tribal impulses in all of us that can get carried away. If censorship worked we would see Nazism grow at areas where it's not censored yet we don't. I could argue that communism has lacked "sun light" and thats why it's festering, but lets focus first on the other example. I mean, technically, there is no new party called the nazi party anywhere, so in that sense, what you're saying makes sense. However, I could easily argue that many of the elements of what made up Nazi ideology (besides the gassing the Jews bit) are rather popular today. However, I think that that's a bad example as it is hard to define an experiment or methodology that unambiguously proves a political ideology wrong, because it's a thing that is hard to measure, besides the obvious "maybe don't set up a plan to gas millions of Jews to death". I was more interested in how you think the psychology of this works, so the actual mechanism. Take something that it is much easier to prove: "vaccinations save lives". There is overwhelming scientific evidence that this is true. You couldn't prove that statement any harder. Yet, the antivax movement has not stopped growing. When confronting an antivaxxer with this absolute mount of evidence, they just dig in and their antivax sentiment is reinforced. What's your take on the psychological mechanism at play here? Why does shining light on this topic, proving with absolute mounds of evidence that it is wrong, not kill the idea?
Yeah there are too many variables on the Nazi example for it to be proof, but it was still a good point.
On the anti-vaxxer yeah we sadly aren't as a rational species as we'd like to believe and many are immune to evidence yet, however do you know what not only didn't help but backfired hard? censorship.
Facebook, Twitter and Youtube aggressively removed any comment that mentioned the "lab leak theory" also any post calling it China-virus or anything alike.
Also the WHO/governments lying about mask efficiency (early on they said It didn't work to keep people from hoarding), calling Invermectine "horse dewormer", flip flopping on vaccine efficacy, and a long list of lying and obfuscation, not open and honest debate.
You know what I think works much better? There's a video of Dr Mike (some youtuber dr) debating in those panels where people rush to the chair against antivaxxers and it is a total embarassing destruction, the difference in knowledge is palpable, these are very effective for people on the fence.
|
On March 24 2026 17:14 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Why does shining light on this topic, proving with absolute mounds of evidence that it is wrong, not kill the idea?
I find this very interesting too, and I spent a long time investigating the flat earth movement for this reason. There is a whole YouTube category debunking FE, and it reached a climax when 2 flatearthers were flown to Antarctica to watch the 24h sun with there their own eyes. Anyway, the key is tribalism, and the same happens with every religion as well. When your brain is hard-wired and the group you identify with is under attack, hard evidence does not matter.
yeah and the only way is to talk about it with these people, forbidding to even mention flat earth would only make them grow.
|
On March 24 2026 15:24 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 20:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 23 2026 16:17 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 22:57 KwarK wrote:On March 22 2026 19:11 baal wrote:
You are using AI wrong, in your attempt to beat me the argument has flown over your head at least 3 times now, argue the point instead of going: "ackshually Hitler wasn't elected, the Nazi party, which he lead, was elected and named him prime minster, your argument is invalid you don't know history" Getting baal to read a goddamn history book challenge, difficulty impossible. Neither Hitler, nor the party he led, came to power through free elections. He came to power through appointment by Hindenburg. Literally anyone who has read any book about the rise to power of the Nazis knows this. Getting KwarK to argue the point challenge, difficulty impossible. The point: -The Nazi party was the biggest and most popular party in Germany at the time, if they were openly advocating for the mass murder of every jew they wouldn't be, unless you believe that 1/3 of German citizens were monsters and actually wanted to kill every jew. I’ve actually read Mein Kampf, it’s preeeetty unambiguous. I haven't read it but I know he fantasizes about gassing jews and mentions spilling blood, so yeah It's way less ambiguous than his speeches, but it's a very reasonable assumption that most people didn't read his book at the time. I mean there's a reason why Hitler toned down his speeches.
Is this similar to the Trump party and project 2025? You have the non Trump voters who are like, this is terrifying and what he wants. Then you have his voters who are like, naaa listen to his speeches he doesn't say that, and the bad stuff is just jokes to trigger the libs.
Then a couple years later were living through them enacting project 2025.
|
On March 24 2026 12:22 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 12:14 KwarK wrote:
There is no “walk away” option for the US. Abandoning the Persian Gulf entirely would be an absolute surrender. That sounds more like an ego thing? What exactly are they gaining out of being there right now? Even their allies there are pissed at them for starting this thing without proper preparation. They could just declare job done or something, and quietly (or loudly, whatever satisfies their ego best) go away.
I think the problem with Kwark's analysis is that it is assuming all rational actors and game theory. Also, that Trump cares about the US and what happens after. Most of the problems from walking away are going to be felt by future presidents and after Trumps kicked the bucket. He is also famous for back tracking and has the patience of a toddler.
Let me be clear, Kwark's logic is great, it is just that we are dealing with someone basically incapable of processing that and who only cares about his own personal wealth and power. On top of that he is famously easily manipulated by whoever talks to him last., so what do those around him want?
If I was going to bet boots on the ground or not, my biggest question would be, what is getting higher odds. Because logic is not going to get you to whatever comes next. If it was, a huge percentage of what he has done never would have happened.
|
On March 24 2026 15:38 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 21:15 LightSpectra wrote:On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. Okay so by this logic the original Nazi Party should've never become the most popular and largest party in 1930s Germany because (edit: aside from the brief suspension following the Beer Hall Putsch) nobody had attempted to censor Nazi symbolism or speech up to that point, right? Then now that there's censorship in Europe that means there are no hate crimes right? Freedom of speech doesn't mean that people won't follow bad ideas, we are humans, flawed and fallible, it's just that talking about these ideas is the best way to sort the bad ones from the good ones, not from a central authority.
Okay, well that strategy evidently didn't work in Nazi Germany. In fact, it's evidently not working for basically any bad idea. You mentioned flat earthers, they're rising. Anti-vaxxers, rising. Raw milk truthers, rising. Holocaust deniers, rising. Soviet atrocity deniers, rising.
The "just do nothing about it and eventually truth will win in the marketplace of ideas" strategy is not working by any metric, maybe it's time to try something new?
On March 24 2026 19:00 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 16:43 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 24 2026 15:08 baal wrote:On March 23 2026 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. If you want to make this argument, you should substantiate your points. For example, I'd like to hear your take on how "proving that something is a bad idea" "kills the bad idea". Sure, lets get into it. It's hard to get data or precise evidence since these topics are by nature ambiguous and very difficult to test however Nazism is a good example. Only a few countries in Europe have hate-speech laws forbidding Nazism but we don't see Nazism sprouting in other countries and another holocausts, because everyone reads about it in school, watches it in TV, movies etc, pretty much world-wide we agree that Nazism is bad (real Nazism not hyperbole). Sure the idea will never completely die, there's some dark tribal impulses in all of us that can get carried away. If censorship worked we would see Nazism grow at areas where it's not censored yet we don't. I could argue that communism has lacked "sun light" and thats why it's festering, but lets focus first on the other example. I mean, technically, there is no new party called the nazi party anywhere, so in that sense, what you're saying makes sense. However, I could easily argue that many of the elements of what made up Nazi ideology (besides the gassing the Jews bit) are rather popular today. However, I think that that's a bad example as it is hard to define an experiment or methodology that unambiguously proves a political ideology wrong, because it's a thing that is hard to measure, besides the obvious "maybe don't set up a plan to gas millions of Jews to death". I was more interested in how you think the psychology of this works, so the actual mechanism. Take something that it is much easier to prove: "vaccinations save lives". There is overwhelming scientific evidence that this is true. You couldn't prove that statement any harder. Yet, the antivax movement has not stopped growing. When confronting an antivaxxer with this absolute mount of evidence, they just dig in and their antivax sentiment is reinforced. What's your take on the psychological mechanism at play here? Why does shining light on this topic, proving with absolute mounds of evidence that it is wrong, not kill the idea? Yeah there are too many variables on the Nazi example for it to be proof, but it was still a good point. On the anti-vaxxer yeah we sadly aren't as a rational species as we'd like to believe and many are immune to evidence yet, however do you know what not only didn't help but backfired hard? censorship. Facebook, Twitter and Youtube aggressively removed any comment that mentioned the "lab leak theory" also any post calling it China-virus or anything alike. Also the WHO/governments lying about mask efficiency (early on they said It didn't work to keep people from hoarding), calling Invermectine "horse dewormer", flip flopping on vaccine efficacy, and a long list of lying and obfuscation, not open and honest debate. You know what I think works much better? There's a video of Dr Mike (some youtuber dr) debating in those panels where people rush to the chair against antivaxxers and it is a total embarassing destruction, the difference in knowledge is palpable, these are very effective for people on the fence.
Jesus, there are so many wrong things in here. Social media networks only stepped in to stop misinformation after the "do nothing" strategy had already failed and thousands of people were needlessly dying.
Ivermectin is literally used for cattle deworming, that wasn't misinformation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin There is still 0 evidence it does anything to treat COVID.
Changing your position as new scientific studies come out isn't "flip flopping," that's literally how science works and is the ideal we should strive for. You're in conspiracy theory territory yourself here.
It's really hard to take your position seriously when your strategy to combat misinformation hasn't even worked on yourself.
|
On March 24 2026 17:14 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +Why does shining light on this topic, proving with absolute mounds of evidence that it is wrong, not kill the idea?
I find this very interesting too, and I spent a long time investigating the flat earth movement for this reason. There is a whole YouTube category debunking FE, and it reached a climax when 2 flatearthers were flown to Antarctica to watch the 24h sun with there their own eyes. Anyway, the key is tribalism, and the same happens with every religion as well. When your brain is hard-wired and the group you identify with is under attack, hard evidence does not matter.
I once saw a video where two flatearther wanted to prove their theory with a laser. Fun stuff how they came up with different "explanations" for the result lol
|
On March 24 2026 19:00 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 16:43 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 24 2026 15:08 baal wrote:On March 23 2026 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. If you want to make this argument, you should substantiate your points. For example, I'd like to hear your take on how "proving that something is a bad idea" "kills the bad idea". Sure, lets get into it. It's hard to get data or precise evidence since these topics are by nature ambiguous and very difficult to test however Nazism is a good example. Only a few countries in Europe have hate-speech laws forbidding Nazism but we don't see Nazism sprouting in other countries and another holocausts, because everyone reads about it in school, watches it in TV, movies etc, pretty much world-wide we agree that Nazism is bad (real Nazism not hyperbole). Sure the idea will never completely die, there's some dark tribal impulses in all of us that can get carried away. If censorship worked we would see Nazism grow at areas where it's not censored yet we don't. I could argue that communism has lacked "sun light" and thats why it's festering, but lets focus first on the other example. I mean, technically, there is no new party called the nazi party anywhere, so in that sense, what you're saying makes sense. However, I could easily argue that many of the elements of what made up Nazi ideology (besides the gassing the Jews bit) are rather popular today. However, I think that that's a bad example as it is hard to define an experiment or methodology that unambiguously proves a political ideology wrong, because it's a thing that is hard to measure, besides the obvious "maybe don't set up a plan to gas millions of Jews to death". I was more interested in how you think the psychology of this works, so the actual mechanism. Take something that it is much easier to prove: "vaccinations save lives". There is overwhelming scientific evidence that this is true. You couldn't prove that statement any harder. Yet, the antivax movement has not stopped growing. When confronting an antivaxxer with this absolute mount of evidence, they just dig in and their antivax sentiment is reinforced. What's your take on the psychological mechanism at play here? Why does shining light on this topic, proving with absolute mounds of evidence that it is wrong, not kill the idea? Yeah there are too many variables on the Nazi example for it to be proof, but it was still a good point. On the anti-vaxxer yeah we sadly aren't as a rational species as we'd like to believe and many are immune to evidence yet, however do you know what not only didn't help but backfired hard? censorship. Facebook, Twitter and Youtube aggressively removed any comment that mentioned the "lab leak theory" also any post calling it China-virus or anything alike. Also the WHO/governments lying about mask efficiency (early on they said It didn't work to keep people from hoarding), calling Invermectine "horse dewormer", flip flopping on vaccine efficacy, and a long list of lying and obfuscation, not open and honest debate. You know what I think works much better? There's a video of Dr Mike (some youtuber dr) debating in those panels where people rush to the chair against antivaxxers and it is a total embarassing destruction, the difference in knowledge is palpable, these are very effective for people on the fence.
This is why I wanted to get your take. Your thesis, as presented, rests on convincing evidence being used successfully to debunk a bad idea. I.e. prove the idea wrong and kill it, in your own words.
You presumably agree that that doesn't really work. So does that make you rethink your approach here? How would you kill a harmful idea?
Having someone debate the bad idea with someone on the opposite side as it were has been tried. It turns out that platforming bad ideas and setting them on the same level as good ideas legitimises the bad idea and makes it spread. How do you tackle this, in your view?
|
Hey, shut out to Jerome Powell for delivering the ugly news. Maybe he is no Winston Churchill Alan Greenspan but he is doing a good job.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/powell-job-creation-is-near-zero-202637723.html
Of course, with the war going on this gets pushed to the back page.
WTF is economist and financial specialist Scott Bessent doing commenting on the war? Maybe he is commenting on the excursion? any how, this is right up there with Canadian PM Justin Trudeau making the unqualified Chrystia Freeland the finance minister. LOL. Perhaps Scott can tell us all about the 2 stroke go-kart engines powering those Iranian drones.
Speaking of those Iranian drones...
It is deeply ironic that engineers in the west would never consider a 2-stroke engine for mass production because it causes too much pollution. Go Iran Go!
|
Northern Ireland26433 Posts
On March 24 2026 15:39 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. Have you been hibernating for the last 10-15 years? Sure it can work in many instances, in others we’ve collectively seen that absolutely not be the case I'm not sure what you are referencing to?, the deplataforming of the alt-right?
What others have expanded upon, namely that that rough timeframe shows innumerable issues and a general trend where the idea that good ideas, or at least true ones will win out in a free marketplace of ideas has been shown to not hold, or certainly not near universally.
Incidentally this used to be my position broadly speaking, I think many others thought this and have similarly shifted.
I think one key difference, at least for me was that mainstream media was more broadly trusted, and the ‘old’ internet was a lot more diffuse and hobbyist. Social media was in its nascent stages and much more organic in nature too. Whether one agreed with various causes and movements (such as the Arab Spring), those platforms were broadly facilitating exposes and fuelling and assisting in organisation political movements in new ways that simply weren’t possible before.
Fast forward to now and social media is a different beast entirely. They’re much more monetised, the algorithm is king. For many people, social media is the central hub where they get directed to other content, be it entertainment or political. Whereas in the nascent social media age, browsing was a discrete side activity you did separately from whatever else you were doing, broadly speaking.
I think most can observe some of problems that causes in combination, positions will doubtless vary wildly on what, if anything to do about it.
I’d contend a chief problem is that in this ecosphere we’ve nothing like a genuine free marketplace of ideas, so it doesn’t necessarily discredit the concept.
I’m not generally in favour of arbitrary state censorship here, it’s like throwing a bucket of water on a raging wildfire.
I think you needed cross-national consensus and regulation on social media though like, yesterday. Or well, a decade+ ago. Not to suppress a relatively free marketplace of ideas, but to actually create one
How ya do that, well that’s a fun can of worms but I think more generally it’s probably desirous
|
On March 24 2026 21:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 15:39 baal wrote:On March 23 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. Have you been hibernating for the last 10-15 years? Sure it can work in many instances, in others we’ve collectively seen that absolutely not be the case I'm not sure what you are referencing to?, the deplataforming of the alt-right? What others have expanded upon, namely that that rough timeframe shows innumerable issues and a general trend where the idea that good ideas, or at least true ones will win out in a free marketplace of ideas has been shown to not hold, or certainly not near universally.
by what standard have you determined it is a good idea? i used to think all-the-time, instant access to unlimited sports betting options was the ethical stance that governments at all levels should adopt. I thought the Supreme Court decision Murphy v. NCAA was a good one. Turns out... with 8 years to look back on. I'm wrong. It was a bad decision.
For people with the freedom-oriented, libertarian perspective on gambling this explanation is worthy of your attention. It is quite persuasive in favour of strict regulation of gambling ... or no gambling at all. This is a fascinating evolution in thinking many Americans are going through right now. Bitching about gambling ads has replaced baseball as the national past time.
It is hard to say what ideas are good and what ideas are bad.
On a purely practical level I can't watch the NBA, NFL, or MLB any longer. Gambling ads are in every corner of the screen. Can I just watch a game please?
|
On March 24 2026 22:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2026 21:45 WombaT wrote:On March 24 2026 15:39 baal wrote:On March 23 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:On March 23 2026 18:25 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 23:32 WombaT wrote:On March 22 2026 20:18 baal wrote:On March 22 2026 19:41 Simberto wrote:
Where do you walk from Germany or Poland and are safe? Literally the only place i can come up with is Switzerland. Everything else in Europe is full of Nazis at some point of the war. To get to safety, you need a ship, either to England or the US or some place like that. Those are not free. And funnily enough, the places you might get to to be safe actually denied you entrance. France, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark... The claim is that many people didn't know they were going to kill the jews when the Nazi party won not deep into the war you dunce. Stop talking about Germany please. You have no clue about anything, and you apparently cannot understand complex situations. And you dont seem to understand simple arguments Look at that data. The November 1932 election was the last free election, so 1933 doesn't count. Yes, the Nazis were the biggest party. But they were also unable to form a coalition with any other party, so they couldn't create a government. We don't have FPTP in Germany, and didn't back then. In a parliamentary system, having 30% of the vote doesn't matter if you cannot convince another 20% to work with you. Again, the claim is that a party who openly wants the mas killing of a race wouldn't get to power or be the most popular party in your own fucking country, unless you think one third of you German ancestors were mass murdering maniacs.------------------------------- Reading comprehension sucks in here so heres again for like the nth time, the claims were: - Nazis didn't openly call for the mass murder of jews before the war, they were concealing their intentions since expulsion is more palatable for the public. - Many jews and germans also didn't know that was their goal until it was too late. Even if that were the case, it’s still a good use case for some kind of hate speech laws or similar mechanisms no? Forgive me if I’m misremembering or misintepreting but wasn’t this tangent jumping off that discussion? No, you don't kill an idea through censorship, on the contrary you make them powerful as a taboo, "sun light" disinfects, it kills bad ideas through talking about them and proving why and how they are bad ideas. Have you been hibernating for the last 10-15 years? Sure it can work in many instances, in others we’ve collectively seen that absolutely not be the case I'm not sure what you are referencing to?, the deplataforming of the alt-right? What others have expanded upon, namely that that rough timeframe shows innumerable issues and a general trend where the idea that good ideas, or at least true ones will win out in a free marketplace of ideas has been shown to not hold, or certainly not near universally. by what standard have you determined it is a good idea? i used to think all-the-time, instant access to unlimited sports betting options was the ethical stance that governments at all levels should adopt. I thought the Supreme Court decision Murphy v. NCAA was a good one. Turns out... with 8 years to look back on. I'm wrong. It was a bad decision.For people with the freedom-oriented, libertarian perspective on gambling this explanation is worthy of your attention. It is quite persuasive in favour of strict regulation of gambling ... or no gambling at all. This is a fascinating evolution in thinking many Americans are going through right now. Bitching about gambling ads has replaced baseball as the national past time. It is hard to say what ideas are good and what ideas are bad. On a purely practical level I can't watch the NBA, NFL, or MLB any longer. Gambling ads are in every corner of the screen. Can I just watch a game please?
Genuine kudos for updating your worldview when realizing the real-world conditions of an issue are too complicated to have an easy ideological stance on.
Unfortunately you had to spoil it by linking to a youtube video of someone who wants to abolish the age of consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
