|
On November 27 2018 17:30 Aquanim wrote:I am not convinced by the readings of xDaunt's posts that he is "advocating" genocide (though I would say there is a not entirely unreasonable case for "condoning" or "accepting", or even potentially for "dogwhistle-advocating"). That being said I think this question was loaded: Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 10:39 xDaunt wrote:
Do you agree that peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis is impossible? If so, which side do you want to win out and why? I don't believe that entirely peaceful coexistence between Palestinians et al. and Israelis is possible as those two groups currently exist. xDaunt's question, however, glosses over the third possible outcome to that issue, besides one side or the other "winning": to wit, one (or more likely both) sides might change such that peaceful coexistence becomes possible. + Show Spoiler +I don't expect it to happen quickly or without a great deal of death and suffering. I also don't know that sufficient stability will be maintained for it to happen before
- one side "wins" over the other
- some superpower starts World War 3
- insert out-of-context problem here
but I don't think it's impossible.
I'll also point out that the "et al" is important. I doubt anything would stop with Palestine. As far as I can see a fair bit of the noise that has followed derives (directly or indirecly) from that concealed assertion of fact. Edgelording it up with word games and traps like this isn't exactly unusual in these parts (and not only from xDaunt).
I've not been an active poster long enough to say from first hand experience, but XDaunt doesn't seem to get the benefit of the doubt due to the perception that he's fully advocated for it in the past. I've seen off-hand remarks saying that he has enough times for it to be clear some posters believe it.
From the specific text in question I just read Daunt as looking at it pragmatically. You can maybe call it 'soft advocacy' but it certainly doesn't strike me as mod-worthy.
|
On November 27 2018 12:32 xDaunt wrote:
I'm just stating reality. Genocide is as old as humanity itself. Indeed, genocide is the primary arc of human history. Our story is one of one people replacing another, a process which has repeated itself since the days that our ancestors snuffed out and replaced the neanderthals. Rationalizing genocide is truly besides the point. Genocide simply is. The only culture that stands relatively firm against genocide is Western culture. But that is a relatively recent development, and I suspect that it is going to be short-lived. Genocide will continue to be a fact of life until there is sufficient convergence of global values such that it is no longer a desirable end for certain peoples. We're still a long way off from that point.
Just want to say that anthropology has moved on to say that homo sapiens has mostly interbred into neanderthals. And that there were soemthing like 5 different human species all existing at the same time. Also many cultures throughout history has been horrified by genocide, even by their standards. So xdaunt has a strange view of both history and not quite up to date with modern scientific thinking.
Anyways, xdaunt advocating genocide? What's new? We had him advocate the 14 words and a white ethnostate ie white supremacism rebranded so race is replaced with culture, but people are mysteriously stuck with the culture of the stereotype of their race (but not whites of course!) and he wasn't banned for that, so what's new?
It's actually a curious phenomenon on TL, what was once unacceptable is now acceptable. We all roughly know the unwritten line to not cross, though there are grey areas that are hard to tell which way the mods will fall. Other than the occasional new person who doesn't. Before the Trump campaign all sorts of things were warnable and bannable, but under the umbrella that US politics thread would not hear all the political spectrum, was the floodgates to white supremacism unleashed. And so it was fine to denigrate Mexicans, call them animals, to say that blacks are inherently more violent and predisposed to crime and so on. And so white supremacism was normalised on TL. Nowadays the line is now Jewish conspiracy (not OK), globalist conspiracy (OK), hitler had the right idea (not OK), advocate genocide (OK), whites are superior (not OK), skin colour is culture and white culture are superior (OK).
|
Why are people whining for moderation on the US politics blog thread?
It was created purposely because of the censor zealots on the other thread so people could have REAL discussions with REAL disagreements. You know, like GH saying jews should be completely evicted from the middle east, and Danglars saying Israel should completely take over the Gaza Strip; at least it seems they agree the status quo sucks. The thread has a moderator that can sensor trolling as he sees fit.
|
I... don't think white supremacy has been normalised on TL. The mods normally step in when that sort of thing comes up. And fast. Someone got banned for rambling about globalists a while back. And genocide advocacy still gets modded. I just don't think Daunt's posts cross that line.
I'm not convinced that if there was a clear path to peace in Palestine that XDaunt's response would be 'fuck that, kill them all'. He doesn't consider it good, just an inevitability in the situation that has developed over there. You can be annoyed at the defeatism/cynicism whatever, but I don't think that amounts to advocacy.
I think 'nihilism' as GH put it, is a fair word, but more than that is pushing it.
On November 27 2018 21:58 GoTuNk! wrote:
Why are people whining for moderation on the US politics blog thread?
It was created purposely because of the censor zealots on the other thread so people could have REAL discussions with REAL disagreements. You know, like GH saying jews should be completely evicted from the middle east, and Danglars saying Israel should completely take over the Gaza Strip; at least it seems they agree the status quo sucks. The thread has a moderator that can sensor trolling as he sees fit.
Um, that's debatable. It was mostly created because posters had become so polarised they couldn't post in the same thread without arguing constantly. GH isn't really a moderator either, as Seeker has made clear. If content in the mega-blog becomes toxic to a certain degree it'd be shut down PDQ. In fact Seeker's made it clear that if GH attempted to censor anything without express mod approval he'd perma-ban him from the site immediately.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On November 27 2018 21:58 GoTuNk! wrote:
Why are people whining for moderation on the US politics blog thread?
It was created purposely because of the censor zealots on the other thread so people could have REAL discussions with REAL disagreements. You know, like GH saying jews should be completely evicted from the middle east, and Danglars saying Israel should completely take over the Gaza Strip; at least it seems they agree the status quo sucks. The thread has a moderator that can sensor trolling as he sees fit.
WTF are you smoking? Do you honestly think that GH’s blog is some kind of holy zone that is immune to TL moderation? If you want, I’d be more than happy to lock it again.
|
I obviously think it makes a lot more sense to just let us be autonomous (barring things obviously violating standard TL protocols) and requested people bring things to me first. Understandably I'm not always around so if it's pressing and I didn't respond I presumed people would then use the standard report feature.
In this case it came here first (unless it was reported?) to rekindle all the reasons I prefer to just use my blog. I can't force people to use my preferred method and I couldn't do anything without me ending up banned from the whole site (for reasons I still don't understand) anyway.
I really don't understand why seeker would threaten to lock my blog because of something GoTunk says though, that seems even more ridiculous than the first lock?
|
On November 27 2018 22:32 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 21:58 GoTuNk! wrote:
Why are people whining for moderation on the US politics blog thread?
It was created purposely because of the censor zealots on the other thread so people could have REAL discussions with REAL disagreements. You know, like GH saying jews should be completely evicted from the middle east, and Danglars saying Israel should completely take over the Gaza Strip; at least it seems they agree the status quo sucks. The thread has a moderator that can sensor trolling as he sees fit. WTF are you smoking? Do you honestly think that GH’s blog is some kind of holy zone that is immune to TL moderation? If you want, I’d be more than happy to lock it again.
GoTuNk! believes a lot of strange things and has a strange definition of censorship. I wouldn’t take it to seriously.
|
On November 27 2018 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I obviously think it makes a lot more sense to just let us be autonomous (barring things obviously violating standard TL protocols) and requested people bring things to me first. Understandably I'm not always around so if it's pressing and I didn't respond I presumed people would then use the standard report feature.
In this case it came here first (unless it was reported?) to rekindle all the reasons I prefer to just use my blog. I can't force people to use my preferred method and I couldn't do anything without me ending up banned from the whole site (for reasons I still don't understand) anyway.
I really don't understand why seeker would threaten to lock my blog because of something GoTunk says though, that seems even more ridiculous than the first lock?
I didn't come to you first because I figured you knew about the post and didn't consider it moderation-worthy. My first thought was "I think he's advocating genocide?" which TL moderation staff presumably would want to know about. But I didn't report because I honestly didn't know whether it was over the line or not. At this point I've read it about five times and don't understand how it is anything other than at least conditionally advocating genocide, but if moderation staff sees it differently that's fine by me.
I mean, where I come from if someone says "it sounds like you're justifying genocide, are you justifying genocide?" then a negative answer would start with "no, but" and then clarifying why what they said wasn't justifying genocide. If the answer is "listen, man, genocides are inevitable, there's nothing we can do about it," I think that should be read as "yes, I'm justifying genocide," considering arguments to inevitability are a pretty standard way to try to justify/absolve guilt from apparently immoral actions (e.g. "Hey, everybody cheats on their spouse at some point!" or "Look, the store knows a certain percentage of products will get shoplifted and factors that into the price!").
|
On November 27 2018 23:09 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I obviously think it makes a lot more sense to just let us be autonomous (barring things obviously violating standard TL protocols) and requested people bring things to me first. Understandably I'm not always around so if it's pressing and I didn't respond I presumed people would then use the standard report feature.
In this case it came here first (unless it was reported?) to rekindle all the reasons I prefer to just use my blog. I can't force people to use my preferred method and I couldn't do anything without me ending up banned from the whole site (for reasons I still don't understand) anyway.
I really don't understand why seeker would threaten to lock my blog because of something GoTunk says though, that seems even more ridiculous than the first lock? I didn't come to you first because I figured you knew about the post and didn't consider it moderation-worthy. My first thought was "I think he's advocating genocide?" which TL moderation staff presumably would want to know about. But I didn't report because I honestly didn't know whether it was over the line or not. At this point I've read it about five times and don't understand how it is anything other than at least conditionally advocating genocide, but if moderation staff sees it differently that's fine by me. I mean, where I come from if someone says "it sounds like you're justifying genocide, are you justifying genocide?" then a negative answer would start with "no, but" and then clarifying why what they said wasn't justifying genocide. If the answer is "listen, man, genocides are inevitable, there's nothing we can do about it," I think that should be read as "yes, I'm justifying genocide," considering arguments to inevitability are a pretty standard way to try to justify/absolve guilt from apparently immoral actions (e.g. "Hey, everybody cheats on their spouse at some point!" or "Look, the store knows a certain percentage of products will get shoplifted and factors that into the price!").
I can't disagree with you at all on that. Its obviously skirting the line and I'm sure the mods have had something to think about too. I would suggest the outcome depends on which mod is looking at it and their opinions on the subject.
Either way, it sparked some good discussion and wasn't particularly meant aggressively to other posters so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.
|
On November 27 2018 23:09 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I obviously think it makes a lot more sense to just let us be autonomous (barring things obviously violating standard TL protocols) and requested people bring things to me first. Understandably I'm not always around so if it's pressing and I didn't respond I presumed people would then use the standard report feature.
In this case it came here first (unless it was reported?) to rekindle all the reasons I prefer to just use my blog. I can't force people to use my preferred method and I couldn't do anything without me ending up banned from the whole site (for reasons I still don't understand) anyway.
I really don't understand why seeker would threaten to lock my blog because of something GoTunk says though, that seems even more ridiculous than the first lock? I didn't come to you first because I figured you knew about the post and didn't consider it moderation-worthy. My first thought was "I think he's advocating genocide?" which TL moderation staff presumably would want to know about. But I didn't report because I honestly didn't know whether it was over the line or not. At this point I've read it about five times and don't understand how it is anything other than at least conditionally advocating genocide, but if moderation staff sees it differently that's fine by me. I mean, where I come from if someone says "it sounds like you're justifying genocide, are you justifying genocide?" then a negative answer would start with "no, but" and then clarifying why what they said wasn't justifying genocide. If the answer is "listen, man, genocides are inevitable, there's nothing we can do about it," I think that should be read as "yes, I'm justifying genocide," considering arguments to inevitability are a pretty standard way to try to justify/absolve guilt from apparently immoral actions (e.g. "Hey, everybody cheats on their spouse at some point!" or "Look, the store knows a certain percentage of products will get shoplifted and factors that into the price!").
I totally see what you're saying and didn't mean to go after you, just somehow this turned into my blog getting threatened and I wanted to implement the protocol I described to help avoid situations like this (granted this threat feels a little out of left field). I appreciate if people take that into consideration in the future. Love it or hate it (my blog) the majority of us prefer it this way and it has generally reduced the frequency of complaints about my posting specifically and other posters that have more or less migrated/split time.
|
On November 27 2018 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 23:09 ChristianS wrote:On November 27 2018 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I obviously think it makes a lot more sense to just let us be autonomous (barring things obviously violating standard TL protocols) and requested people bring things to me first. Understandably I'm not always around so if it's pressing and I didn't respond I presumed people would then use the standard report feature.
In this case it came here first (unless it was reported?) to rekindle all the reasons I prefer to just use my blog. I can't force people to use my preferred method and I couldn't do anything without me ending up banned from the whole site (for reasons I still don't understand) anyway.
I really don't understand why seeker would threaten to lock my blog because of something GoTunk says though, that seems even more ridiculous than the first lock? I didn't come to you first because I figured you knew about the post and didn't consider it moderation-worthy. My first thought was "I think he's advocating genocide?" which TL moderation staff presumably would want to know about. But I didn't report because I honestly didn't know whether it was over the line or not. At this point I've read it about five times and don't understand how it is anything other than at least conditionally advocating genocide, but if moderation staff sees it differently that's fine by me. I mean, where I come from if someone says "it sounds like you're justifying genocide, are you justifying genocide?" then a negative answer would start with "no, but" and then clarifying why what they said wasn't justifying genocide. If the answer is "listen, man, genocides are inevitable, there's nothing we can do about it," I think that should be read as "yes, I'm justifying genocide," considering arguments to inevitability are a pretty standard way to try to justify/absolve guilt from apparently immoral actions (e.g. "Hey, everybody cheats on their spouse at some point!" or "Look, the store knows a certain percentage of products will get shoplifted and factors that into the price!"). I totally see what you're saying and didn't mean to go after you, just somehow this turned into my blog getting threatened and I wanted to implement the protocol I described to help avoid situations like this (granted this threat feels a little out of left field). I appreciate if people take that into consideration in the future. Love it or hate it (my blog) the majority of us prefer it this way and it has generally reduced the frequency of complaints about my posting specifically and other posters that have more or less migrated/split time.
Totally! I'm glad your blog exists and I would have thought twice about asking the question if I thought it would bring heat down on you or the blog. Not that the moderation team has much reason to care what I think, but for what it's worth I think this would be a very bad reason to shut down the blog. If the post is actionable, action it; if not, leave it alone. Either way, it's not the venue he posted it in that's to blame.
|
On November 27 2018 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 23:09 ChristianS wrote:On November 27 2018 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
I obviously think it makes a lot more sense to just let us be autonomous (barring things obviously violating standard TL protocols) and requested people bring things to me first. Understandably I'm not always around so if it's pressing and I didn't respond I presumed people would then use the standard report feature.
In this case it came here first (unless it was reported?) to rekindle all the reasons I prefer to just use my blog. I can't force people to use my preferred method and I couldn't do anything without me ending up banned from the whole site (for reasons I still don't understand) anyway.
I really don't understand why seeker would threaten to lock my blog because of something GoTunk says though, that seems even more ridiculous than the first lock? I didn't come to you first because I figured you knew about the post and didn't consider it moderation-worthy. My first thought was "I think he's advocating genocide?" which TL moderation staff presumably would want to know about. But I didn't report because I honestly didn't know whether it was over the line or not. At this point I've read it about five times and don't understand how it is anything other than at least conditionally advocating genocide, but if moderation staff sees it differently that's fine by me. I mean, where I come from if someone says "it sounds like you're justifying genocide, are you justifying genocide?" then a negative answer would start with "no, but" and then clarifying why what they said wasn't justifying genocide. If the answer is "listen, man, genocides are inevitable, there's nothing we can do about it," I think that should be read as "yes, I'm justifying genocide," considering arguments to inevitability are a pretty standard way to try to justify/absolve guilt from apparently immoral actions (e.g. "Hey, everybody cheats on their spouse at some point!" or "Look, the store knows a certain percentage of products will get shoplifted and factors that into the price!"). I totally see what you're saying and didn't mean to go after you, just somehow this turned into my blog getting threatened and I wanted to implement the protocol I described to help avoid situations like this (granted this threat feels a little out of left field). I appreciate if people take that into consideration in the future. Love it or hate it (my blog) the majority of us prefer it this way and it has generally reduced the frequency of complaints about my posting specifically and other posters that have more or less migrated/split time.
You do seem a lot more chilled out over there, and I think you and I, at least, are getting on much better in general and having more civil discussion. So I think that's good. You're the main reason I go there anyway.
Don't take the threat to heart. Seeker's just not-so-gently reminding GoTunk not to assume that your blog is some island separate from TL where the rules don't apply. I don't take that threat seriously. It's just a reminder that you aren't a mod and he shouldn't act as if or think that you are.
|
On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all.
What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace.
I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for.
|
On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for.
If you are aware of the origins of the term, you should have no problem with people pointing out the flaws if applying it to +7000 years of human history. Or being suspect of the fatalistic argument that genocide is part of human nature all the way back to the neanderthals. I understand the human desire for simplistic answers to complex problems, but we shouldn’t encourage that part of our lizard brain.
|
On November 28 2018 02:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. If you are aware of the origins of the term, you should have no problem with people pointing out the flaws if applying it to +7000 years of human history. Or being suspect of the fatalistic argument that genocide is part of human nature all the way back to the neanderthals. I understand the human desire for simplistic answers to complex problems, but we shouldn’t encourage that part of our lizard brain.
That's not what any of this is about. Making sure you don't follow the same mistakes in the past is a good thing we should encourage. Making words to simplify the explanation of things is something we should encourage.
|
On November 28 2018 02:27 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 02:05 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. If you are aware of the origins of the term, you should have no problem with people pointing out the flaws if applying it to +7000 years of human history. Or being suspect of the fatalistic argument that genocide is part of human nature all the way back to the neanderthals. I understand the human desire for simplistic answers to complex problems, but we shouldn’t encourage that part of our lizard brain. That's not what any of this is about. Making sure you don't follow the same mistakes in the past is a good thing we should encourage. Making words to simplify the explanation of things is something we should encourage.
Simplicities are anathema to learning from and understanding history. Arguing that genocide is just an aspect of human nature fundamentally miss the point of why the term was coined. It overlooks years of effort put in by the Nazi government to dehumanize the Jews and other minorities, by slowly preying on existing prejudices to make the general population accepting. The years of study by Raphael Lemkin to document exactly how the Nazi govement built in on previous attempt to wipe out populations to show the careful planning involved. And to assure the same tactics could be noted when used in the future.
If you want to avoid the mistakes of the past, don’t take the works of people trying to do that very thing and water them down because it is easier. This shit was never meant to be easy.
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for.
You claimed that Western civilization had reached a unique conclusion that genocide was bad. But Western civilization is still doing genocide today. We haven’t learned shit, we’re not above genocide, native women still get involuntarily sterilized while giving birth all the time in the US and Canada.
|
On November 28 2018 03:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. You claimed that Western civilization had reached a unique conclusion that genocide was bad. But Western civilization is still doing genocide today. We haven’t learned shit, we’re not above genocide, native women still get involuntarily sterilized while giving birth all the time in the US and Canada.
Trump literally committed genocide through inaction last year alone; refusing to send proper aid to Puerto Rico, killing over 3000 people. And people still support him. Indeed: Western civilization haven't learned shit.
|
On November 28 2018 03:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 02:27 Sermokala wrote:On November 28 2018 02:05 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. If you are aware of the origins of the term, you should have no problem with people pointing out the flaws if applying it to +7000 years of human history. Or being suspect of the fatalistic argument that genocide is part of human nature all the way back to the neanderthals. I understand the human desire for simplistic answers to complex problems, but we shouldn’t encourage that part of our lizard brain. That's not what any of this is about. Making sure you don't follow the same mistakes in the past is a good thing we should encourage. Making words to simplify the explanation of things is something we should encourage. Simplicities are anathema to learning from and understanding history. Arguing that genocide is just an aspect of human nature fundamentally miss the point of why the term was coined. It overlooks years of effort put in by the Nazi government to dehumanize the Jews and other minorities, by slowly preying on existing prejudices to make the general population accepting. The years of study by Raphael Lemkin to document exactly how the Nazi govement built in on previous attempt to wipe out populations to show the careful planning involved. And to assure the same tactics could be noted when used in the future. If you want to avoid the mistakes of the past, don’t take the works of people trying to do that very thing and water them down because it is easier. This shit was never meant to be easy.
I didn't claim it was unique nor did I claim we were above it, I simply claimed that the west created a word for it and decided it was bad. That it still happens doesn't disqualify that people think its a bad thing.
On November 28 2018 03:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 01:47 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 16:41 KwarK wrote:On November 27 2018 14:24 Sermokala wrote:On November 27 2018 13:30 Plansix wrote:
Wow. That both abuses history and the intelligence of anyone who reads it.
If you boil it down, the post argues that genocide is natural. It is part of the mythical “natural law” which preordains that all cultures struggle for dominance. That it is in human nature to wipe out cultures that are different and preventing that nature from taking hold is a luxury. And Western(White) culture must shed this luxury if it is to survivor, because the non western cultures(not white) are going to use genocide.
I’m not even surprised any more. White nationalism is a hell of a drug. Thats a really shitty read of his post even for your standards. He doesn't advocate for anything only pointing out that western civilization is the only civilization that has at the least realized that genocide is bad and that it shouldn't be allowed. Nothing about the post brings race into the discussion and nothing says that the loss of this trait is a positive development. Its clearly an explanation of a rational (if morally terrible) explanation for Isreal's actions from its birth. Surrounded by peoples who have done nothing but advocate for their genocide they've been making a series of decisions to prevent that from happening. Did western civilization start in 1945 for you? Because if not I have some bad news for you regarding westerners and genocide. Probably also worth reminding that forced sterilization of indigenous populations in North America and Australia is literally still going on. Western civilization's track record on genocide is really not very good at all. What a weak post really. The word was created in 1944 so thats when the concept of it being bad was created by dint of it being created as a thing to be bad then. That doesn't mean that western civilization wasn't fully on board with moving people out of where they lived and off into Portugal or Scotland with the rest of the peoples they defeated. Just like the reformation when wrong Christian was forced to leave their ancestorial lands to get moved off to America so the right religion could move in and have that glorious westphallian peace. I'm fully aware of western civilizations genocides and the awakening to them of being really terrible is what the creation of the word was for. You claimed that Western civilization had reached a unique conclusion that genocide was bad. But Western civilization is still doing genocide today. We haven’t learned shit, we’re not above genocide, native women still get involuntarily sterilized while giving birth all the time in the US and Canada.
Simplicities are the basis for any agreement on anything at all. just look at this conversation. we can't agree on the specifics of something and most of our exchange is basically disagreeing on the basic meaning of words. I doubt my conversation with kwark will avoid becoming petty semantics for much longer. People still disagree about the civil war being about slavery. The answer isn't "lets talk about the economic motivations behind the two sides that went back to the start of the colonies with the north being more capital based around industrial concerns and the souths capital being based on agricultural resources being backed up with slave labor." the answer is to tell people it was because of slavery.
Peoples work isn't supposed to be watered down but academics have never changed the course of history by trying to explain things to everyone.
|
Academics never change the course of history by....Jesus...All right.
Sermokala, genocide is a modern term that hinges on the existence of other modern aspects of modern society. Applying it to post industrial eras is a misuse of the term. So knock it off, because you are wrong. I’m not explain it to you any more, as I won’t change history by doing it. You are just wrong, so stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
