Riddle me this: If the Confederacy wasn't fascist, how come when you take the fascist national focus in Hearts of Iron IV you play as the Confederate States of America?
Riddle me this: If the Confederacy wasn't fascist, how come when you take the fascist national focus in Hearts of Iron IV you play as the Confederate States of America?
You can’t criticize people who have nothing to do with Nazism if the mainstream left is very radicalized.
I mean you yourself confused the "Unite the Right" nazi rally with regular run-of-the-mill right wingers that wanted to defend statues lol
That doesn't happen by accident
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
so the answer to "why is the media painting right wingers as nazis" is "radicalizations are on both sides and the left is worse"? That's not an answer, thats fallacious distracting.
It seems like your responses are more suited to a separate thread where you post the statement: "Left wing radicalizations are worse than right radicalizations for reasons x, y, z". One of those reasons being climate change or something. Another reason could be that rioting is better than nazi-ism.
That is not what you asked, and you did nothing to disprove my answer, nor agreed with it. I think my reasoning is spot on.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
Yes I can. Why wouldn't I be able to?
So, I haven't seen reasonings support of the fact that right wingers have nothing to do with Nazi-ism. In this thread, I have seen evidence of the contrary.
That aside, this thread is about right wing conservatism, not why right wing tactics are ok given that we "allow" left wing folks to get away with bad things. It's hard to talk about one without talking about the other, sure. But you can't justify bad things because the other side is doing bad things. Which you are clearly doing here.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
Silly example, but illustrates the point:
Imagine me Voss, as a right wing politician. I go and do some cool speech that gets televised and that gets people to vote for me. Next this self proclaimed nazi, called Noss, does this crazy evil stunt, and gets in front of a camera and says "Woo nazi-ism! Woo Voss! Voss 2020". If I don't denounce this person, I'm implicitly allowing support of this group to be part of the non nazis that support me. Ergo, Nazis are now part of my right wing coalition.
A moral Voss politician should denounce this, to put some distance. Then, when some reporter asks why Voss is or isn't a nazi due to his supporter's affiliation, Voss can say "nono, I don't stand for that and I denounced it back on March 3, 2016". or something.
A more concrete example would be that Unite the Right Rally. If you're going to a rally, and there are people waving nazi flags, you should leave, and denounce that rally.
What the left does or doesn't do badly has nothing to do with this percept that the right has. I'll say it again. It's fallacious reasoning.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
I like this example but I think there's the caveat that denouncing or clarifying certain things does not absolve you of responsibility for them in every case. For example, if you say "I think we should solve our problem with insert target group here once and for all" and then later "clarify" that you meant solving crime or poverty within their communities or something, it's a clear-cut case of dogwhistling and doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of the alternate interpretation.
You’re acting like one situation like that is in any way comparable to the influence the media holds, and which they use to push radical left ideology. I see this reflected in the pervasive PC culture that is inescapable nowadays. Affirmative action (which is actually quite racist and doesn’t help people, by the way) is a good example. Bright students are being discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity. It doesn’t help black students either, lowering entry standards doesn’t help anyone.
The movements to dismantle statues, many of which have very little to do with racism or even slavery, is another aspect. What does Churchill have to do with racism or slavery? Sure he had some racist views, but the man literally thought against one of the most oppressive regimes in history and was a great philosemite. There are many other examples. What does Christopher Columbus have to do with anything? He discovered (or, rather, REdiscovered) the American continent. Nobody celebrates him for his role in the expansion of the Spanish Empire, which resulted in the near destruction of relatively advanced civilizations like the Aztecs, the Mayans (the Mayan League had already stopped existing by the time Europeans got there, but I still count it because the Mayan civilization itself was still extant at the time of his first landing), or the Incans.
The constant, down-your-throat force feeding of PC-agenda - in movies, video games, books - is another good example. Do you know what effect gender ideology has on children? Because it ain’t a good one.
Finally, the fundamentally racist, racial rhetoric the media likes to peddle around nowadays that pits (primarily) white vs black is another example of the radical left-wing ideology that is being peddled around. I think the left needs to deal with their crazy cousins before they can worry about the right. Hell, they’re the reason the radical right has seen a surge in popularity nowadays. The left really can’t adopt a moralistic tone now because they’re the reason for the mess we find ourselves in.
You did it again Ganelon. I'm out.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
I’m not doing that, and it definitely isn’t at all clear that that is what I’m doing, because I’m not doing that st all. There is nothing moral about painting right wingers as nazis when there is a far more pressing concern on the left with regards to radicalism. One could almost call it deflecting - it is definitely a form
of willful blindness and one has to ask themselves - why? Well, there’s a few possible reasons. The first and simplest reason is that the media (and the politicians they support) are lying about their actual intent, and their baseless (and in some cases, scientifically wrong) ideologies are actually just a smokescreen that they don’t expect anyone to seriously believe in (although college students seem to be quite vulnerable to this). The overwhelming majority of right wingers aren’t nazis, and there is absolutely no evidence that they are. Nobody is defending racist policies here or saying we should enact any.
Honestly, if you guys can’t have a mature discussion and address my points instead of calling what I’m saying and doing ‘deflecting, distracting’ or saying that I’m defending nazis (which is a very reprehensible thing to say to someone you purport to like), then you need to grow the hell up. Stop attacking my character and address the points I’m trying to make. I literally feel like I’m talking to a wall and every time I find something to reach to you, it’s like you stick it together imperfectly with duct tape, leaving me with a smaller hole which I can use to try to get to you. But then, that process continues indefinitely until there’s no holes left. I am done. Unless someone is willing to address the points I’m trying to make in a mature, adult, and constructive way, I am done posting in this thread. Good nye
For example, the media reports that the "Unite the Right" rally is a nazi rally attended by nazi supporters
People on the right call foul, claim the rally had lots of good people who were just defending a statue and say the media should stop "painting them as nazis"
Yet the rally was literally a nazi rally attended by nazis
There's no painting being done here. If you dont want to.be associated with nazis, its up to you to distance yourself from them. First step is to make sure you arent caught accidentally defending them like you have in this post.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
You’re literally the only people I know who are ignoring the fact that the media and society at large is very left - leaning, and radical. Even leftists in real life agree with me in that something us seriously wrong. There’s nothing wrong with being a leftist, but radicalism is where I draw the line.
Galeon, we are attacking your argument, not your character. We are asking you to stay focused on the argument instead of changing the argument into something else time and time again. Your response every time about anything is "yeah well the left is worse because of these reasons" when that has nothing to do with the original argument.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
No, saying I’m deflecting and distracting is a complicated ad hominem and it’s one I refuse to engage in, because honestly every time I look at this thread I hope that MAYBE someone will finally agree with something that I have to say. But I know it’s never happening, because the points are make are cordial reasoning, deflections, defenses of Nazism or god knows what else.
Yet this thread isnt even about the left. Its about right wing liberalism vs right wing conservatism. And apparently wanting to understand why right wingers are often conflated nazis. And when provided with reasons ehy, you immediately go on the defensive. Was your intention the whole time just hoping to bait certain responses so that you could rant about the left? Or to actually have your original questions answered?
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I’m literally arguing the left is more radical and that they have no business painting right wingers as nazis when there is absolutely no evidence of this being the case, and then you launch into whatsboutisms about something Trump said. Sure, I agree that he fucked up there but one wrong move doesn’t make one a nazi.
Honestly I don’t even remember the original purpose of this thread, except that I understood my own beliefs a lot better after reading some paper. We all went on tangents that had nothing to do with the thread.
You claim ad hominem. I say that your arguments are red herrings. Thats not an ad hominem attack, its an attack directly at your argument.
Trumps words supporting a nazi rally are absolutely relevant to a topic about why right wingers are associated with nazis
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Dude saying that someone’s argument is a red herring OVERAND OVER is not logical. I know I’m not the most straightforward person and oftentimes I am wrong, but nobody can be THAT wrong.
The only time someone has agreed with me in this thread or not attacked me is when I took the leftist side.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Here's an example of how I'd respond in your fashion:
The media and the left aren't that bad. Pedophiles are bad and they're the real evil here. They're people like Epstein and they're the scum of the earth bc they ruin children.
Now, this has nothing to do with the left, or the right arguments, but I can peddle that in response to each one of your posts. Let me tell you, it doesn't feel great.
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
When you’re ready to discuss this without emotions getting in the way, let me know. Until then, I am done. This really is my last post on this thread.
Last edited by BananaCucho; July 7th, 2020 at 07:49 AM.
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
I'd hop back in but I don't actually know what content is being debated.
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
Like I said we go off on these side roads that the original point gets lost because we aren't talking about X anymore, we are now talking about Y, which goes to Z. It's why I yeeted myself out because it's not a discussion it's just chasing the dragon.
it's partly why i didn't read the entire thread. I just read the second post and responded to it. Then we started talking about climate change?
FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
FM XXI: USA (Escort)
FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)
I maintain that the left is good because Donald Trump is a literal child rapist and I won't listen to any of your arguments until someone posts a 500 page essay refuting that claim.
I once saw a segment on TYT that told me that right-wing governments around the world are forcing people to use racial slurs when referring to any non-white minority, which I now accept as fact.
I think it's telling of something that I had to Google for left-wing demagogues and figureheads because I couldn't think of any off the top of my head.
I fucking love eagles being used in banners but Trump using it is troll as fuck. Every flag I have used in Bannerlord has had eagles.
I miss this thread.
This has good points. I really think there is very few points you have made that I felt were unfair. I should probably step back and consider your position more as I post. Call it a character flaw of mine. I do get what your saying here but I very honestly dislike the idea that "whataboutism" is treated like a logical fallacy. It basically allows for an argument to ignore context/circumstance when convenient and frame the other persons comments as a red herring. If what I said is erroneous its a red herring. If its not then "whataboutism" is just a crappy way to exclude conversation that detracts from your desired position. It creates the vague direction that someone is talking about 'other stuff' to deflate or support some other unspoken position which is one really ugly logic jump allowing misrepresentation on an extreme level.
Maybe its just our mafia roots considering the counter train strategy but that line allows for an insane amount of bias while attempting to command the consideration of a logical fallacy and I just don't care for it.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
This makes a lot of sense to me in a lot of ways.
-edit
If your interested I think this piece does quite a bit to outline true systemic issues in the US law with great respect to intention and morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6yXjdMlHI
Last edited by Helz; July 9th, 2020 at 11:51 PM.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.