I don't usually play shooters but red orchestra 2 has got commies vs nazis and I love it
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Yes, although I'm more focused on this guys's Twitter handle/icon.
Guy seems a lot more approachable than anyone actually from philly
The next year the Flyers win the cup?
GasBandit
Staff member
I think that's Galactus, not Surtur.
Ahhhhh. I guess they are both apocalyptic beings.
I don't think it's glossing over to skip the part where Ted Bundy jaywalked to get to his victims.
Sure, I just don't see it as worth mentioning in the whole scheme. Charitably I could say even well-read people make that typo when they're not editing, or tired, etc. Uncharitably I would say "Oh people who want to burn books don't care about literacy? I'm shocked, shocked, to discover... etc."
When people focus on these small things or funny things, it makes me feel like they don't seem to have a good argument against the bigger problem. Donald Trump is orange? That's the worst thing you can say about him? Doesn't really sound like you oppose Trump that much, you know? I get that it's satisfying to call Trump a cheeto or Trudeau a drama teacher, or laugh at someone using 'there' instead of 'their', but... that isn't the problem. I wish my biggest problem with book burners is they degrade grammar. I would love the biggest concern with Trump to be that he has a weird skin colour. If someone said, regarding voting laws, that "Minorities should be sure there votes count," and someone cackled gleefully "HA HA THEY CAN'T USE 'THEIR' CORRECTLY," people say that person was unable to support their position, so they're just mocking a small typo to puff themselves up - and that's exactly what it would be.
We're not tv personalities having a debate here, and I think focusing on the things people find humorous about this kind of thing is more distracting than casually pointing it out.
They're burning books because they are afraid of knowledge and ideas. Coping by laughing at the irony in a small space isn't going to change or take away from that. Focusing on it definitely does.
They're burning books because they are afraid of knowledge and ideas. Coping by laughing at the irony in a small space isn't going to change or take away from that. Focusing on it definitely does.
I 100% agree that picking apart someone's grammar as an ad hominem attempt to discredit their message is a big no-no, but in this specific instance, at least, that irony is actually relevant (and telling!) to the issue, since we are talking about an issue that literally relates to grammar!
Yes, it is worrisome that these people want to burn books, especially books that will be used for learning. That, on its own, is a worrisome, concerning thing. BUT the people who want to burn these education-enhancing Bound Objects Of Knowledge have also accidentally revealed to us something about themselves. They, themselves, appear to be lacking in education! This significantly compounds the above concern, because it strongly suggests their hostility is being directed towards something they do not even understand! It also suggests SO many other unpleasant things: "I grew up dumb and I want everyone else to grow up dumb, too!" "I would hate for my progeny to turn out better than me!" "I don't want my kids to get ideas and start questioning my behavior/life choices, or the might just leave!" "Things I don't understand are scary and I don't want them!" "This will make my future uncertain and I hate uncertainty therefore I will hammer-forge the future into a replica of my past so I don't have to be uncomfortable!"
--Patrick
I guess I just think this misses the point, because let's say that their grammar is perfect, in fact they are obsessively precise in their use of language. Let's say they want technological progress, defend mathematics and engineering, chemistry, etc. Is it now defensible to burn books? "We don't oppose education, in fact we want perfect use of English." Grammar Nazi is overused (and dumb) but in such an example you could argue it's literally Nazis who enforce grammar. How easy would it be to disenfranchise people who didn't get a good education?
Suppose we had people who defend access to books but themselves aren't readers, writers, or even literate. They understand how important books are but due their circumstances they make grammatical errors - this isn't a good enough reason to support or oppose the idea - the ideas should be the source of our evidence.
Abortion's controversial but let's give a dramatic thought experiment: suppose all lawmaking women opposed abortion but all lawmaking men thought it should be legal. Would you then say "People who haven't got uteruses shouldn't be making the laws!"? Or would you support the non-uterus-having lawmakers? See it's the idea on abortion that you support, not who is deciding it.
It misses the point to say "They are dumb and want people to stay dumb," because it's wrong to control what books are available, even if the people doing it are smart and want people to be smart. Goebbels was no slouch about language, proper grammar, etiquette. No one would call me a progressive on language (or... anything) but it's not for nothing that proper grammar has turned up on lists of 'white supremacist culture'.
GasBandit
Staff member
"Nobody wants to work anymore!"
Guess what... we're working. Just not for YOU.
www.cnbc.com
Something something scarcity raises value/cost, and that includes the value and cost of labor.
Guess what... we're working. Just not for YOU.
Weekly jobless claims fall to 184,000, the lowest level in more than 52 years
Initial filings for unemployment insurance totaled 184,000 for the week ended Dec. 4, the lowest going back to Sept. 6, 1969.
www.cnbc.com
Something something scarcity raises value/cost, and that includes the value and cost of labor.
Since we talking a bit about jobs in here.
Personal disclosure, but to make some extra cash I took a part time late night seasonal job with Amazon, at a distribution center. While the idea of making them more money makes me wretch a bit, I can't deny that they make the hiring process as streamlined and incentivized as possible. For months before hand, I was sending out my resume, filling out applications, making calls, doing interviews, etc for various stores or companies, and none of them lead to me getting hired. Was honestly a bit down about it, and angry considering how so many of these places had hiring signs but didn't seem to want or need me.
Then I saw a link to Amazon with a hefty sign-on bonus, and thought eh, sure, I guess it's worth a try. No resume, no application, no interviews, I just signed up on their site for a specific shift and made a meeting time, went in with my ID to the new hire center, the intake guy took a photo of me for my badge within two minutes, had me do a small drug test, and I was hired. They had me go through some online training, but any time I was logged on doing the training I was being paid. I mean I am not gonna lie, but after months of resume bullshit and talking to people and shit, the ease at which they hired me was so very refreshing. It makes me wonder how many other big companies are changing the hiring process like that and maybe it's that ease of getting a job that makes less people willing to go through the bullshit that all these low staffed companies are still utilizing in the process.
Personal disclosure, but to make some extra cash I took a part time late night seasonal job with Amazon, at a distribution center. While the idea of making them more money makes me wretch a bit, I can't deny that they make the hiring process as streamlined and incentivized as possible. For months before hand, I was sending out my resume, filling out applications, making calls, doing interviews, etc for various stores or companies, and none of them lead to me getting hired. Was honestly a bit down about it, and angry considering how so many of these places had hiring signs but didn't seem to want or need me.
Then I saw a link to Amazon with a hefty sign-on bonus, and thought eh, sure, I guess it's worth a try. No resume, no application, no interviews, I just signed up on their site for a specific shift and made a meeting time, went in with my ID to the new hire center, the intake guy took a photo of me for my badge within two minutes, had me do a small drug test, and I was hired. They had me go through some online training, but any time I was logged on doing the training I was being paid. I mean I am not gonna lie, but after months of resume bullshit and talking to people and shit, the ease at which they hired me was so very refreshing. It makes me wonder how many other big companies are changing the hiring process like that and maybe it's that ease of getting a job that makes less people willing to go through the bullshit that all these low staffed companies are still utilizing in the process.
I mean, does anyone here need that explained to them? That's why I disagree with @Chad Sexington about missing the point. Yes, it is missing the point, on purpose, because everyone here already knows the point. If you can't find something absurd to laugh at then the only other option is cry in the corner at the collapse of society
I'm sorry if I sounded like I'm lecturing people, I don't mean we can't laugh at these things or that people here are willfully ignoring the real issue. I'm just voicing a peeve that I think can have serious consequences. I agree everyone here is just chuckling at the only glimmer of humour in a grim situation.
My fear, broadly, is that there are people who will be swayed by shiny, polite, grammatically correct evil. Think the 'nice face' of white supremacy - "We don't think they're not people, we just think they're different and mixing cultures is unhealthy for them just as much for us." This attitude helped white supremacism, sadly, because it was palatable. "I don't hate them but you can't deny we're different..." The sad truth is some people will be persuaded that if something is polite, nice, with proper grammar and modern web design, then it is a legitimate, moral viewpoint. No, I don't think anyone here is saying "I'd agree with book burning if the grammar were proper," but I fear there are people in the wide world who will hear messages like "ha ha their grammar is bad" as the only negative, and when they are confronted with proper grammar, they will not see the evil. Again the forum isn't perpetuating this, and I spoilered it because it is ranty and not really about this forum or the people here, but a general concern I have.
I'm not saying don't joke, any more than I would say don't expound on your political peeves on a discussion forum.
Most people that are deep in that ideology gain it from friends or family and then just look for sources that confirm those biases whether they are eloquent like Jordan Peterson or raging vomit like Alex Jones. Very few people are just going to be swayed on their own from one side to the other just because Ben Shapiro has generally decent grammar.
Yep. People follow these figures for excuses, not good arguments
Post automatically merged:
I listened to a nazi talk show today. It was pretty good and I'd like to talk about it
I think both sides had a good point here. In general people need to do a lot better in how they argue these issues instead of just taking cheap shots and expecting common sense to be enough to get people on your side
Last edited:
Yeah that's accurate, I'm more concerned about the people who are one or two degrees away from this. A lot of moderates are getting pulled over to extremism by an association from lesser offenses
I was not joking. At all. Burning books bothers me (and not just because I own a lot of books). Pointing out the grammar was not an attempt at a joke, it was an explanation of why my concern was magnified as a result of that grammatical error.
Of course not. This is in no way a discussion about whether there is a certain threshold of intelligence above which it is acceptable to burn books, it is the pointing out of a tell which MAY indicate that the motive of the ones behind this event is more than just the destruction of reading material, it is also to prevent others from being able to rise above their level.
I don't understand the relevance of this part, because my point was about people who want to prevent others from exceeding their level, but you are describing people who are perfectly happy (and even supportive!) of others being able/allowed to surpass them.
It is my opinion that this condition would never arise. I cannot foresee a situation where all lawmaking women would want to give up their autonomy AND all lawmaking men would try to prevent that from happening. I can't even bring myself to believe that the majority of either legislative gender would ever fall this way (unless tricked, of course).
I 100% agree that it is wrong to control what books are permitted. I am in complete alignment with you on this. MY point, however, is that the realization that the people trying to destroy the books are also apparently people who grew up eschewing books makes it worse.
I agree. The idea of a sort of Victor/Victoria structured layering of evil where too many people are suckered into spending their "A-ha! Caught you in the act!" focus on the prominent and easily seen-through stuff like "Let's go, Brandon!" and therefore have no attention span nor investigative initiative remaining to look for deeper atrocities worries me, as well.
People do get tricked all the time by not questioning what they know to be true and they do fight against their own class interests. That's how we have outspoken queer conservatives
Last edited:
Oh for sure, dude, I just thought that was the most egregious example by far lol
It's real goddamn funny how often I've seen the right say the left only argues through identity politics then get personally offended when I disagree with their tokens
I feel like we have the same opinion on the gravity of the book burning, but differing views on the gravity of whether or not it's worse if someone has a poor grasp of grammar. I suppose what I was trying to illustrate with my thought experiments is that it is equally bad, not worse, if their grammar is bad. Like, book burning is bad, and it is the same bad no matter what. The fear I was trying to convey is that when people say "Oh it's even WORSE because of bad grammar..." it implies that it is less bad (or more moral) to burn books if you have perfect grammar. I disagree with that particular part, the part where someone might think "Oh I guess he's not the worst book burner, because he at least he can write a proper sentence." I don't really think it matters - people on the side that book burning is good are wrong, and the same kind of wrong, and people who are against burning books are right, and the same kind of right. The morality of the book burning doesn't change.
My point with the example in the other direction of people being supportive of not destroying books is that it also isn't MORE moral to support education if you're poorly educated or if you're well educated. It's just... moral. It's equally correct to support it, no matter the condition of your own grammar.
Maybe I'm not being clear, I feel like this was way more posts than I thought would happen.
On the one hand I agree with you - the morality of the choice of book burning doesn't change.
However, there are other factors at play. Someone doing something bad out of ignorance or lack of knowledge is still different from someone doing the same while knowing full well they're doing evil, for example. Someone using, say, racism, as an instrument to gain power for other goals is a different case from someone using racism because they're racist. I'm not necessarily clear on which one is worse, but they are at least different.
In this context (and I'm not especially taking a side here, just trying to dissect arguments for the sake of, well, arguments :-p ), one could claim to make the distinction between those wanting to burn books because they're afraid of change - "I didn't need this, and my children don't", and those who are using it as a means of gaining control - "we need to deliverately keep the masses stupid". Both may want to burn the same books, but the mentality behind it - both bad - are different.