Political Correctness
- Thread starter lbsf1
- 2,890 comments
- 151,659 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I believe I have a hereditary genetic superiority because of my universal donor O negative blood type.
Sadly, I have no great structures, works of art or legal systems to boast of.
But unless there is genuine interest, I will not discuss it further, much less start a bespoke ancient history/mystery thread.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
He was able to unite a vast group of people under a common goal and in the process basically built the country up from virtually nothing in a few short years. I think that shows strong leadership. Ethical? Not at all.
- 6,293
- Canada
Perhaps it's semantics, but I would say that was effective dictatorship (effective at accomplishing his goals), but not strong leadership.
On a different note, going back to my post I made regarding the "age and maturity" of the students, and whether they can handle a debate regarding pronouns.
If you read between the lines of that point of view, it's not difficult to conclude that the professor feels that 18 is a suitable age for someone to vote for a Liberal Prime Minister, but is not a suitable age to hear a Conservative arguement regarding biology.
- 31,118
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
- 6,293
- Canada
You can play the "is the pious pious?" game with almost any situation. The nature of good and evil is debatable.
In my opinion though, something that is not debatable, something that is universal, is pain and suffering. Pain is undeniable, no matter what side of an issue you sit on (and I'm talking real, physical pain).
Hitler caused nearly immeasurable amounts of pain and suffering, including to his own people. Hitler was like a massive rail of cocaine for the German working class people in the 1930s. He had all the answers, solved all the problems, everyone felt like a :censored:in' rock star.
And just like any cocaine bender, the whole thing came crashing down on their heads when then rest of the world had to inform them that they were being jackasses.
The only place Hitler lead his people was to distriction. Was he a hero for leading half his people out of the Great Depression....into Soviet occupation of East Germany for however many years. The people risking their lives to get over that wall must have thought Hitler was a real hero.
Like I said, I understand how one can play the game of "well if I was a poor German worker in the 1930s, Hitler was actually good." But c'mon, that's such a small view of everything that happened. Ya ok, maybe you had a few years at the end of the 30s that were slightly better than the early 30s. After those few good years though, you got to get drafted into the military, and probably end up getting your brains blown out somewhere far from home. Or maybe you were fortunate enough to have a young son that you could volunteer to the cause to have his entrails be strewn across the battlefield.
Hero?? Really? The person who leads you to your doom is a hero?
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
So we've reached the point where anti-PC crusades have morphed into mealy-mouthed lamentations of a time when talking about master races was acceptable, and uncritically repeating Nazi origin stories in an attempt at nuance. Cool cool cool.
Before WW1, Germany was the strongest industrial power on the continent, but sandwiched between the French Empire which along with Belgium rivaled German industry, and the mammoth Russian Empire. After the war, Germany's industry and land was untouched while French and Belgian industry were ravaged. The Russian empire was rebuilding as the fledgling Soviet Union, and Austria-Hungary was broken up. To borrow a phrase from a German leader that actually built Germany up from nothing, in realpolitik terms post WW1 Germany was situated to essentially amalgamate the most valuable regions of the German Empire and former Austro-Hungarian empires.
If we're going to talk about egregious treaties, let's first talk about the treaty Germany signed with the fledgling Soviet Union which took up something like 30% of the Soviet industrial base and an amount of territory resembling Hitler's lebensraum. In comparison, the territories taken from the German Empire after the war were short lived and recently won conquests, and the core of what at the time would be considered "Germany" remained intact. Germany's economy went in to shambles with everyone else during the Great Depression, and reparations payments stopped because Germany couldn't afford to pay, and neither France nor Britain were in a position to force them to. Versallies to the letter of the law was harsh but not egregious, and from the day it was signed the treaty was never actually followed to its full extent.
In the run-up to WW2, the German economy was beginning to recover pre-1933, and the Nazi economy "recovered" by...becoming a Nazi economy. They developed a policy of autarky, which is certainly a bold strategy for a leader about to fight against nearly every other great power on earth without access to critical oil and mineral resources. They "solved" unemployment by taking women and Jews out of the workplace, not through some miraculous economic insight. GDP increased but GDP increases does not mean wealth creation, they blew through Germany's currency and gold reserves to fund a military buildup, and still went to war with horse logistics.
So to sum it up, he burned through all the gold and foreign reserves on military equipment and built a house of cards economy that could only be sustained through conquest. He defeated and looted Poland, and defeated and looted France. He then got into a war with the three remaining great powers while still not having sovereign control over any oil or vital minerals for war production. The economy was a bizzare mix of private and public industry and the Nazi party, army, air force, and SS all fought over resources and Hitler forced his armies to waste scarce resources on harebrained wonder weapons a five year old would draw in math class.
At the end of WW1 and entering WW2, Germany was the most powerful country on the continent. By the end of WW2, Germany was was the 5th most powerful country in Germany. Hitler's grand reich and genocidal Ponzi-scheme economy set out to exterminate Jews and Slavic peoples. By the end of the war it collapsed and half his country was occupied by Bolsheviks for fifty years. Indeed, his leadership was truly unparalleled.
This is Nazi propaganda. I am not calling you a Nazi, but I am saying this "Hitler saved the economy/Germany was in shambles" idea is a false and incredibly pervasive Nazi myth.
Before WW1, Germany was the strongest industrial power on the continent, but sandwiched between the French Empire which along with Belgium rivaled German industry, and the mammoth Russian Empire. After the war, Germany's industry and land was untouched while French and Belgian industry were ravaged. The Russian empire was rebuilding as the fledgling Soviet Union, and Austria-Hungary was broken up. To borrow a phrase from a German leader that actually built Germany up from nothing, in realpolitik terms post WW1 Germany was situated to essentially amalgamate the most valuable regions of the German Empire and former Austro-Hungarian empires.
If we're going to talk about egregious treaties, let's first talk about the treaty Germany signed with the fledgling Soviet Union which took up something like 30% of the Soviet industrial base and an amount of territory resembling Hitler's lebensraum. In comparison, the territories taken from the German Empire after the war were short lived and recently won conquests, and the core of what at the time would be considered "Germany" remained intact. Germany's economy went in to shambles with everyone else during the Great Depression, and reparations payments stopped because Germany couldn't afford to pay, and neither France nor Britain were in a position to force them to. Versallies to the letter of the law was harsh but not egregious, and from the day it was signed the treaty was never actually followed to its full extent.
In the run-up to WW2, the German economy was beginning to recover pre-1933, and the Nazi economy "recovered" by...becoming a Nazi economy. They developed a policy of autarky, which is certainly a bold strategy for a leader about to fight against nearly every other great power on earth without access to critical oil and mineral resources. They "solved" unemployment by taking women and Jews out of the workplace, not through some miraculous economic insight. GDP increased but GDP increases does not mean wealth creation, they blew through Germany's currency and gold reserves to fund a military buildup, and still went to war with horse logistics.
When the treasuries ran dry, they annexed other states which kept the Ponzi scheme running. When they ran out of countries to annex they started invading countries to seize their treasuries and build up for an apocalyptic war on the Eastern front . Even the vaunted German blitzkreig did not really happen as advertised. Britain and the US entered the war fully mechanized. Germany launched a genocidal war in Russia almost entirely supported by horse logistics. The Battle of France was fought by and large with Panzer I's, intended to be a training tank and not to see actual combat. They spent 7 years blowing through all the foreign reserves and gold they had to prepare for war, and weren't even materially prepared for war then.
So to sum it up, he burned through all the gold and foreign reserves on military equipment and built a house of cards economy that could only be sustained through conquest. He defeated and looted Poland, and defeated and looted France. He then got into a war with the three remaining great powers while still not having sovereign control over any oil or vital minerals for war production. The economy was a bizzare mix of private and public industry and the Nazi party, army, air force, and SS all fought over resources and Hitler forced his armies to waste scarce resources on harebrained wonder weapons a five year old would draw in math class.
At the end of WW1 and entering WW2, Germany was the most powerful country on the continent. By the end of WW2, Germany was was the 5th most powerful country in Germany. Hitler's grand reich and genocidal Ponzi-scheme economy set out to exterminate Jews and Slavic peoples. By the end of the war it collapsed and half his country was occupied by Bolsheviks for fifty years. Indeed, his leadership was truly unparalleled.
Last edited:
- 10,917
- Sweden
- eran0004
- 83
- Ollerton
No government is not to blame per se but they allow the media to do it for them, it is much easier
Look at the proliferance of historical sex cases going on in the UK and US, how can people be convicted on somebodies say so without hard evidence?
Anybody implicated seem to be guilty until they prove their innocence
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
On regards to Nazi Germany, do you think that the fact that they lost WW2 means Regardless of what they did they face a unfavourable view point in history as their enemies took over all areas they operated and in turn get to write history?
How well do you trust 1940s allied powers to tell the people the truth of war when they all used propaganda to fuel their effort, we don't even fully trust our governments now but it was much less transparent then.
How well do you trust 1940s allied powers to tell the people the truth of war when they all used propaganda to fuel their effort, we don't even fully trust our governments now but it was much less transparent then.
- 10,972
- Central Coast, NSW
- EelX 5
There is such a mistrust in today's government and media that anything alternative can easily be gobbled it. It's like how a hipster is attracted to old tech.
This is from experience, I had to use opinionated portion of sites like here, to clear my head from exposure of a particular politcal side arguments to make a more informative decision on matter because of how easily I can gobble alternative information.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Well yes Confirmation bias is a human fallacy that tends to make us aim for things we are focusing on and forget the things we are not which can spoil the credibility of our information.
I like to think my BS indicator is quite good which is why i raise this question, when we are taught things of modern history it's seems like it is worded like "our" side is the ethical society and the enemies are some sort of savages, its hard for me to swallow that it can be all one way traffic on information like that especially from questionable sources at the time.
- 6,293
- Canada
Should schools ban children from having 'Best Friends'
https://health.usnews.com/wellness/...friends?context=amp&__twitter_impression=true
The concept of having a best friend is exclusionary, and therefor oppressive.
As pointed out by many people in the comments section, but summed up best by Dr Jordan Peterson "They're practicing for long term, intimate relationships. A child's first 'best friend' is their first love. It also helps teach children to love themselves." (Paraphrased)
Taking that concept further though, if 'best friends' are exclusionary, then marriages are about as exclusionary as can be.
If Bob marries Linda, I can't have sex with Linda anymore (unless Bob's cool with that, but for now, that's the exception, not the norm). As someone who wants to have sex with Linda, I find her marriage to Bob oppressive of my desires.
https://health.usnews.com/wellness/...friends?context=amp&__twitter_impression=true
The concept of having a best friend is exclusionary, and therefor oppressive.
As pointed out by many people in the comments section, but summed up best by Dr Jordan Peterson "They're practicing for long term, intimate relationships. A child's first 'best friend' is their first love. It also helps teach children to love themselves." (Paraphrased)
Taking that concept further though, if 'best friends' are exclusionary, then marriages are about as exclusionary as can be.
If Bob marries Linda, I can't have sex with Linda anymore (unless Bob's cool with that, but for now, that's the exception, not the norm). As someone who wants to have sex with Linda, I find her marriage to Bob oppressive of my desires.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
IMO schools banning children from having best friends smacks of extreme leftist social engineering.
IMO, marriage as an institution is not a good fit with socialist and communist states. LGBTQ rights have been endorsed by some socialist/communist states, as has communal raising of children.
- 24,608
- Anoka, MN
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
"Thank you".
" You are welcome."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_under_communism
LGBT rights under communism have evolved radically throughout history. In the 20th century, Marxist states and parties varied on LGBT rights, with some being among the first political parties to support LGBT rights, while others maintained anti-LGBT views. In the 21st century, communist parties in the West are generally pro-LGBT rights.
In the early stages of the Revolution the Communists held the theory that children should be reared and cared for by the State
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-russian-effort-to-abolish-marriage/306295/
https://www.csustan.edu/sites/defau...rx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf
- 6,293
- Canada
I think something that's interesting about the article, that gets lost amongst the drivel of that article - the author states he thinks 'best friends' are a bad idea. However, he also states that he "doesn't believe in encouraging children to have large social circles."
So this guy literally thinks he's identified some kind of 'Goldie Locks' zone for how many friends a kid should have.
There really is no end to this social construction.
So this guy literally thinks he's identified some kind of 'Goldie Locks' zone for how many friends a kid should have.
There really is no end to this social construction.
- 28,798
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Riiiiight, that was all you. That clip's been all over since the interview was aired, you know.
This isn't the appropriate place for the discussion, but she has a point; racism isn't airborne--its carriers need to die for it to die. Sadly, hate's more easily spread now that it doesn't merely have to spew from some wretched cur's mouth, no, those wishing to spread it have observers open to those beliefs within reach courtesy of social media. No longer do they have to congregate in ramshackle churches.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
