Installer Steam
Logg inn
|
språk
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (tradisjonell kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tsjekkisk)
Dansk (dansk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spania)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latin-Amerika)
Ελληνικά (gresk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (nederlandsk)
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasil)
Română (rumensk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et problem med oversettelse
Dette emnet er blitt låst 
Diskusjonsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette innlegget
Just because people misuse the term doesn't mean any given person is. So people need to Calm the HEck Down and Kill Frau Engel.
But small caveat:
Well, Communism isn't Nazism and I will be the first to say that.
But Communism as an ideology (and thep arties base doff of it) did mandate the genocide of millions of innocent people, sometimes on racal, ethnic, and religious lines like the Nazis.
For instance: Decossackification, the Holodomor in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and the Ethnic Deportations of everyone from Crimea Tatars to Volga Germans.
And I wish you happy hunting and wish my console were hooking up so I could go back to tearing bloody holes in SS troops' chests in Wolfenstein 2009.
The only thing I disagree with you on is that Communism is an ideology. By definition, it isn't. Marxism is the ideology, Communism is a form of government. The distinction being that Communism can exist without Marxism. Either way, the Commun-ISTs are evil, but Communism is just a form of government. There is a distinction.
Don't mistake that for liking communism. Liberty Prime best explains my position on Communism.
what makes you think i'm an DSA kind of guy. i'm not. i'm an PSL/CPUSA kind o guy
The deeper philosophies of the "Unite the Right" protesters- to the extent that any given member of that hateful gutter trash even have a deeper philosophy- doesn't come into play.
What happened in Charelottesville would have been wrong even if it happened between followers of Gandhi versus a Bahai congregation.
American citizens have the right to lawfully assemble and air their views. Even if their view is like the one from a webcam up someone's butt. And the "Unite the Right" gits Did That. For one in their misspent, hateful lives they did something approaching the right thing.
They filed for permission to rally. They cleared it with the proper authorities. And they follwoed orders.
And they were violently attacked without provocation by Thugs who unironically aped how the SA and Red Fighters' Bund treated other people speaking that they didn't like.
So if anything, if the "Both sides were to Blame" intiial statement is problematic, I would argue it's problematic BECAUSE it downplayed the degree to which Antifa initiated this and turned it even worse. And I say this as someone who has actually walked the walk trying to help monitor hate groups like the Sheethead Klanners, lighting bolt dunces, and so on.
They were exercising their legally enshrined right to be ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Hateful Idiots.
Period. Full Stop.
And they have the RIGHT to SAY that thing, in the same way people have the right to advocate for an Anarcho-Communist Commune, or even to trade angry meme gifs of "The Day of the Rope is coming" versus "Bash the Fash."
People have the right to say ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ stupid hateful things within the bounds of the law. The ymay not have the right to ACT out those things, like trying to start creating a "White" Ethno-State by purging anybody non-white in a neighborhood, but that is a separate matter and can be dealt with by the law. or even citizens acting in compliance with it.
I'm going to stop right there, because while I'm no precious snowflake who melts in the face of any attack, this actually triggers me as someone who ACTUALLY spent some time counterprotesting trash like the groups that went to "Unite the Right", but made sure to try and do it PROPERLY.
They were not "denouncing that thinking." Denouncement of that thinking is an attack on ideas. What they were doing was violently, physically attacking people for their ideas.
That is Illegal. That is unjustified. That is a greater attack on freedom and tolerance than what the sheetheads and Richard Spencer were doing, because even those hateful farqs bothered to follow the law in carrying out said hateful conduct.
And no, they were not "simply assering their right to live." One can do that by simply living, and if one wants to make a statement about itp osting on facebook or picketing the picketeers.
If anything, the "Counterprotestors"- who do not deserve that title, so I'd go with Black Bloc- were denying the right of other people to live without the threat of violence. Even if they were scumbags.
That is a No No. And the fact that people continue trying to excuse these thugs and sugarcoat people acting LITERALLY like the SA's attack units did is no good sign.
You wanna live without the threat of a genocidal philosophy wanting to remove you from your own country? You're going to have to enter the first VR chamber hosting the sims.
There's always the threat of a genocidal philosophy wanting to remove you from your own country (and often times they aren't the ones that file the proper forms with local authorities to picket). Don't believe me? Take a gander at what North Korea feels about South Koreans and the people of Guam.
Take a gander at the "Falangist" or "Syndicatilist" goons in Chicano culture.
And observe the conduct of the Aryan Brotherhood (by far the largest and most dangerous White Supremacist group in North America) how it acts in prison (and to some degree outside).
These ideologies and those like them are always there. Always. They don't go away just because they don't host rallies that often. And they will probably continue to exist as long as human will and human nature are as tainted as they are.
Freedom isn't about removing the threat, it's about managing it. And attacking a peaceful assembly Isn't Going To Do it.
Did you bother reading the article here?
He Started (yes, started, because it continued on) did it when he STOPPED considering running for President for said Reformist Party.
I'll quote from my source.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
So Trump didn't condemn them when he was considering running for President on the Reform Party. He stopped considering and rejected running on the Reform Party ticket *because* it contained a Klansman (Duke), a Hitler Apologist (Buchanan), and someone closely tied to the more Maoist wings of the Black Nationalist wings (Fulani).
Trump is no saint, he has been looking at a Presidential run for years (even by that point), and I think his ego and ambition speak for themselves. But he still decided to put his desire to run for President on freeze and cut ties with the Reform Party over these guys.
That says something.
And even if we suppose he was 100% completely and totally insincere about doing this and secretly loves David Duke, but just decided tit would be bad optics, it's still a highly visible piece of evidence against saying he's ok with White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis.
The first and most important statement of this is UTTERLY FALSE. Almost completely. Including "To."
A: David Duke did not endorse Donald Trump. As you can find out by asking David Freaking Duke.
and
B: Trump did denounce him and the non-existent endorsement during said election.
The issue is that he briefly- for whatever reason, and on sketchy grounds- seemed confused or indecisive on it. Which could be bad enough.
But that doesn't justify a blatant falsehood.
Again, I point to my sources.
And
And I can cite several other sources from the 2016 election in which he did repudiate that. Like this.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-disavows-david-duke-kkk/index.html
Which could be pretty easy to churn up from just looking through the major news outlets.
And here's the really damning thing: even if we assume Trump was being completely insincere again, THAT ARTICLE WOULD STILL BE FALSE because again, Duke refused to endorse Trump and Trump did denounce Duke (and the mythical endorsement) during the 2016 election.
Which brings me to the confusion you brought up.
You wanna talk about the confusion around that, and what created it?
SHODDY. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ REPORTING and circular regurgitation of unconfirmed, largely unchecked hearsay without ever bothering to double check with the Horse's Arsehole (like Duke) or merely on what Trump Said.
Trump didn't create this confusion. Unpressional, incompetent and/or unethical hacks did, and nothing his dubious earpiece claim and indecisiveness did had anything comparable.
That's not Trump's fault.
I'm not even going to dignify the Factcheck.org article's erroneous recapitulation of this with my time, because as covered above it is simply false. It couldn't even get what the loudmouthed Sheethead Klansman said right, let alone what Trump did. So I'll skip down.
The deeper conflict isn't important when it comes to mob violence against a peaceful, lawful assembly.
Period.
That isn't to say resisting racist nuts isn't important. It is. But on the level of discourse, philosophy, and the public sphere there's not a lot that CAN LEGITIMATELY BE DONE to stop these morons from holding their lawful assemblys.
That's why the most important work in actually eroding or destroying these ideologies is done in the public sphere, by counterpresting WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW, out debating them (not a hard thing to do), and otherwise discrediting tthem so that nobody wants to jump on board and more want to jump off.
Acting like violent totalitarian thugs doesn't help that. If anything it just damages the very measures meant to keep them in place, and I have No Time Whatsoever for those trying to excuse it.
Which it was.
Sorry Politifact, but you ever bother seeing the footage from it? Or that?
Fundamentally, it was just a bunch of rowdy people fighting with each other. Or if I'm more honest a bunch of rowdy but peaceful racist douchebags being attacked by rowdy violent douchebags. As such it is only fair that government officials TREAT IT as such. But Politifact and other apologists seem to have a problem with that.
That is a matter of fact and law. The fact that "Politifact" is trying to spin this into something else or act as if the "unite the Right" Jagoffs had no right to peacefully assembly in accordance with the law is nothing short of despicable.
Your entire point is provably wrong.
Fullstop.
People before me have already done the hard work of "checking out the history", "Asking David Duke who he endorsed and why it wasn't Trump", and "pointing out that Antifa had no right to do what it did at Charlotteville."
And I could go on a long post about the history of Antifa another jagoffs misusing the terms Nazi, Fascist, White Supremacist, and so on that also contributed to it. Most recently against the man who broke the back of the Alabama Klan and had one of their members put to death for murdering an innocent child.
But it's almost superficial.
The only reason anybody thinks David Duke endorsed Donald Trump is because they didn't bother to check what David Duke actually said. And that alone points to a staggeringly bad and ignorant grasp of not just the matter at hand, but how one analyzes it.
And the rest of your post is franky so unmoored from verifiable reality to be unworthy of more time. It is merely more hyperbole and hot air that rests on a pillar made of disingenious assumptions, which collapses when even one of them are shown to not work. So addressing it further is redundant, especially in light of the basic failure sof Chronology (like the idea that Trump denounced the Klanners while he was Considering running for the Reform Party when in reality he did so to announce the end of his consideration and his decision to reject it) and fact (that Duke didn't endorse Trump, as he was glad to tell anyone who bothered to ask his opinion).
The most damaging moral vacuum here comes from people who didn't do the basics of due dilligence regarding hate groups and others to see if the sensational rumors they heard had substance. As well as people who were so dedicated to defending a group of violent thugs attacking what started out as a peaceful protest (and that's ultimately what the main story in Ch'ville is).that they were determined to try and turn a fitting denouncement of the matter into some kind of affiliation with the hate groups marching there.
It doesn't work. It is just innuendo. The damning thing is that even if we hypothetize that Trump really is more racist than Hitler and wanted to do all the things people allege, there's no actual evidence to prove or even come close to supporting such charges. And that's pretty damn bad when it's not just important What you know but also How you know.
It should have been buried long ago.
THE ONLY GOOD NAZI IS A DEAD ONE!!
Right side of the political spectrum lol
If they were on the right side of it, they wouldn't be concerning themselves with a video game that has been about killing nazis since 1981, before alot of you whinners were even born
Regular people don't give a ♥♥♥♥, at all.
do you a: agree b; disagree.
i think all nazis should be tortured to death my self but maby thats just me
Snowflakes everywhere lol
So condemning one genocidal, totalitarian, mass murdering ideology somehow makes us "Sound" like the other?
FFS.
I didn't have any issue with Bethesda's ad, in fact I fully endorse it and think people are getting upset over litterally nothing. I've been killing Nazis since I got Wolfenstein on my Gameboy and hpe to never stop.
But the idea that criticizing Communism somehow makes one identify as a Nazi is ironically something deeply Communist.
Firstly, define "Nazi."
Because there were certianly some good people who for whatever reason ended up as a member of the Party, and in some extreme cases even believed that evil ideology or parts of it.
Just ask John Rabe. The man who did more than anything to save innocent lives from the barbarity of Hitler's Japanese allies during the Rape of Nanking. He even hung the Swastika and some other flags over the Shanghai Safe Zone (which turned out to be not so safe, but safer than the rest) in order to confer the diplomatic protections afforded to a foreign nation over the Chinese citizens.
(And for that and his other advocacy he wa spunished heartily by Hitler).
And I could go on.
That doesn't mean full believing, practicing National Socialists are Good. Far from it (as Hitler's reaction should remind anybody forgetful enogh to do so).
And secondly: if you try to act out your thoughts killing people with Nazi armbands regardless of what they do, I would be morally obliged to take out my Glock or Beretta to stop you. The same weapons I keep on hand just in case one of those scumbags commits a crime, so that if need be I can stop them with lethal force.
Even evil, hateful scumbags have the right to agitate and protest within the bounds of the law. Period.
What most people seem to forget is that the big problem with the original Nazis- like the ones we are oging to kill together in game- is that they aren't just agitating or protesting.
here's the catch: an overwhelming majority of anti-communist agitprop can be traced back to fascists or anti-semites most of the time. media moguls during the early 20th century capitalized on overly conflating what CHEKA did during it's early days and regarded them as 'jewish bolsheviks' in order to just throw jews and communists under the bus.
So basically you belive that I'm an anti-semite because I despise a horrid ideology? You do know how stupid you sound , still with the higher ground?
No wonder my country didnt even try to argue and just threw your despicable kin to the sea.