|
vyelkin posted:Critiquing Obama's policies is fine, it's what a lot of lefty people on this very forum spend all day doing, because there are serious problems with many of his policies. Yeah,I'll go to that probably if he responds to me posting the Lee Atwater quote on why he might not hear people out and say it quite yet.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Ramadu posted:I have a question, my friend posted "I still don't understand why it is racist For a white person to disagree with the policies of an African-American president but somehow it's not racist for African-Americans to disagree with a white president's policies. Oh wait it's not racist in either of those situations! Lets be honest, how many people really believe that his policies suck because of the color of skin? I mean seriously. I have never ever heard anyone say that "the president is wrong because he is ______ race." I've never heard that." on facebook. Now I'm pretty sure I've heard it but the only one I'm specifically recalling is Santorum almost dropping an n-bomb in that one press conference. Does anyone remember if there were others? Ultimately, the thing that this person needs to learn is that racism can be both conscious and subconscious. Racism is a problem with society, not a problem with individuals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
For a lot of people racism boils down to: "Did I actually say the word friend of the family? Okay then I'm not racist." And even when they do, you'd be amazed at the amount of people who sincerely frequent Chimpout or Stormfront that will claim they're not racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
You have to hate black people for being black to be racist. If you believe black people are stupid, lazy, violent savages, then you aren't racist, because you aren't hating their skin color. The other thing nowadays is that since so many black people voted for Obama, they became proxies for each other. So since disenfranchising black people is just a means to get to Obama, rather than an end in itself, it's not racist. See, they don't hate black people, they just think they matter less. Dr Christmas fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:And even when they do, you'd be amazed at the amount of people who sincerely frequent Chimpout or Stormfront that will claim they're not racist. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
Vulin posted:"I'm not racist, I'm just a race-realist." Or the classic "I would hate white people who act that way too!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 09:39
|
|
|
If you follow @yesyoureracist you see one repeated many times a day from people. "The n word isn't racist, it means ignorant look it up, not all black people are the n word I'm not racist" I bet Chris Rock regrets that stand up routine every day of his life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:Hey, guess which batshit crazy evangelical website got taken down? There's a facebook group for it here. The tears are delicious. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:And even when they do, you'd be amazed at the amount of people who sincerely frequent Chimpout or Stormfront that will claim they're not racist. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:America didn't enter WWII until they were attacked and declared war on by both major Axis powers, though tbf Roosevelt was sending a lot of aid Britain's way beforehand. Still waited years and let tens of millions of Europeans die before swooping in to take all the credit. Also firebombed/nuked millions of civilians to death and quite possibly purposefully chose not to undertake humanitarian actions like bombing Auschwitz. I don't mean to poo poo on your effort post (because it was pretty solid and well done), but two points. -America provided not only Britain with aid prior to the outbreak of the war as well as the Soviet Union and Nationalist China (among other belligerents though those are the only three I'm positive on that received aid prior to U.S. Entry into the war). Roosevelt fortunately didn't hold back from the Soviets and others like a lot of the isolationists/red baiters would have wished him too. -The decision made to not bomb Auschwitz, it wasn't a clear cut decision (though I've seen it argued that some anti-semitism played a roll in it). Short summary was, Roosevelt asked the 15th Air Force in Italy to look into the feasibility of bombing the camps or at least the rail junctions nearby to stop camp operations, but they concluded that even if it halted the murders/deportations at Auschwitz for a few weeks or months while the Germans sorted things out, it wasn't guaranteed to not just take place elsewhere (as we saw with the Einsatzgruppen units pretty much doing with mobile gas vans or just straight up shooting groups of people in Eastern Europe). The other argument given was it was a distraction from other strategic targets that would help either the Eastern or Western Allies advance on Germany, and the best thing they could do was to continue bombing industrial and urban centers to end the war quickly and thus end the genocide. You also had the issue that despite the reports getting out from escapees and such about what was happening at the camps, no one truly believed it was THAT bad until we started to liberate the camps. In hindsight, I'm sure people upon discovering this wish they had done more, but trying to make the decision not to bomb the camps into "America did bad things too" is kind of a disingenuous point. I think the firebombing bits are spot on though, and the nuclear bombs as well (though I think there is room for debate there though you won't find it with the kind of crowd that jerks at that letter). If you want a good example of the U.S. saying gently caress humanitarian concerns (aside from firebombing), well, look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident Sorry for the  , my history degree causes me to sperg out about this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
I'm subscribed to a bunch of liberal and conservative pages on Facebook, so I see most of these messages posted here, on there. While I haven't seen any as bad as the uncle sams misguided children yet, I'm still surprised on a daily basis how many people post such rude, vile, racist bullshit every day IN PUBLIC. I'm sure some don't care, but the majority of these people seem to be moms, business people, church goers, etc, and other people who you would think don't want their friends, family, kids, employers, employees, etc.. seeing them saying this stuff. edit: seems to be the conservative pages by far as well. They also spend more time telling people that they are wrong and need to research things more (on things THEY are usually wrong and need to research) BJA fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:If you want a good example of the U.S. saying gently caress humanitarian concerns (aside from firebombing), well, look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident So, the US was saying "gently caress humanitarian concerns" by trying to reduce the size of the aggressive u-boat fleet? That's not quite so black and white, dude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Every loving day I have "friends" posting this kind of poo poo. I have realized the anti-vax movement crosses all political boundaries. These are small town Michigan republican types(non-super religious though, just your typical semi-redneck small town MI person). I assumed it was really only popular in super religious(hence the religious exemption for schools) or super liberal hippie nature fixes everything type of people. I guess stupidity is something everyone can suffer from. It makes me sad. Dirt fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
I posted in the wrong thread! I'm dumb as poo poo!
Trevor Weedheart fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Dirt posted:Every loving day I have "friends" posting this kind of poo poo. I have realized the anti-vax movement crosses all political boundaries. These are small town Michigan republican types(non-super religious though, just your typical semi-redneck small town MI person). I assumed it was really only popular in super religious(hence the religious exemption for schools) or super liberal hippie nature fixes everything type of people. I guess stupidity is something everyone can suffer from. I have a cousin who's into natural medicine somewhat, not really anti-modern medicine but curious it seems. She posted a link the other day that had a blurb about Andrew Wakefield and vaccines in it (though it wasn't the focus), so I braced myself for anti-vax stuff as reading articles would probably lead her there. Sure enough a couple hours later I see a piece about the 'NEW EVIDENCE FOR MMR VACCINE AUTISM LINK!' so I very politely but firmly explained to her how dangerous this anti-vax movement is (I'm a policy analyst who has worked in the healthcare industry, so making decisions like whether mandatory vaccinations save more lives than not is kind of my schtick). I carefully explained how Dr. Wakefield is no longer a doctor, as his work was proven to not only be fradulent, but borderline abusive while concealing a conflict of interest; and also that diseases like whooping cough are making a comeback in our own city because of it. Finally, I mentioned how not getting your kids vaccinated risks people other than your kids, including the very young and the elderly- sure your child might survive a bout of whooping cough, but what about grandma in the nursing home, an immunocompromised individual, or your 6 month old baby cousin?It's not just personal safety, it's a public responsibility. Turns out my story had a happy ending. She messaged me to thank me for the info and removed the link saying she did not want to promote lies. Probably one of the quickest and most productive exchanges on the subject I've had, and I'm happy because she herself has kids.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Dirt posted:Every loving day I have "friends" posting this kind of poo poo. I have realized the anti-vax movement crosses all political boundaries. These are small town Michigan republican types(non-super religious though, just your typical semi-redneck small town MI person). I assumed it was really only popular in super religious(hence the religious exemption for schools) or super liberal hippie nature fixes everything type of people. I guess stupidity is something everyone can suffer from. The anti-vax thing is pretty popular among the Infowars, Michigan Militia crowd, the most deeply initiated part of which thinks it's part of Agenda 21 or some garbage. I grew up in small town MI too and I've seen a couple people I grew up with say the exact same thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Dirt posted:It makes me sad. Yeah anti-vax stuff is truly the bipartisan issue of our times. I've seen it from hardcore tea party types, and the most granola leftists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
EightBit posted:So, the US was saying "gently caress humanitarian concerns" by trying to reduce the size of the aggressive u-boat fleet? That's not quite so black and white, dude. Not to be a jerk, but did you read the entire article/entry? It wasn't a black and white case of "U-boat spotted, bombs away!" but more like "Multiple U-Boats flying a red cross flag covered under the geneva convention have been spotted near recently sunk ship with survivors being pulled out of the water. We have received radio messages from both enemy and British forces indicating they are conducting rescue operations. They are asking for a cease fire to save the survivors. What should I do? Ok Sir, commencing Bomb Run!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
 You got me there, gun nuts!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
ZDar Fan posted:
I like the shitthatdidnthappen.txt version of it better. quote:Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
ZDar Fan posted:
I got robbed while my gun just sat there and watched 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
This Onion article is basically condensed this thread. http://www.theonion.com/articles/group-of-friends-engage-in-passionate-incoherent-d,33500/
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:We have received radio messages from both enemy and British forces indicating they are conducting rescue operations. If I'm reading the article right, rescue operations largely of POWs who were initially left to drown by their captors, kept from entering lifeboats (by means up to and including death), and had to jump into the ocean to escape the vessel, no less. Yeah. The US bombed a group of U-boats that were flying the Red Cross while rescuing POWs who were left to die (or even actually killed) by their Allied captors. Totally just "attempting to decrease the size of an aggressive U-boat fleet".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I have a cousin who's into natural medicine somewhat, not really anti-modern medicine but curious it seems. She posted a link the other day that had a blurb about Andrew Wakefield and vaccines in it (though it wasn't the focus), so I braced myself for anti-vax stuff as reading articles would probably lead her there. Sure enough a couple hours later I see a piece about the 'NEW EVIDENCE FOR MMR VACCINE AUTISM LINK!' so I very politely but firmly explained to her how dangerous this anti-vax movement is (I'm a policy analyst who has worked in the healthcare industry, so making decisions like whether mandatory vaccinations save more lives than not is kind of my schtick). I carefully explained how Dr. Wakefield is no longer a doctor, as his work was proven to not only be fradulent, but borderline abusive while concealing a conflict of interest; and also that diseases like whooping cough are making a comeback in our own city because of it. Finally, I mentioned how not getting your kids vaccinated risks people other than your kids, including the very young and the elderly- sure your child might survive a bout of whooping cough, but what about grandma in the nursing home, an immunocompromised individual, or your 6 month old baby cousin?It's not just personal safety, it's a public responsibility. I wish exchanges with my cousin were this fruitful. He is always posting anti-vax stuff when it is pointed out how wrong and dangerous it is he kind of backs away from it. Then 2 weeks later it's more "OMG don't kill your kids with vaccines or let them get autism, instead go take your new to get adjusted at the chiropractor. Did you know you can stop cancer by seeing a chiropractor?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
So a former coworker is a big 9/11 truther, among other things, and posted stuff from a group called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". They claim to have thousands of architects and engineers who agree that there should be another investigation because "nothing adds up". I'm surprised he hasn't used the word "sheeple" yet. What are good resources/articles/discussions that rationally discuss this subject? I'm not going to change this guy's mind, I think he's too caught up in feeling smarter than everyone. But I'd like to know more about why 9/11 trutherism, is, in the words he would use, "bunk".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
AlliedBiscuit posted:So a former coworker is a big 9/11 truther, among other things, and posted stuff from a group called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". They claim to have thousands of architects and engineers who agree that there should be another investigation because "nothing adds up". I'm surprised he hasn't used the word "sheeple" yet. I used to use Popular Mechanics article that does a pretty good job debunking all of that poo poo, but then I had the same idiots arguing that Popular Mechanics was bought off and just parroting the "official story". http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842 Still good though, and if they discredit that, then you know they're a crazy person and it's not worth any further frustration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
AlliedBiscuit posted:So a former coworker is a big 9/11 truther, among other things, and posted stuff from a group called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". They claim to have thousands of architects and engineers who agree that there should be another investigation because "nothing adds up". Steal the Einstein quote about the pamphlet 100 Authors Against Einstein. "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:If I'm reading the article right, rescue operations largely of POWs who were initially left to drown by their captors, kept from entering lifeboats (by means up to and including death), and had to jump into the ocean to escape the vessel, no less. One dick move now, how many potential dick moves prevented by sinking the vessel that torpedoed the victims in the first place? How about not having u-boats around torpedoing civilians?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Steal the Einstein quote about the pamphlet 100 Authors Against Einstein. "If I were wrong, one would be enough." That has to rank as one of the best quotes ever uttered in the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
EightBit posted:One dick move now, how many potential dick moves prevented by sinking the vessel that torpedoed the victims in the first place? How about not having u-boats around torpedoing civilians? Literally "We had to destroy the village to save it" lines of thinking right here. quote:Ships armed with guns (which most merchantmen and troop transports were) fell outside the protection from attack without warning and the requirement to place survivors "in a place of safety" (for which lifeboats did not qualify); therefore, it made no difference if she was a troop ship or a passenger ship, the Laconia was a legitimate target The U-boat fired on a ship that was flying a belligerent nations flag and was armed. It was a common tactic by both sides to ferry supplies on cruise liners or ships that may have had civilian passengers onboard as well in order to try make enemy commanders hesitate to attack them and possibly allow them to slip by without firing a shot. Technically a war crime in itself. Upon realizing the ships cargo was civilian passengers and POWs, the U-Boat made the attempt along with it's wolf pack to rescue survivors. A B-24 flies over hours later while they are still rescuing surviors, sees survivors being pulled onto the decks of the U-boats that are flying Red Cross flags, receives a radio transmission from the U-Boats requesting a cease fire so that they can save people from drowning/shark attack, radios back to clarify ROE, and is ordered to go ahead and begin an attack run. One of these things is not like the other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Literally "We had to destroy the village to save it" lines of thinking right here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Also, "do you know how many lives were saved by dropping H-bombs on Japan?" Well to be fair on that one, the Navy Dept. was grossly inflating the casualty estimates for Operation Downfall because they wanted Roosevelt (and then Truman when Roosevelt died) to go with the blockade option instead of invading, so they figured by scaring the numbers up, they'd get their blockade. They didn't expect Truman to turn around and go with the Army Air Corps plan. In hindsight, yeah, it wasn't necessary. Basing it off of what knowledge and info Truman et all had to work with at the time, it's understandable (Hiroshima at least) why they dropped the bomb. Paul Tibbets was an rear end in a top hat though. gently caress that guy. Edit: Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Sorry, I meant the modern idea that dropping the H-bombs actually did save some huge number of lives, not the justifications that were used at the time. Oh yeah, I totally agree with that sentiment. They were A-bombs though not H Bombs. 
Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
Sorry, I meant the modern idea that dropping the EDIT: Whoops, wrong bomb. Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:15
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Sorry, I meant the modern idea that dropping the H-bombs actually did save some huge number of lives, not the justifications that were used at the time. Nobody dropped an H-bomb on Japan.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Do modern estimates include possible civilian deaths from famine, disease, etc.? What ARE the modern estimates of potential casualties from a land invasion? How do you KNOW that lives WEREN'T saved?  Hey, I'm just asking questions  (I'm serious about the first two questions, though, since I don't actually know and I'm interested.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
EightBit posted:One dick move now, how many potential dick moves prevented by sinking the vessel that torpedoed the victims in the first place? How about not having u-boats around torpedoing civilians? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Nobody dropped an H-bomb on Japan. Hopefully no one will ever drop an H-bomb on anything, there is no way to ever, ever morally justify using them. A-bombs... maybe (I'm strongly against all Nuclear Weaponry but A-bombs are actually arguable), H-bombs, never ever. The difference between the two, other than the mechanisms being fission vs fusion for A and H respectively, is that H bomb yields are so massive that they cannot be anything but weapons of genocide. This chart illustrates it well http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/US_nuclear_weapons_yield-to-weight_comparison.svg Keep in mind that it's a logarithmic scale - H-bombs are hundreds to thousands of times more potent than A-bombs. gently caress H-bombs forever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Do modern estimates include possible civilian deaths from famine, disease, etc.? Most of the estimates I've seen from historians who aren't trying to chest thump include that stuff as well as projected combat casualties, but they are significantly less than what was being floated at the time. I think most pragmatic estimates are somewhere around 40,000-60,000 deaths(mostly famine/disease related over a period of time), and that's on the high end of modern and level headed estimates that I've seen. But as with any historical debate, it all varies depending on who you look at. I'd have to double check the books that I read for my capstone to see what numbers they each gave. I know Dower was one of them and if you know anything about him, he's pretty far from being anything close to an apologist for dropping the bombs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:40,000-60,000 deaths(mostly famine/disease related over a period of time)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Didn't more people die during the firebombing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 22:30
|
|
