|
Plinkey posted:I'm not really sure what he's getting at here, other than potatoes = cheap people food. 
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Nessus posted:He's not just a - you know - but he's also HALF AN IRISHMAN! No, Irishmen are white these days. You're thinking of 19th century freepers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I dunno, Freepers have actually touted phrenology before. I wouldn't be surprised to see this show up:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Of course you'd say that, you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
I know, I know, Huffington Post. But: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/unemployment-benefits_n_4769558.html This article struck me as kind of wacky. Here's a self-styled Republican-voting Libertarian complaining that long-term unemployment benefits didn't get restored. I...what? He should be celebrating the triumph of the individual over the nanny state. How does he reconcile what would appear to be an internally-inconsistent belief system? I want to feel bad for the guy but, no, gently caress it, I don't. Partially because I don't know him and therefore he's an abstraction to me, but also because I'm more than a little tired of people like this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Mandals posted:I know, I know, Huffington Post. But: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/unemployment-benefits_n_4769558.html The only moral X is my X.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:I dunno, Freepers have actually touted phrenology before. I wouldn't be surprised to see this show up: Heh. "Teutonic." Basically, descendants of Germanic peoples. If you just go back juuuuust a little further in history, you can see how Germans used to also be considered not-white (if you go back a looooong way in history, they're savage pale monsters that steal children and eat fallen Roman Legionaries on the battlefield). It's amazing to me how, every time conservatives start to lose their base through a dying off of white people, all that ever happens is they embrace a new demographic as "actually totally white now". The shittiest thing of all is how the newly accepted people instantly forget how they were shat on for generations, and doublethink their way into believing they were always "white." Everyone involved pretends that generations of racism didn't exist at all, and conservative parties get a welcome injection of new members. They are trying as hard as they possibly can to do this with Hispanic and Latino Americans right now. ColdSnickersBar fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
GOP Report Concludes Military Could Not Have Changed Outcome in Benghaziquote:
quote:To: Nachum quote:To: Nachum White girl: 'I'm tired of being looked at like prey' quote:To: detective quote:To: detective quote:To: detective quote:To: detective quote:To: Alex Murphy quote:To: detective GOP struggles to find 'yes' debt votes (Cornyn doesn't have enough GOP cloture votes for Reid) quote:To: vette6387 quote:To: jimbo123 quote:To: jimbo123 quote:To: jimbo123 Freudian Slip? quote:
quote:To: jimbo123 quote:To: Jedidah
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Freeper's bald-faced racism has gone from funny, to depressing, to funny again. "The blacks are stealin' our white wimmins!" 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Freepers love any movie about war. Even if it's very explicitly anti-war, they will interpret it as being pro-war anyway. According to Roger Ebert, Mark Kermode, and a few other major film critics who reported him saying it; Francois Truffaut said it is impossible to make an anti-war film, because the medium of film itself tends to make war look exciting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
quote:In WWII after France was liberated they shaved the heads of the Whore Collaborators then marched them down the streets in shame. Clearly the most admirable part of our history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
That's a whole lotta writing for sentiments that could as easily be expressed in just fourteen words.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:That's a whole lotta writing for sentiments that could as easily be expressed in just four 1: Around 2: blacks 3: never 4: relax
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:That's a whole lotta writing for sentiments that could as easily be expressed in just fourteen words. Or a single word that starts with "N".
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:1: Around Elephant Ambush posted:Or a single word that starts with "N". Well fine, if you reductionists want to ruin my "they are actually Nazis" fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
HERE IS THE JOKE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words THAT WAS THE JOKE
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Well fine, if you reductionists want to ruin my "they are actually Nazis" fun. I got your joke, I just wanted to save time. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
e_angst posted:According to Roger Ebert, Mark Kermode, and a few other major film critics who reported him saying it; Francois Truffaut said it is impossible to make an anti-war film, because the medium of film itself tends to make war look exciting. You can load up a film with all the war-is-a-pointless-waste subtext (or even text) that you can, but people will always be able to elide that and just concentrate on the HOLY poo poo DID YOU JUST SEE THAT GUY'S HEAD EXPLODE?!?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
It's a comedy but Blackadder the 4th was a decent anti war show set during WWI. Actual fighting is never pictured, the only one who's buys the propaganda (and is like the kind of guys that watch Full Metal Jacket and miss the message) is the idiotic upper class officer who got his position based on his college education, and the conditions for everyone (except the officers at the top) are literally poo poo with no glorification. The finale is most of the characters being pushed over the top of the trenches to be shot but before any action it fades to a field of graves. It's really hard to RAH RAH any of that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's a comedy but Blackadder the 4th was a decent anti war show set during WWI. Actual fighting is never pictured, the only one who's buys the propaganda (and is like the kind of guys that watch Full Metal Jacket and miss the message) is the idiotic upper class officer who got his position based on his college education, and the conditions for everyone (except the officers at the top) are literally poo poo with no glorification. The finale is most of the characters being pushed over the top of the trenches to be shot but before any action it fades to a field of graves. And nowadays British right-wing academics harrumph about "The Blackadder School" downplaying the necessity of Britannia stopping the vile Hun's march to world domination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Clearly the most admirable part of our history. They probably also approved of children of German soldiers being refused medical treatment. Radish posted:It's really hard to RAH RAH any of that poo poo. Suprisingly sober ending.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 01:04
|
|
Radish posted:It's a comedy but Blackadder the 4th was a decent anti war show set during WWI. Actual fighting is never pictured, the only one who's buys the propaganda (and is like the kind of guys that watch Full Metal Jacket and miss the message) is the idiotic upper class officer who got his position based on his college education, and the conditions for everyone (except the officers at the top) are literally poo poo with no glorification. The finale is most of the characters being pushed over the top of the trenches to be shot but before any action it fades to a field of graves. Oh, my God. Blackadder Goes Forth has one of the most powerful endings I've ever seen for any show, much less a comedy. I know this is not a unique opinion, but it always hits me fresh when something makes me think of it. The cinematography is brilliant, like the enormous shadows thrown on the ground when Melchett does Darling the "favor" of letting him go to the front, and that episode showcases how great the acting really is, how much range all the leads really have. Blackadder's completely empty and hopeless attempts to get out at the last second are hilarious and heartbreaking, and we know that he knows just as well as we do that there is no hope, whatsoever, of dodging his fate. Edit: ^^ Or, you could go with "Surprisingly sober ending," which is also accurate.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Michael "Chapped Ducklips Fuckface" Gove posted:The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh, What a Lovely War!, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles - a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite. Even to this day there are left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths. I long to send all Tories "over the top" with nothing but a swagger stick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Kavak posted:And nowadays British right-wing academics harrumph about "The Blackadder School" downplaying the necessity of Britannia stopping the vile Hun's march to world domination. You're undermining the war effort!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Kavak posted:And nowadays British right-wing academics harrumph about "The Blackadder School" downplaying the necessity of Britannia stopping the vile Hun's march to world domination. How do they avoid being strangled when they present their viewpoint at an academic conference? Is everyone just too shocked and polite to be the first one to jump up and yell, "Hang the bastard!"? Or do they sneak out while all of the actual historians are out feverishly searching for a rope?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:How do they avoid being strangled when they present their viewpoint at an academic conference? Is everyone just too shocked and polite to be the first one to jump up and yell, "Hang the bastard!"? Or do they sneak out while all of the actual historians are out feverishly searching for a rope? I'm basing this off the editorials and press coverage I've seen leading up to the 100th anniversary of the war. I doubt it has much traction in actual academia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Yeah, it's been awful to see the attempt at Whitewashing. Someone posted an article from the BBC a few weeks back now in the Awful Editorials thread. I love the notion that because Douglas Haig was apparently popular with the troops even after the war that somehow all criticism of him must than ring hollow to be absurd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Kavak posted:And nowadays British right-wing academics harrumph about "The Blackadder School" downplaying the necessity of Britannia stopping the vile Hun's march to world domination. To be entirely fair, the arguments I've seen as to why Britain should have stayed out of the war are regularly absurd to the point of rejecting reality. Any notion that Britain and Imperial Germany could have coexisted peacefully for long is not supported by any historical evidence whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:To be entirely fair, the arguments I've seen as to why Britain should have stayed out of the war are regularly absurd to the point of rejecting reality. Any notion that Britain and Imperial Germany could have coexisted peacefully for long is not supported by any historical evidence whatsoever. What are these arguments?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:To be entirely fair, the arguments I've seen as to why Britain should have stayed out of the war are regularly absurd to the point of rejecting reality. Any notion that Britain and Imperial Germany could have coexisted peacefully for long is not supported by any historical evidence whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
Kavak posted:What are these arguments? "Britain could have lived with a German victory", "We had no Army", "We should have waited until Germany took over all of Europe, then attack", "Our colonies left because of THE DEBT" The man teaches history at Havard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
Poor Britain, tricked into centuries of pursuing militarism, imperialism, and conquest by the cunning Hun!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not seeing how that's a completely wacky suggestion, and considering the role that the aftermath of WWI played in building towards the European portion of WWII, he might have a point when arguing against British involvement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson I'll agree with that first one, in the sense that Germany posed no existential threat to Britain, but there was no way in hell the British government was going to let that happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I believe the Germany of 1914 was in many ways significantly different in terms of policy goals and demonic inspiration than the Germany of 1939. What positive effects do you think WWI had on Britain? Not having to fight a war against Germany one on one, after Germany had been able to pour even more resources into the fleet they explicitly built to fight Britain. If Britain was at all interested in maintaining the balance of power on the continent, WWI was the time to fight. Why wait until Germany has beaten its main adversaries on land and can focus on building up its fleet? I can not come up with a scenario where a Germany, flush with victory against its main adversaries, then turns around and goes back to peaceful coexistence with the sole remaining Great Power in Europe. Not with Wilhelm II on the helm, at any rate. Nor can I come up with a scenario in which a German victory and hegemony on the continent is at all favorable for Britain. Yes, the Germany of 1914 was not the Germany of 1939, but it was still a country that desperately wanted to become a global power, a country in which Jews were in many ways second class citizens, and a country that worshiped the military and which sought to resolve international crisis by force. And it needs to be noted that the attack on France and Belgium had been planned for decades, even in the case of a war solely against Russia. Calling the conduct of the war into question is one thing, calling the decision to go to war wrong, in my opinion, shows a deep lack of understanding of historical reality (and Ferguson doesn't even understand the difference, he pretty much claims that because the war was fought poorly, they never should have gone to war at all). Britain wasn't an innocent, peaceful country cruely forced to defend its honor, nor was Germany a bunch of bloodthirsty savages looking to burn down Western civilization. But perhaps there are some nuances to the whole thing, you know, the things that Freepers can't comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Not having to fight a war against Germany one on one, after Germany had been able to pour even more resources into the fleet they explicitly built to fight Britain. If Britain was at all interested in maintaining the balance of power on the continent, WWI was the time to fight. Why wait until Germany has beaten its main adversaries on land and can focus on building up its fleet? I can not come up with a scenario where a Germany, flush with victory against its main adversaries, then turns around and goes back to peaceful coexistence with the sole remaining Great Power in Europe. Not with Wilhelm II on the helm, at any rate. Nor can I come up with a scenario in which a German victory and hegemony on the continent is at all favorable for Britain. quote:Yes, the Germany of 1914 was not the Germany of 1939, but it was still a country that desperately wanted to become a global power, a country in which Jews were in many ways second class citizens, and a country that worshiped the military and which sought to resolve international crisis by force. And it needs to be noted that the attack on France and Belgium had been planned for decades, even in the case of a war solely against Russia.  As for the Jewish matter, I had thought that Imperial Germany, while perhaps not pro-Jew, was not exactly dripping with constant anti-Semitism. The Dreyfus Affair had been in France, you know. quote:Calling the conduct of the war into question is one thing, calling the decision to go to war wrong, in my opinion, shows a deep lack of understanding of historical reality (and Ferguson doesn't even understand the difference, he pretty much claims that because the war was fought poorly, they never should have gone to war at all). 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So do you think then that Germany would have built up a fleet to invade Britain? Can you provide some sort of a source for this considering that Old Adolf didn't even make a serious try? Even assuming they'd beaten France, do you think they would have just permanently occupied France as opposed to taking its colonies and Alsace-Lorraine (or possibly France, lacking British military support, negotiating a peace)? These would not be "good" things, of course. They might, however, be preferable to World War I. Imperial Germany specifically built its High Seas Fleet to fight Britain. Its Battleships didn't have the range to operate outside the North Sea. You don't have to invade a country to bring it to its knees. An island nation like Britain can be starved into submission by cutting the sea lanes that transport food and other necessary goods to it. Which is what you need a fleet for. As for France, Imperial Germany already possessed Alsace-Lorraine (taken after the war of 1870). they would probably have taken over the colonies, yes. There would also have been grueling war indemnities levied on France and maybe a forced disarmament as well as the destruction of fortresses, leaving France in no position to fight Germany again. quote:Sounds like America then Jewish men were widely considered effeminate and often rejected from military service because of "poor physique". Since a commission as a reserve officer was practically a necessity to be considered for higher civil service, this meant that there was in practicality a glass ceiling for Jews. Besides, do you really think the anti-semitism of the Third Reich appeared overnight? quote:Considering the sheer human cost of the war, particularly for Britain, I think he has a point, and I think further this may be a better topic for some other thread The Military History thread in A/T already discussed it and pretty much came to the same conclusion. But I agree, the freep thread isn't the place for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Do we have any new Freeper posts? I'd rather a D&D thread was generated to handle WW1 discussion (If a mod questions, point out the upcoming Centennial).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
On the drive to work this morning NPR did a short report about religious cleansings in a Central African country, lately of the Christian majority lynching Muslims by the dozens. Has Freep heard of this? It seems like something they'd circle-jerk over. 
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 14:14
|
|