489 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

God's ideal seems to rely on a selection process and a trial period of limited power before being made an autocrat.

Brings to mind a Lincoln quote:

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I think authoritarianism could work if you had the right leader, but it's basically a gamble, and most of the time, you're going to lose and get either a fool or a selfish tyrant.

 

I concur.

[Fast Jimmy]

Then I think that's something that ought to be changed around the States. It's one of the few places I can think of in the Western world where being those 3 things is 1) considered a liberty, and 2) considered a good thing for being such.

I'm not saying ban Confederate flags. I'm saying ban stupidity, hate, and ignorance. By which I mean find ways to enforce existing laws to undermine them, as well as subvert beliefs and opinons that support them.

And what beliefs and opinions would that be?

Racism? Bigotry?

Non-patriotic statements? Non-politically correct statements?

Anything that could offend? Anything that could incite people to action?


I hope you can see what a slippery slope this presents. The government CANNOT be in the business of controlling the thoughts or opinions of its citizens. Even if those thoughts are ignorant, baseless and stupid... it is their right to have them.

If your religion says that the word of God can be found in the watching of every Tom Hanks movie in reverse order by the month of the date it was released, that's your (crazy) prerogative. If you say that anyone who does not believe the Tao of Tom Hanks is an evil, terrible sinner who is the cause of every one of the world's woes, that's your prerogative too. And when you then say you need to slay all of non-Hankonites and begin targeting them for murder, THAT'S when people like you come in to protect.

Because before that moment, you aren't protecting anything. You are being an agent of mind-control.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't think power corrupts either.

I think people are corrupt, power just has a way of drawing it out.

Before tasting power, most people don't even know they are capable of being corrupt. And most people that are corrupt do not see themselves as corrupt, but rather just working within the system, as best they can or as they see "everyone else" is doing.

Power cannot be focused into an individual. It is the folly of countless civilizations and the source of unspeakable evils. The world (or even one country) is too complex for one person to run it all. One person cannot possibly monitor and be aware of all necessary information to make the right decision - plurality has a unique quality of no one truly knowing all the moving parts, but still managing to be designed well enough that the combined desire of the individuals goal's keep progress moving.

When everything is in balance and rules are obeyed, growth is seen steady and across the board. When authority and power becomes too centralized, too many exceptions are given, too many compromises are made. It leads to a glut of success for a few and large scale failure for the majority.

Doing things for the greater good is never a long term strategy. Doing things that allow the most number of people to seek their own good has been the hallmark of successful societies and economies for millenia.

[Billy-the-Squid]

You mean like you're doing now? 

 

I'm sorry buddy, if what you said was true, then why the Hell am I sitting in a cubicle in Baghdad doing this very thing?

 

This is the kind of crap I fight against. 

 

People should not be entitled to be stupid, hateful, or ignorant. It isn't liberty, it's the tyranny of the mediocre majority.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure Pol Pot had the same idea when he was building his socialist utopia in Cambodia. 

[Draining Dragon]

The mods seem to have a very selective idea of what constitutes a political topic.

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between debating censorship and crying about political figures you don't like.

[Jehuty]

The mods seem to have a very selective idea of what constitutes a political topic.

In before mods. 

[Han Shot First]

Censorship, the confederate flag, lost cause bullshit and apparently someone's grand authoritarian proposal. Nah none of that is political.

I was referring more to the two deleted gay marriage threads, actually. The Palin one was stupid, but it's still notable the sheer speed that that one was dealt with.

 

What happened in those two threads that brought down the nukes?

[Jehuty]

I'd say something about the mods, but I don't wanna jinx the thread. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Is this a good movie about Civil War?

 

[Han Shot First]

Is this a good movie about Civil War?

 

 

Yes & no.

 

Some liberties are taken with history, the portrayal of the battle is a bit romanticized and not as gritty and graphic as it should be, and Chamberlain is given a more important role in the battle than he actually had historically...but no movie portraying a real historical event is ever 100% accurate. They used reenactors for most of the big battle scenes which had both good and bad results. The good is that they basically had armies of extras, which probably looked better than CGI armies would have in 1993. It was also sort of a throwback to older movies like Spartacus in that sense. The bad is that most reenactors are also middle-aged men and not in shall we say, soldierly shape. The real people they were portraying would have mostly been in their late teens or 20s and fit. 

 

Tom Berenger and Martin Sheen were great as Longstreet & Lee.

[justafan]

Is this a good movie about Civil War?

 

 

 

It's a bit dated and plays like really high quality History Channel (before aliens) special but I enjoy it.

 

However, it is mostly battle of Gettysburg and not the Civil War as a whole, so if you want a movie about the underlying causes and politics of the war, you will only get a little of that here where it instead focuses a lot on the motivations and thoughts of some of the more important people at the battle.

 

^ I also agree with everything Han said.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Actually he was incorrect on every point he raised.

You rely a lot on documents. Which is fair, and I was mistake about the popular vote. But a written document made before the actual actions thwt play out doesn't really capture the actual events that take place. Similarly, the documents of the confederacy don't capture the years of tension building up to the secession, only the powderkeg that set it off, not the actual tons of powder that had to accumulate first. Nor does it cover the realities of carrying out a scorched earth operation. One doesn't burn an entire city to the ground and not get someone innocent caught in the flames. One doesn't summary execuute surrendered prisoners of war and not commit indiscriminate killings.

 

Note: Spelling and Phrasing edits have been made. Apologies.

[Han Shot First]

As far as portrayals of the Battle of Gettysburg go, I preferred the Ridley Scott produced special:

 

 

There were some issues with that as well, but I think it does a much better job of portraying the intensity and savagery of the fighting at Gettysburg than the 1993 film did. Gettysburg was an unrelenting, three day bloodbath...and I think that special captures that better than the film. Also it focuses more on the fighting at Culp's Hill than Little Round Top, which was far more important to the outcome of the actual battle. 

 

That, and Rufus Dawes was the f--king man. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Well. Now we're trying to take down monuments, statues, and ban films along with the flag. Glad to see that historical censorship is getting so much support in this country.

 

Jefferson Memorial Should be Taken Down: http://www.latimes.c...0624-story.html

 

Robert E Lee statues should be removed: http://www.nola.com/...bert_e_lee.html

 

Confederate Solider Statue too Offensive, Please Ban: http://www.mynews13....s_lake_eol.html

 

"Gone With The Wind" should be a banned film: http://nypost.com/20...nfederate-flag/

[Han Shot First]

You rely a lot on documents. Which is fair, and I was mistake about the popular vote. But a written document made before the actual actions thwt play out doesn't really capture the years of tension building up to the cessession. Nor does it cover the realities of carrying out a scorched earth operation. One doesn't burn an entire city to the ground and not get someone innocent caught in the flames. One doesn't summary execuute surrendered prisoners of war and not commit indiscriminate killings.

 

The years of tension leading up the secession of the Confederate states was likewise driven by the issue of slavery. The fight was about whether to introduce new states to the Union as free or slave, and both camps knew it determined the balance of power. That is why the election of Lincoln caused the Southern planters to panic and overreact. The Republican Party at that time was the abolitionist party, and Lincoln was the first Republican to be elected president. The planters feared the election of a 'Black Republican' would mean that the party would succeed in blocking western territories from being added as slave states, irrevocably shifting the balance of power away from slave states and spelling the end to the institution of slavery. They feared a clear a majority of free states.

 

Atlanta's destruction has been as exaggerated over the years as Sherman's March to the Sea. Civilian casualties during both were relatively light. The howling of Neo-Confederates over Atlanta's destruction is also a bit hypocritical, considering a Confederate army had previously burned Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.

 

Lee's army also had abducted and enslaved blacks, including men and women who were born free, during the Gettysburg campaign.

 

As for the wanton killing of prisoners...there was one army guilty of this on a large scale during the American Civil War, and it wasn't Sherman's army. That would be the Army of Nathan Bedford Forrest, at Fort Pillow. Over 300 USCT (United States Colored Troops) and their white officers were massacred by Confederate soldiers, after they had surrendered.

[Fast Jimmy]

Censorship, the confederate flag, lost cause bullshit and apparently someone's grand authoritarian proposal. Nah none of that is political.

I was referring more to the two deleted gay marriage threads, actually. The Palin one was stupid, but it's still notable the sheer speed that that one was dealt with.

 

Its not a matter of the topic... its the matter of people reporting it. 

 

Anyone, either in the conversation or just reading, can click that report button and draw the attention here. It appears no one has done that yet with this thread. 

[God]

Yes, I'm sure Pol Pot had the same idea when he was building his socialist utopia in Cambodia. 

 

Godwin as an argument (even if it's not Hitler) doesn't make a stronger argument. Why compare me to Pol Pot?

[Fast Jimmy]

Well. Now we're trying to take down monuments, statues, and ban films along with the flag. Glad to see that historical censorship is getting so much support in this country.

 

Jefferson Memorial Should be Taken Down: http://www.latimes.c...0624-story.html

 

Robert E Lee statues should be removed: http://www.nola.com/...bert_e_lee.html

 

Confederate Solider Statue too Offensive, Please Ban: http://www.mynews13....s_lake_eol.html

 

"Gone With The Wind" should be a banned film: http://nypost.com/20...nfederate-flag/

 

It is one thing to remove the flag from government buildings. 

 

It is quite another to tear down historical monuments or ban movies from ever being seen. THAT is censorship and it has no place in a free society.

[God]

And what beliefs and opinions would that be?

Racism? Bigotry?

Non-patriotic statements? Non-politically correct statements?

Anything that could offend? Anything that could incite people to action?


I hope you can see what a slippery slope this presents. The government CANNOT be in the business of controlling the thoughts or opinions of its citizens. Even if those thoughts are ignorant, baseless and stupid... it is their right to have them.

If your relgion says that the word of God can be found in the watching of every Tom Hanks movie in reverse order by the month of the date it was released, that's your (crazy) prerogative. If you say that anyone who does not believe the Tao of Tom Hanks is an evil, terrible sinner who is the cause of every one of the world's woes, that's your prerogative too. And when you then say you need to slay all of non-Hankonites and begin targeting them for murder, THAT'S when people like you come in to protect.

Because before that moment, you aren't protecting anything. You are being an agent of mind-control.

 

I'll be honest. I think the government can and should be in the business of controlling the thoughts and opinions of its citizens. For the express reason of preventing ignorant, baseless, and stupid thoughts. I don't think there is any inherent right to anything so much as there is power to enforce that right, no matter what it is or what my opinion (which may or may not agree with it) is.

[God]

It is one thing to remove the flag from government buildings. 

 

It is quite another to tear down historical monuments or ban movies from ever being seen. THAT is censorship and it has no place in a free society.

 

Maybe... A big maybe (I'm not convinced of this myself, but I've been slowly working on it for years)

 

Maybe we should not be a free society.

 

edit: well, we had a good and lengthy discussion over Steam about this stuff. Good picking each other's brains, and offering better understanding for each other.