Author Topic: The Politics Thread v2  (Read 181220 times)

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #540 on: December 01, 2015, 04:02:14 AM »
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I want anarchy to work. But you're complaining about misuse of a term and appealing to the authority of something that just describes usage. Yes, there's the original usage. No, that on its own doesn't describe what you mean. It's something that has to be accepted, because meanings splinter and expand over time unless they're forgotten about entirely.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? I'm not sure I follow.

And yes, you are putting words in my mouth when you come up with that business about dead languages and "prescriptivism."

You're citing a 'correct' definition for a word even when all popular usage gives alternate, descriptively correct, meanings for the same word. That is prescriptivism.

From what I've been able to dig up, there's more to the concept of prescriptive language than that--some of which I do agree with, and some that I do not. Interestingly, the information I found indicates that prescriptive and descriptive language are considered complimentary approaches, rather than opposing camps as you seem to be implying.

Regardless, I never "argued for perscriptivism," and I would not do so now that I have some notion of what the term means.

By the very definition of anarchy you're espousing, it's rank hypocrisy to ask that people respect the authority of dictionaries because it spares you a few sentences of clarification about anarchism.

Aside from everything else you've gotten wrong here, you've also confused the notion of being an authority on a subject and wielding authority over other people. This is why clearly defined terms are necessary for discussion.

An authority on language does not tell people how to talk any more than an authority on chemistry tells molecules how to interact. They provide information regarding the structure and conventions of a given language, which you are free to follow or not as you see fit. However, if you choose to deviate from those conventions, then you are not using precisely the same language--any more than an RPG group using a set of houserules is playing precisely the same game as the one in the books.

What conflict do you claim to see between Anarchism and voluntarily choosing to abide by a set of linguistic conventions? I would argue that there is none, it just makes sense to do so if you want to be able to communicate clearly.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/

'Dear mentioned "baby parts" after the shooting and expressed anti-abortion and anti-government views, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation said.'

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151130/PC16/151139933

“He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions,” Mescher stated in the affidavit. “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/who-robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting-suspect-seemed-strange-not-n470896

'Former next door neighbor John Hood said that Dear hardly ever spoke wit him, but when he did, he would offer nonsensical advice, like recommending that Hood put a metal roof on his house so the U.S. government couldn't spy on him.'

And back to our regularly scheduled program.

So *gasp shock*, it appears the perpetrator was motivated by a combination of political beliefs and mental delusions.

Damn shame there isn't more effort made to identify and treat mental illness. Instead we wait until someone does something illegal and then punish them for behavior that is merely a symptom of their disease.
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #541 on: December 01, 2015, 03:12:58 PM »
No, the cult that was formed in the late 1800s was taken about as seriously as one of the doomsday cults today.

Right.
So then . . . which Muslims were it that invaded Spain?
And what did the Muslims who invaded the Balkans believe?
And how about the Muslims who cleansed Afghanistan of Buddhists?
Or that added the "kush" - "killer" - epithet, to the Hindu Kush - the Hindu Killer - Mountains?
And what was Tamerlane advocating when he built a mountain of skulls?
Certainly we shouldn't go back to Muhammad and his extermination of the Jews of Khaibar, including torturing the male prisoners to death to find their hidden treasures, or giving his followers permission to have sex with the female slaves they took. That would be REALLY inconvenient to your narrative.

But sure, these are just "new" interpretations from 1800.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #542 on: December 01, 2015, 03:17:59 PM »
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/

'Dear mentioned "baby parts" after the shooting and expressed anti-abortion and anti-government views, a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation said.'

Funny how the context is missing from that.

Quote
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20151130/PC16/151139933

“He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions,” Mescher stated in the affidavit. “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”

So he claims something but does the exact opposite.
Rather like MrWolfe's anarchists.

Quote
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/who-robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting-suspect-seemed-strange-not-n470896

'Former next door neighbor John Hood said that Dear hardly ever spoke wit him, but when he did, he would offer nonsensical advice, like recommending that Hood put a metal roof on his house so the U.S. government couldn't spy on him.'

And all of this doesn't make him a whacko, but someone with enough sanity to compose a rational attack.
Uh huh.
Kind of like these past examples:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/24/six-moments-where-the-media-has-wrongly-blamed-conservatives-for-violence/

Yep. Real convincing "evidence" you've got there.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #543 on: December 01, 2015, 04:08:59 PM »
It can't be terrorism, the President has said so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFCnAW27d_c

He makes a clear distinction that what happened in Colorado doesn't happen in other countries, while also noting efforts to fight terrorism such as happened in France.
He is very much separating the two - one as terrorism, the other as a "mundane" mass shooting and murder.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #544 on: December 01, 2015, 06:07:38 PM »

Funny how the context is missing from that.

Which context would we be referring to.

Quote
So he claims something but does the exact opposite.
Rather like MrWolfe's anarchists.

If you wish to troll Mr. Wolfe kindly do not use my posts to do it.  Your focus should be on me  :p


Quote
And all of this doesn't make him a whacko, but someone with enough sanity to compose a rational attack.
Uh huh.
Kind of like these past examples:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/24/six-moments-where-the-media-has-wrongly-blamed-conservatives-for-violence/

Yep. Real convincing "evidence" you've got there.

In what manner were his attacks rational?


Also if you wish to convince me of your argument quoting a site run by a paranoid conspiracy theorist who self admits he is mentally ill is probably not the way to go.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #545 on: December 01, 2015, 11:53:16 PM »
Which context would we be referring to.

The context in which those words were taken from the overall statement.

Quote
If you wish to troll Mr. Wolfe kindly do not use my posts to do it.  Your focus should be on me  :p

Now, now - don't lose your cool.

Quote
In what manner were his attacks rational?

None at all.
But in order for them to have any functional intent he has to be sane, and not just another loon.

Quote
Also if you wish to convince me of your argument quoting a site run by a paranoid conspiracy theorist who self admits he is mentally ill is probably not the way to go.

Nice ad hominem, but it has nothing to do with those examples.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16306
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #546 on: December 02, 2015, 01:59:24 AM »

The context in which those words were taken from the overall statement.
  That was the overall statement.

Quote
None at all.
But in order for them to have any functional intent he has to be sane, and not just another loon.
  Are you suggesting people who are mentally ill cannot have intentions?  :twitch

Quote
Nice ad hominem, but it has nothing to do with those examples.
It was more of an attack on Glenn Beck  :p


Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #548 on: December 02, 2015, 03:44:27 AM »
No, the cult that was formed in the late 1800s was taken about as seriously as one of the doomsday cults today.

Right.
So then . . . which Muslims were it that invaded Spain?
And what did the Muslims who invaded the Balkans believe?
And how about the Muslims who cleansed Afghanistan of Buddhists?
Or that added the "kush" - "killer" - epithet, to the Hindu Kush - the Hindu Killer - Mountains?
And what was Tamerlane advocating when he built a mountain of skulls?
Certainly we shouldn't go back to Muhammad and his extermination of the Jews of Khaibar, including torturing the male prisoners to death to find their hidden treasures, or giving his followers permission to have sex with the female slaves they took. That would be REALLY inconvenient to your narrative.

But sure, these are just "new" interpretations from 1800.

"Oh wah, they had a war at some point they must be super hyper violent".  Compare to the 1000-1400 Christians who were the primary agitators of that time period?  I said relatively peaceful.  That means more peaceful than the norm.  By that logic the only group who aren't hyper violent extremists are the Jains.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #549 on: December 02, 2015, 07:01:41 AM »
No, the cult that was formed in the late 1800s was taken about as seriously as one of the doomsday cults today.

Right.
So then . . . which Muslims were it that invaded Spain?
And what did the Muslims who invaded the Balkans believe?
And how about the Muslims who cleansed Afghanistan of Buddhists?
Or that added the "kush" - "killer" - epithet, to the Hindu Kush - the Hindu Killer - Mountains?
And what was Tamerlane advocating when he built a mountain of skulls?
Certainly we shouldn't go back to Muhammad and his extermination of the Jews of Khaibar, including torturing the male prisoners to death to find their hidden treasures, or giving his followers permission to have sex with the female slaves they took. That would be REALLY inconvenient to your narrative.

But sure, these are just "new" interpretations from 1800.

"Oh wah, they had a war at some point they must be super hyper violent".  Compare to the 1000-1400 Christians who were the primary agitators of that time period?  I said relatively peaceful.  That means more peaceful than the norm.  By that logic the only group who aren't hyper violent extremists are the Jains.

Except the whole constantly fighting with the ERE more or less because it was there thing, and expanding into India, and half the hordes converting to Islam.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #550 on: December 02, 2015, 08:02:45 PM »
The Mongols converting?  Are  those the hordes you're talking about?  Pretty much everyone who studies them would say that the Mongols were significantly less violent than the norm.  However, they lost and are foreign, therefore they are remembered for brutalities that they didn't commit.  And again, "being in a war" does not mean "horrendously violent".
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #551 on: December 02, 2015, 08:10:40 PM »
The Mongols converting?  Are  those the hordes you're talking about?  Pretty much everyone who studies them would say that the Mongols were significantly less violent than the norm.  However, they lost and are foreign, therefore they are remembered for brutalities that they didn't commit.  And again, "being in a war" does not mean "horrendously violent".

Well, there's Seljuk. The Ghazanids. The Golden Horde did a pretty good job going to Russia. Tamerlane.

Basically, calling the Christians the primary agitators is an inaccurate simplification. The initial casus belli for the Crusades is one of the more mild ones from history (and I believe spurred on by the change from Abassid power to Seljuk being one that was a lot less friendly towards the Christians).

It's not that I'm agreeing with the 'always been violent' thing, I just disagree with your summary of that region of the medieval period.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #552 on: December 02, 2015, 09:21:11 PM »
Europe started nearly all the Crusades...and the hordes were from Eastern Asia, not Islamic controlled lands....Sure there were wars and such started by the kingdoms, but nothing like other areas were doing.  I was specificalyl talking about 800-1400.  After 1300, the Mongols broke up their control and other groups seized power, specifically the Ottomans, Safavid, and Mughal empires.  that's when the Islamic empires got a little more violent, but only relatively, they were still at about the average violence level, in my opinion, of the time.  Then in the 1800s a cult was formed, and in the 1940s they managed to take over a couple countries.  Because oil.  Yeah, basically all of it comes back to oil....
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #553 on: December 02, 2015, 09:33:22 PM »
Europe started nearly all the Crusades...and the hordes were from Eastern Asia, not Islamic controlled lands....Sure there were wars and such started by the kingdoms, but nothing like other areas were doing.  I was specificalyl talking about 800-1400.  After 1300, the Mongols broke up their control and other groups seized power, specifically the Ottomans, Safavid, and Mughal empires.  that's when the Islamic empires got a little more violent, but only relatively, they were still at about the average violence level, in my opinion, of the time.  Then in the 1800s a cult was formed, and in the 1940s they managed to take over a couple countries.  Because oil.  Yeah, basically all of it comes back to oil....

Europe STARTED them, yes. But the first crusade was specifically about reclaiming Byzantine lands. That is, the initial reasons weren't wars of aggression.

I'm not sure why the hordes' not being from 'Islamic lands' is strictly relevant if the hordes themselves were identifiably such. Seljuk came out of fucking nowhere in the 900's, took over Persia, and his family took control over the crumbling caliphate, pushed west through Anatolia, and triggered the Crusades. The Ghaznavids equally decided to take over, and started what the Mughals would later finish by pushing eastwards as well as taking over Persia. The tendency to keep attacking the ERE is just plain aggression. They were at no point less aggressive than the Christians.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #554 on: December 02, 2015, 09:46:59 PM »
It matters because I was responding to someone saying "Muslims are always violent awful horrible people who are constantly itching to kill everyone".  Paraphrasing, of course.

EDIT: And the argument is not "aggressive", it's "violent extremist".  And I should note, the term "extremist" does kind of, you know, by definition mean they are not normal...And I think you and I both agree that Islam is not a particularly violent religion, you're just arguing semantics with me right now.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2015, 09:48:41 PM by dman11235 »
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #555 on: December 02, 2015, 09:49:49 PM »
It matters because I was responding to someone saying "Muslims are always violent awful horrible people who are constantly itching to kill everyone".  Paraphrasing, of course.

EDIT: And the argument is not "aggressive", it's "violent extremist".  And I should note, the term "extremist" does kind of, you know, by definition mean they are not normal...And I think you and I both agree that Islam is not a particularly violent religion, you're just arguing semantics with me right now.

Well, you were arguing that Christianity was the primary aggressor during that time period. I was arguing that they weren't. It's not semantics, just a different thing entirely.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #556 on: December 02, 2015, 09:59:59 PM »
During the Crusades, the Christians started nearly every war.  Is that not an accurate statement?  And that's in addition to the background warring things that happened during those times, all over the world.  Meaning they went above the background war level of the time period.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #557 on: December 02, 2015, 10:04:47 PM »
During the Crusades, the Christians started nearly every war.  Is that not an accurate statement?  And that's in addition to the background warring things that happened during those times, all over the world.  Meaning they went above the background war level of the time period.

And the initial premise of the Crusades was a response to events in Islamic lands, particularly reclaiming conquered lands. Even if you hold the later crusades to be rather too delayed for that, the first was tied to Anatolia, which was very recent. The Crusades were also a minority of the conflicts going on.

FFS, the Fourth Crusade is basically 'Venice pays people to loot Constantinople'. That's the biggest mess of all.

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #558 on: December 02, 2015, 10:49:18 PM »
FFS, the Fourth Crusade is basically 'Venice pays people to loot Constantinople'. That's the biggest mess of all.

Pope: "Onward Christian soldiers!  Take back the Holy Land from the Mohammaden hordes!"

Byzantine Empire: "Awesome, it's about time we got some assista-"

Pope: "Lol jk when I said Christians I only meant Catholics."

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v2
« Reply #559 on: December 03, 2015, 05:22:25 AM »
FFS, the Fourth Crusade is basically 'Venice pays people to loot Constantinople'. That's the biggest mess of all.

Pope: "Onward Christian soldiers!  Take back the Holy Land from the Mohammaden hordes!"

Byzantine Empire: "Awesome, it's about time we got some assista-"

Pope: "Lol jk when I said Christians I only meant Catholics."

The Pope, as I recall, was not best pleased.