The Ranting/Debate Thread

[Pale]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

The main cause for the holocaust, on a pragmatical basis, would have probably been econimacal and political. The jew comunity has a tendency to be close and generally composed of middle/high bourgeoisie(i'm getting out of my knowledge of english, so i'm not sure if it really makes sense). Considering the strong nazionalistic orientation of nazism, the economic troubles of germany after WW1 and the bellic effort's enormous cost, a close comunity with a religious belief different from the majority of the population with considerable economical resources and generally not well considered by the people becomes the perfect target. This way you can gain popularity by creating an elitist feeling in the people and accumulate a considerable amount of both money and free manpower to produce weapons and vehicles without having to heavily tax the people, who were already heavily taxed by the other european countries already, you become a hero. This is were hitler's genious lies, evil indeed, but genious none the less.
Most people tend to stick to the official reasons, but we need to remember that rarely what is said is really meant in politics.



Yeah, fascism doesn't really have much in common with the roman empire, but it was being as a mean to exploit the feeling of the people, so it can still be considered a cause, if one wants to really start nitpicking, that was my point.
Let's remember that nazism acquires actual power a mere ten years after fascism and only really shares the means used to obtain power, nazism was focused on the race from the very beginning, while fascism's focus was the country, the foundamental ideology is different, that's why it shouldn't be mixed like it's the same thing. Let's not forget that a similar situation can be observed in the raise to power of communism in russia and napoleon's empire after the french revolution. The main problem with nazism and fascism is their contemporaneity and the alliance during the WW2, which tends to give most people the impression that they are the same thing.
As much as fascism could have given Hitler the idea on how to start his empire, it's such a small reason compared to the situation germany was in because of the winner of WW1 and is no way a determining factor, the fact mussolini had the idea a few years before hitler don't mean that hitler wouldn't still have done what he did, while if after WW1 germany wasn't completely tarnished there wouldn't have been as much gunpowder for hitler to use, if there wasn't a WW1 there would have probably been no problem at all, if you think about all the causes that co-operated to the raise of nazism you will see that fascism is not as important as you think it is.

Also along the lines of your reasoning, adolf hitler's father is more responsible than anyone else for the slaughter of milions of jews, since no Alois equals no Adolf, same could be said for the mother, the parent's parents, etc...
Oh, let's not forget god, no god, no jews, no slaughter.

I understand your logic, but it doesn't justify the use of the word fascism for something that is foundamental ideology of nazism, as a matter of fact fascism acquired antisemitism from nazism in 1938 when they signed their alliance, 16 years after coming to power.

Slow down a second there. You've jumped to a couple of assumptions here.

Firstly, that Anti-Semitism was a core part of Nazism, and in fact, a defining one. No. It's again an important component, but it's not -all- of Nazism. I'd say the message that the Aryan, German race is superior to all others was more important on the racial side of things - the Jews are just a scapegoat.

And guess what? Nationalism, and unity of race is a core defining tenet of fascism. Corporatism relies heavily on people's sense of community - but to define an "us" there has to be a "them". Hitler famously did this through his ideas of racial purity. A sort of Social Darwinism. Another idea very prevalent, and born in, fascism.


In addition, many of the control techniques Hitler employed weren't original. They were drawn from the library of fascist doctrine. The glorification of war. The accentuation of gender roles. The establishment of groups such as the SS and the Hitler Youth. Promotion of national identity, racial purity, etc.

As for Anti-Semitism being a Nazi, and not Fascist policy... I quote from my wiki, which quotes from the 1934 International Fascist Congress.

[T]he Jewish question cannot be converted into a universal campaign of hatred against the Jews [...] Considering that in many places certain groups of Jews are installed in conquered countries, exercising in an open and occult manner an influence injurious to the material and moral interests of the country which harbors them, constituting a sort of state within a state, profiting by all benefits and refusing all duties, considering that they have furnished and are inclined to furnish, elements conducive to international revolution which would be destructive to the idea of patriotism and Christian civilization, the Conference denounces the nefarious action of these elements and is ready to combat them.[249]

As for Mussolini acquiring Anti-Semitism from Hitler in 1938? Well, that's just plain wrong. Quite clearly you've been reading Italian history books. Again from Wiki..

Mussolini, in a 1919 speech denouncing Soviet Russia, claimed that Jewish bankers in London and New York City were bound by the chains of race to Moscow and that 80% of the Soviet leaders were Jews.[241] In his 1920 autobiography, he wrote, "Race and soil are strong influences upon us all", and said of World War I, "There were seers who saw in the European conflict not only national advantages but the possibility of a supremacy of race"

Of course, I don't hold that Italian fascism under Muss-face and Nazism under Hit-head were the same thing. But Nazism was most definitely born from fascism.

In short, I feel that the term "fascism" is an umbrella. All Nazis are fascists.. but not all fascists are Nazis. It is more far-reaching than just National Socialism. However, National Socialism is a house built on the fascist foundation. Without using and appropriating many of the techniques, principles, tenets, and logic of the overarching fascism, Hitler could not have done what he did.

Now. To drag this back to the place it began... the (supposed) letter from Anonymous to the Westboro Church. The phrases you're picking on are..

Being such aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Information as we are, we have hitherto allowed you to continue preaching your benighted gospel of hatred and your theatrical exhibitions of, not only your fascist views, but your utter lack of Christ-like attributes.

And, more likely, I think..

You have condemned the men and women who serve, fight, and perish in the armed forces of your nation; you have prayed for and celebrated the deaths of young children, who are without fault; you have stood outside the United States National Holocaust Museum, condemning the men, women, and children who, despite their innocence, were annihilated by a tyrannical embodiment of fascism and unsubstantiated repugnance.

Oh, and also,

Your demonstrations and your unrelenting cascade of disparaging slurs, unfounded judgments, and prejudicial innuendos, which apparently apply to every individual numbered amongst the race of Man - except for yourselves - has frequently crossed the line which separates Freedom of Speech from deliberately utilizing the same tactics and methods of intimidation and mental & emotional abuse that have been previously exploited and employed by tyrants and dictators, fascists and terrorist organizations throughout history.

Right, so, the first one characterises the extreme views of this Church as fascist. Fascist ideology is built on corporatism, the separating of people into bodies to promote unity. This Church is doing the same thing by separating into "us" and "them". Us being heterosexual Christ-loving pacifists, presumably. So can this be fairly called fascist? Why, yes it can.

The second one refers to the Holocaust Memorial, and refers to the Nazi in Germany as:

a tyrannical embodiment of fascism and unsubstantiated repugnance.

I refer to my earlier statements. Fascism is an umbrella term referring to several different varieties of government united by common precepts of corporatism, national unity, yada yada. I've shown that the Nazi state used many of these precepts and ideas, and thus, can be collated under the fascist umbrella. Therefore, applying the term fascist to is is entirely fair.

The last one might at first glance seem a little cruel. It basically says the methods used to separate "us and them", I.E, by intimidating and abusing "them" (Be it Jews, blacks, whites, gays, Arabs, other kinds of Arabs, Muslims, you name it) are shared by tyrants, dictators, fascists, and terrorist organisations throughout history.

First-off, is it fair to lump fascism in with these guys? Well, a tyrant is a single man who has seized power via unlawful means, and a dictator is a single man (or woman, duh) that rules absolutely. Fascism strongly believes in the rule of one man, or at least, one party. Tyrants and dictators come under the umbrella of fascism, btw. Terrorist organisations are a bit of a black horse, but they too rely on the concept of "us" and "them", and like to demonise "them".

So there is a common thread. Second, does fascism use these methods? Well, back to my Wiki says it does. See earlier statements. So... all three references to fascism in that letter seem fine to me. I repeat.

tl;dr Don't call people stupid, stupid.

If you're doing it right, their stupidity should become obvious to everyone, and your work is done.

P

P.S Fascism doesn't just mean Mussolini. Try reading some non-Italian history books.

P

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

As for Mussolini acquiring Anti-Semitism from Hitler in 1938? Well, that's just plain wrong. Quite clearly you've been reading Italian history books.

My bad, i should have been more clear, i meant to say that the actual antisemitic persecution started in 1938, since before then there wasn't a direct attack to the jewish people as a race. Also in the letter you mentioned, mussolini refers more to an economical/political side of the jewish problem never reffering to jews as an inferior rasce to destroy, people were not killed for being jews and since you keep quoting wiki i'll do the same since this time around it doesn't seem to consider italian fascism or fascism in general as an antisemitic movement:

You must be registered to see the links

How weird is this wikipedia people relies so much on, it's ok as a reference, but taking it to the letter is a little exagerated.
Also the history books thing is a really low blow, implying we cover our history with lies to make it look better, come on, that's a pretty pathetic thing, i really wasn't expecting something like this from you, especially since i haven't once quoted an actual history book in here.

Firstly, that Anti-Semitism was a core part of Nazism, and in fact, a defining one. No. It's again an important component, but it's not -all- of Nazism. I'd say the message that the Aryan, German race is superior to all others was more important on the racial side of things - the Jews are just a scapegoat.

This doesn't deny anything i said so i have no idea why you put it in.

And guess what? Nationalism, and unity of race is a core defining tenet of fascism. Corporatism relies heavily on people's sense of community - but to define an "us" there has to be a "them". Hitler famously did this through his ideas of racial purity. A sort of Social Darwinism. Another idea very prevalent, and born in, fascism.

Wrong, race wasn't a fundamental part of fascism, racial purity was not in there from the start, there was just the usual hatred toward immigrants in general, black and gay people, which was there before fascism, is still there after fascism and belongs to many nations that never saw fascism, like...hmmm...oh, the united states of america.
Racial abuse was used against african people as a mean to convince the people that a war to subjugate the inferior people was right, but wasn't really an original idea, the idea that black/african population would be inferior to white/european/american people had been there for a long time. So it's still not fundamental value of fascism.
Besides, you used social darwinism in a completely inappropriate enviroment, since it's originally built on capitalism, which is definitely not connected to fascism.

Right, so, the first one characterises the extreme views of this Church as fascist. Fascist ideology is built on corporatism, the separating of people into bodies to promote unity. This Church is doing the same thing by separating into "us" and "them". Us being heterosexual Christ-loving pacifists, presumably. So can this be fairly called fascist? Why, yes it can.

Did you even bother to read the wikipedia link on corporatism you provided?
Not that it is completely reliable, but you stick to it so much that comes out as weird that you would completely ignore it this time.
The concepts of corporatism are used in capitalism and social democracy, it doesn't even do what you say it does, it doesn't "separate" people into bodies, it creates an "organic social system". It is also part of the ideologies of the main religious groups on our planet, whatever you might think corporatism and fascism are not the same thing.

The second one refers to the Holocaust Memorial, and refers to the Nazi in Germany as:
Quote:
a tyrannical embodiment of fascism and unsubstantiated repugnance.

I refer to my earlier statements. Fascism is an umbrella term referring to several different varieties of government united by common precepts of corporatism, national unity, yada yada. I've shown that the Nazi state used many of these precepts and ideas, and thus, can be collated under the fascist umbrella. Therefore, applying the term fascist to is is entirely fair.

The last one might at first glance seem a little cruel. It basically says the methods used to separate "us and them", I.E, by intimidating and abusing "them" (Be it Jews, blacks, whites, gays, Arabs, other kinds of Arabs, Muslims, you name it) are shared by tyrants, dictators, fascists, and terrorist organisations throughout history.

First-off, is it fair to lump fascism in with these guys? Well, a tyrant is a single man who has seized power via unlawful means, and a dictator is a single man (or woman, duh) that rules absolutely. Fascism strongly believes in the rule of one man, or at least, one party. Tyrants and dictators come under the umbrella of fascism, btw. Terrorist organisations are a bit of a black horse, but they too rely on the concept of "us" and "them", and like to demonise "them".

Corporativism wasn't born from fascism, was used in it, but was not born from it.
Nationalism was not born from fascism, was used in it, but was not born from it.
Antisemitism was not born from fascism, was used in it after the alliance of 1938, but was not born from it.
Dictatorships existed before the birth of fascism, so they are not born from it.
Also Comunism in many regions of the globe has become a form of authoritarian dictatorship, are you going to say that comunism is a form of fascism?
Closing, fascism wasn't first and fascism wasn't special, you can make out of it the origin of all bad things that happen in the world for as much as i care, but that's just ignoring facts in favor of a simpler explanation.

Btw, i officially take back what i said in my previous post:

Yeah, fascism doesn't really have much in common with the roman empire,

Fascism shares a lot with the ancient roman empire, checking all this tyrants and dictators stuff made me remember why i initially mentioned it.

tl;dr Don't call people stupid, stupid.

You should stop doing this, i didn't call them stupid directly, so it doesn't really work, i called them ignorant fools, ignorants as in they ignore, since they seem to be using the same generalized improper way of not perceiving nazism in it's own rightful category, and fools, as in they have a tendency of doing idiotic things in search for attention.

 

[Pale]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

How weird is this wikipedia people relies so much on, it's ok as a reference, but taking it to the letter is a little exagerated.
Also the history books thing is a really low blow, implying we cover our history with lies to make it look better, come on, that's a pretty pathetic thing, i really wasn't expecting something like this from you, especially since i haven't once quoted an actual history book in here.

Um. Everyone does it? I give no credibility to English history books, when it comes to English history, nor German history books when it comes to German history. In fact, I lend no credibility at all to a single book. My first History teacher told me no book is ever 100% correct - you have to read around to get a better idea.

Wrong, race wasn't a fundamental part of fascism, racial purity was not in there from the start, there was just the usual hatred toward immigrants in general, black and gay people, which was there before fascism, is still there after fascism and belongs to many nations that never saw fascism, like...hmmm...oh, the united states of america.
Racial abuse was used against african people as a mean to convince the people that a war to subjugate the inferior people was right, but wasn't really an original idea, the idea that black/african population would be inferior to white/european/american people had been there for a long time. So it's still not fundamental value of fascism.
Besides, you used social darwinism in a completely inappropriate enviroment, since it's originally built on capitalism, which is definitely not connected to fascism.

It perhaps wasn't a fundamental part of the original idea, but I assure you, by the time it made it into government, in Italy or in Germany, it sure as hell was. If we're going to separate them, though, into fascism the idea and fascism the government, that's just silly. Because the idea is totally irrelevant without thinking about the government it spawned.

And, no, Social Darwinism isn't built on capitalism. It's a kind of term which gets bandied about by the opponents of an idea - never the proponents. I think you'll find it rather evident in the concept of racial struggles, or the dominance of one race over another. Say, Hitler's intended Aryan dominance.

Did you even bother to read the wikipedia link on corporatism you provided?
Not that it is completely reliable, but you stick to it so much that comes out as weird that you would completely ignore it this time.
The concepts of corporatism are used in capitalism and social democracy, it doesn't even do what you say it does, it doesn't "separate" people into bodies, it creates an "organic social system". It is also part of the ideologies of the main religious groups on our planet, whatever you might think corporatism and fascism are not the same thing.

Whoah, slow down. I'm under no illusions there, corporatism and fascism are definitely different. Interlinked, with one relying upon the other, but different. Just think, though. Corporatism aims to unify the nation as a whole into one organic social system, one body. This -necessitates- exclusion. You can't define "us" or what is "in" this body without also defining what is -not-. Now, it's not an idea that -necessarily- leads onto the concepts of racial purity and nationalism, but it's an important stepping stone.

Corporativism wasn't born from fascism, was used in it, but was not born from it.
Nationalism was not born from fascism, was used in it, but was not born from it.
Antisemitism was not born from fascism, was used in it after the alliance of 1938, but was not born from it.
Dictatorships existed before the birth of fascism, so they are not born from it.
Also Comunism in many regions of the globe has become a form of authoritarian dictatorship, are you going to say that comunism is a form of fascism?

To answer your last question first, yes. Stalin's Russia was closer to fascism than communism. This is why our political spectrum is a horseshoe - the far right and far left are closer than they might admit.

To deal with the rest - well. You've pointed at three big concepts and said they might not have come from fascism, and that they were created/born elsewhere. True enough. But, firstly, the most recent and local example for the Nazi state was Italian fascism. So it'd be a little suspicious to say they arrived at the same ideas by coincidence.

Secondly, that was me taking a crack at a definition of fascism - something a quick Google search will tell you is very difficult indeed. My definition would be a governing authoritarian state that attempts to unify its people using the principles of corporatism, favouring war over peace, with a heavy focus on national and racial identity. Obviously it has its own flaws, but so will every definition. I'd offer that the "checklist" for minimum requirements to qualify as fascist would be three of four out of : Nationalist, Authoritarian, Corporatist, and Exultation of War/Violence.

Thirdly, even if we -don't- use my definition, it is widely agreed by historians that Nazi Germany was a fascist state. Use Google, see if you can find one that argues it wasn't fascist. Just try.

The reason for this being, fascist is now an umbrella term. It covers far more than the original, fairly narrow fascism born in Italy.

Closing, fascism wasn't first and fascism wasn't special, you can make out of it the origin of all bad things that happen in the world for as much as i care, but that's just ignoring facts in favor of a simpler explanation.

Fascism, the word, no longer refers to Italian fascism. Sorry. It's now a collective term for a kind of state, a kind of government. With that in mind, we can sit around and argue cause and effect all we like, but the long story short is - Nazi Germany is defined as a fascist state.

Btw, i officially take back what i said in my previous post:


Fascism shares a lot with the ancient roman empire, checking all this tyrants and dictators stuff made me remember why i initially mentioned it.

Eh. Authoritarian? No, not really. A lot of fascist economic policy is irrelevant to the Roman Empire.. not to mention, the enforcement of a single party system, in an Empire? Not really. Also, Roman Republic before Roman Empire, remember.

You should stop doing this, i didn't call them stupid directly, so it doesn't really work, i called them ignorant fools, ignorants as in they ignore, since they seem to be using the same generalized improper way of not perceiving nazism in it's own rightful category, and fools, as in they have a tendency of doing idiotic things in search for attention.

Except Nazism is defined as fascism, by, it seems, everyone but you. I wonder why. I do question this reluctance to group Italian fascism into the same bracket as Nazi Germany, as it seems most peculiar. Almost as if you were defending Italy, not wanting it to be tainted by association with the Nazis. Or defending fascism.

So, your argument so far..

Anon is ignorant, here, to call the Nazi state fascist, because Nazism should rightly be grouped under its own category, because it's very different from fascism.

My argument..

1. Nazism is -defined- as a form of fascism, and widely agreed by historians. It's a weird, perverse form of it, but a form nonetheless.

2. This is right, because nazism seems to share a great number of tenets with fascism, and simply builds upon them, adding, rather than taking away.

P

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

We're divagating a lot, let's try to get back to the main point of the discussion.

You want google, you get google:

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

As reliable as wikipedia i guess, none of these directly define nazism as fascism. Now, i never denied that nazism might be a variant of fascism, because they share similar ideologies, but there was a fascist movement in spain too that didn't end up in antisemitic frenzy(although spain never liked jews anyway, but didn't go hunting them down).
You keep trying to use the word fascism to lump them all together, and i guess it's fine to a certain extent, but we are talking about the holocaust here and you are defending an extremely generalized view on the definition of the cause for the holocaust, the fact nazism shares tracts with fascism doesn't mean it is fascism, like the fact that just because an Homo Sapiens Sapiens and an Homo Erectus share the same genetical structure built on the C-G A-T(U) if a Homo SS kills a jew(pun not intended) it's not the Homo E's fault because it came first.

The more you generalize, the more your analisys of factual events is inaccurate, the less accurate you are when defining an event the more ignorant you'll look.
The first anon letter(which seems to be from westboro) does just that in identifying in fascism the cause for the holocaust, which while not being completely implausible, it's more of an assumption than it is a fact, thus being improper. It is plausible that hitler would have found some ideas from watching the rise to power of fascism, but he wasn't told by fascism to persecute and kill people of semitic origins. Since you want to be general he could have taken that idea from pretty much the whole world, all nations didn't like jewish comunities, thats why we have israel, no one wanted them, they were persecuted and hunted for ages before the holocaust.
Fascism isn't the cause of the holocaust, think about poor spain, they didn't do anything.
Fascism is a term improperly used in the context of that letter, because fascism isn't the direct cause for antisemitism which caused the holocaust, even just for the fact that antisemitism has been around for hundreds of centuries(and this you can find in pretty much all history books).
As a matter of fact a man and his established government decided to slaughter them, they made the choice and they will bear the responsibility, doesn't matter where they got the idea, lumping them together with everyone else who share similar beliefs in most cases doesn't make them the same.
It might not seem like it, but i'm not trying to defend fascism, i'm defending my freedom of calling the one who wrote that letter an ignorant for using a generalizing term in an improper context.

Besides, i don't think there are many people around here that would disagree with defining WBC as a bunch of fools.

 

[Pale]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I don't have the energy to go hunting down the authors and backgrounds to those pieces, but the last link at least was delivered as part of an essay on Fascist Economics.

As for fascism and Nazism, I'm generalising because fascism IS a general term. Rather than Homo SS and Homo E, I consider fascism as more like "Caucasians" and Nazism as "British Whites". One being a subset of the other.

As for the original point, I think you're reading an implication into the letter that isn't there. The actual line, is.

were annihilated by a tyrannical embodiment of fascism and unsubstantiated repugnance.

Because fascism can take many forms, all one needs to do to be an embodiment of it is be fascist. One of said many forms. In fact, Anon narrows it down even further to a tyrannical embodiment of fascism.

I don't think it can be disputed that Nazi Germany was a fascist state. And as fascism has as many forms as the rainbow has colours, it was therefore an embodiment of the idea.

I don't see fascism the idea being blamed for the Holocaust. That's not being implied in this letter. Besides which, the fact he's used the phrase "an embodiment of fascism" - specifically, the indirect article AN, implies he's only condeming that one specific example, not fascism as a whole anyway.

As for your defence.. well. I'm picking on you here because it immediately jarred as wrong - that letter didn't seem particularly ignorant, not for the reasons you're describing. More, the attitude jars with me. I don't like people that put themselves on a high horse and look down on others, ESPECIALLY when it's behind the other person's back. It doesn't really matter whether high-horse-man is right, or wrong, he's being a twat.

It's perfectly possible to be right about something and not correct someone else upon it, after all.

If I've come off as overly judgemental, my apologies. I just feel that

"Hee hee, these people are ignorant fools (And I'm so clever)" is not something we should allow to pass us unchecked.

Perhaps it jars because I have the same opportunities to correct people, and rub it in their faces, and I -don't-. Because I'm nice. So seeing someone else do it is just frustrating.

P

 

[JohnDoe]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

As for your defense.. well. I'm picking on you here because it immediately jarred as wrong - that letter didn't seem particularly ignorant, not for the reasons you're describing. More, the attitude jars with me. I don't like people that put themselves on a high horse and look down on others, ESPECIALLY when it's behind the other person's back. It doesn't really matter whether high-horse-man is right, or wrong, he's being a twat.

P

Hallelujah!
Took you forever to actually address my attitude in a proper manner other than this:

tl;dr Don't call people stupid, stupid.

You've been trying to prove my statement wrong all this time, showing how much more you know about facts than i do, while the real problem is that i was being a jerk. I was in a bad mood and attacked them without putting much thought into it, but the way you answered my simple, stupid, post ticked me off. If you properly addressed my behavior instead of my knowledge/opinion there wouldn't have been a discussion at all.

Sometimes, trying too hard to be nice mean building up a powder keg inside of you, it's only a matter of time before a small spark makes it explode.

Anyway, you are perfectly right, i shouldn't have been that aggressive for such a stupid reason, especially behind their back, thank you for making me notice my error and i apologize if that caused distress for you or others.

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Douchebag

 

[Hentaispider]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

So I just registered to this site(redhotpawn.com) and I already hate it. It started innocently enough: When I tried registering using a yahoo.com email address, the site claimed that someone had already registered using that address, even though I certainly hadn't: just earlier today I cleared my yahoo account by moving subscription related emails to a separate folder. Ok, not a big deal. I use another email.

When I complete registration, the site mention something about a voluntary subscription. I start a couple games, scan through the FAQ since the site seems to have a lot of features, and notice something called ladders. Apparently they're a way to order everyone who wants to enter a ladder starts at the bottom and moves up by winning against people that are higher. Looks pretty interesting.

I try joining one and get told "Sorry, ladders are only available to subscribers because of the 6 game limit." The what? Anyway, doesn't it also say that ladders only require two games at a time, maximum? So I check what help says: "Subscribing to Red Hot Pawn removes advertisements and enables all site features. Please click here for more details." Click. "If you like playing chess at 'Red Hot Pawn', please consider becoming a subscriber. The 'Red Hot Pawn' community depends on subscribers for its continued existence and improvement, and for an $39.95 annual subscription fee, all of the site's features will be available to you", a sidebar listing some features but no mention of ladders at all and near the bottom "Also, by becoming a subscriber, you become a trusted member of this site - so further features become available to you, such as increased customisation of your profile, which cannot be made available to non-subscribers."

"Cannot be made available"? Yeah, apparently it's impossible to code the page in such a way that non-subscribers can set their own user titles. Who'd have thought!

So since the help page isn't clear, surely someone has asked that question in the forums. The forums are ugly, use a small font that's hard to read and don't have a working search function. In addition, the second thread I open has some jerk repeatedly posting "3a" as if it was obvious that he's referring to Terms of Service and apparently no-one had done anything about him.

I don't think I'm interested in subscribing.

Edit: Also, apparently on fucking DEFAULT settings the game sends you an email every time someone makes a move and they don't even bother telling you that beforehand in case someone might want to turn it off. This morning I came online to find out that my inbox had been flooded with spam.

 

[Newbie]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Digging this thread up so I don't shit up the Giddy Thread with this argument.

1)She knows a hell of a lot about the Doctor and acts mysterious about it.
2)She's always in the right place at the right time.
3)She was born part Time Lord, and
4)despite being trained all her life to kill the Doctor she falls for him and uses her last regenerations to bring the Doctor back to life.
5)Even though the Doctor is much, much older than River Song she has greater control of her regeneration powers, and
6)knows how to operate the TARDIS as well as stuff about it that the Doctor himself doesn't know.

Separated into points for easier rebuttal:
1)She knows more about him earlier because she's been told, by either by him or the people who want him dead. The mystery is because, apparently, telling people about their future is a bad, bad thing, and should not be done. Both these points are clear.
2)It's a show about time travelers. Everyone is always in the right place at the right time. This is a function of the narrative, not of her character.
3)That was explained on the show. It was even thrown in that time lords are made by exposure to time energy or whathaveyou.
4)She did kill him. Then she brought him back. She was impressed by him through the duration of the murder, and not free to act on her own until she had completed her task.
5)You could maybe argue that she has better control, but I'm inclined to disagree. She just knew the rules. It doesn't matter anyway, because she can't regenerate anymore.
6)Apparently the tardis told her directly? I have to give this to you, except that the doctor has always been a go-with-it sort of fellow, and it's possible his control of the tardis is reflective of that. He's not the sort to read instruction manuals or ask for directions.

 

[Nunu]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

points being explicable does not revoke suehood. but to settle this i shall put her through some tests.

testing revealed
37 points: Fanfiction authors, you might just want to start over. Role-players and original fiction authors, at this point your characters are likely to provoke eye-rolling and exclaimations of "yeah, right!" from your readers. (Well, at least from me.) Immediate workover is probably in order.

36 points: Mary-Sue. Your character needs some work in order to be believable. But despair not; you should still be able to salvage her with a little effort. Don't give up.

That is giving her all the benefit of the doubt in the questions i can't answer, like how the creater feels about the character. Sueness aside i liked her enough until the most recent episode where she started to earn her eye rolls, not to mention they could have done so much more with that rather than just throw it away.

 

[Newbie]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I tried to score the Dr, but didn't have time to run through the whole exam. However, last survivor of a forgotten race who speaks every language (even Baby!), is near universally skilled, and never fails to save the day gives him pretty high marks, even on just the opening bit.

Point of fact is, Mary Sue was meant to describe self-inserts in fan fictions. Even if River is a terrible character, which is a debate we can have, she was not written as an author avatar. She isn't given any special control over the plot, and in no way is she more unique than many of the other characters we've met. I think most of her problems as a character can be attributed to inconsistency, which can be attributed to the fact that we are hopping about in her time line and development as a character. You like who she was her first few appearances, but she wasn't always that person, and apparently not always likeable.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Now... I don't care about whether the character herself is a Mary Sue... but alas you're not entirely correct about the definition of Mary Sue Newbie.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

A Mary Sue (sometimes just Sue), in literary criticism and particularly in fanfiction, is a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader. It is generally accepted as a character whose positive aspects overwhelm their other traits until they become one-dimensional

-Wikipedia

Mary-Sue :

A female character who is so perfect that she is annoying. The name originated in a very short Star Trek story that mocked the sort of female characters who showed up in fanfiction. It usually refers to original female characters put into fanfiction, but can refer to any character.

Mary-Sues are characters who are usually extraordinarily gorgeous, amazingly talented, unusually powerful, and exceedingly attractive to whoever the author has a crush on. They often possess ridiculously fancy and pretentious first names -- Angel, Raven, Jewel, Lorelei Bianca Julia Marizza Snape -- and are very, very annoying.

Mary-Sue is often abbreviated to 'Sue.' The male equivelant is either Marty-Stu or Gary-Stu.
Your Buffy fanfic has a problem. Her name is Alayne Lorelei Gemma Jeshika Shanna, she has violet eyes and raven hair, curves in all the right places, is more powerful than Willow and a better fighter than Buffy and Faith combined, AND Spike is in love with her. She's a total Mary-Sue, and she's really annoying!"

-Urban Dictionary

So essentially, while Mary Sue can refer to a character being a self-insert, it is actually a character who is too perfect. No real human flaws, one dimensional... eh I've already provided the definitions.

So unfortunately if the argument for the fact that this character is not a Mary Sue is now falling back to the fact that she's not a self-insert (that we know of), it doesn't stand.

 

[Newbie]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

So unfortunately if the argument for the fact that this character is not a Mary Sue is now falling back to the fact that she's not a self-insert (that we know of), it doesn't stand.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. The nature of the show makes outlandish characters a necessity. Rory is a man who lived for over a thousand years as a centurion guarding a box, and remembers it past the universe being reset. Everyone's got their business going on. I think some folks just don't like River as a character for some reason or another, and are labeling her a sue as a result of that. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Oh, my entire purpose was to point out that a Mary Sue does not mean a self inserted character. I've never seen the show, don't know the character at all, so can't make any claims as to whether she's a Mary Sue or not.

 

[Nunu]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Everyone's got their business going on. I think some folks just don't like River as a character for some reason or another, and are labeling her a sue as a result of that. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

River didn't start off as a sue, but more evolved into one. I think the best example that shows this is captain jack, who has similar swashbucklingness mystical powers, mysterious past, only he played out as a character with some depth to him. The more we learn about river the more things seem the way they are just because thats the way they are. I still liked her up until this most recent episode where they just removed all her depth, they might give it back but they squandered something which could have been great.

 

[Newbie]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

River didn't start off as a sue, but more evolved into one. I think the best example that shows this is captain jack, who has similar swashbucklingness mystical powers, mysterious past, only he played out as a character with some depth to him. The more we learn about river the more things seem the way they are just because thats the way they are. I still liked her up until this most recent episode where they just removed all her depth, they might give it back but they squandered something which could have been great.

See, this is where it gets complicated, and why I think people don't like her. They didn't remove her depth, it's just not there yet. We are not meeting her on a linear schedule, our first meeting with her was when she died. That was the end of her character arc. She has been sort of losing depth as we went on, by virtue of her being younger and less experienced as a character. This last episode was particularly egregious, as she didn't even know that she was River. In fact, her waking up in the hospital bed is the start of her character arc, because of brainwashing, time-traveling shenanigans. Her character will likely continue to appear somewhat schizophrenic, as we will be meeting her in various points throughout her timeline, and never in order.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

You must be registered to see the links

Bit of old news but...

Quick sum up: For Mass Effect 3 Bioware held a poll on which one of a various few selected versions of the female Shepherd would become the "official" one for marketing and such. The fifth one, otherwise known as the blonde one, was winning last I checked. The linked article is a woman bitching about the blonde Shepherd, and how she looks like a bimbo without any personality.

Now here's what fucking bothers me. Two games have already come out showing Shepherd to have some great depth as a character, and the female version still a great role model for women as she kicks ass and has (albiet a somewhat customizable one) a good in depth personality.

Now I've always liked it when strong female characters are selected to become part of a game's marketing, especially when its not focusing on said character's sexuality. I always want it to happen more, and so do a lot of women. But now that the blonde Shepherd is winning people are bitching because of her fucking hair colour? Really, how fucking shallow is that where you can base someone's entire personality off the colour of their damn hair. Because she's blonde she's automatically a bimbo who cares more about her nails than her job... despite the fact that two previous games have established this character as anything but.

The difference between the various Shepherds up for the poll is in the hair alone. They have the same expression, same facial features, same pose. So the person who wrote this article is basically saying that to have long blonde hair automatically makes you a bimbo.

The author even goes on to mention how she's excited that a female shepherd is going to be used for marketing. But with such a backhanded slap like this, based on shallow observations, how the fuck does she expect to gain any ground? "It's not precisely what I wanted, I don't like blondes, blah blah,"

I think a comic from Penny Arcade said it best.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[ToxicShock]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I love when political correct douchebags get so hoity toity up to their eyes in their own bullshit that they come to the point where THEY'RE the people generalizing large groups of people, because they think they're protecting everybody.

 

[Alias]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

@Sinful: I was actually going to register and comment on what a moron the author was, citing many of the same points you did (i.e. the sheps are GRAPHICALLY IDENTICAL save for the hair). Luckily I noticed that not all the people commenting were idiots slavishly agreeing with her. The following quote is a shining example of what humanity should strive to be:

stupid_mcgee says:
07:18pm July 27 2011

@ PeterTechGuy: Right back at you. Seriously, the whole piece is, "screw blonde bimbo bitches because all blondes are dumb, ineffectual women." There's nothing to the article other than the writer, seemingly, doesn't like blondes and wants to be catty about it. This reminds me of all those chicks who just HATE on other women like crazy for no real reason.

-

Quite frankly, this is rather insulting that a piece like this would even get published. It's pure hateful tripe playing off of nothing other than stereotypes. Would it be okay if a PC Gamer writer posted a piece disparaging an African-American Shepherd based purely on stereotypes of not being to keep or get a high paying job, poor literacy, an affinity towards watermelon and fried chicken, and being prone to irrational violence? I would certainly hope not, but that's nearly exactly how this piece reads if you trade the terms "blonde" for "black" and insert relative stereotypes.

-

Pro tip: less than 25% of Caucasians in the USA's population have blue eyes. Blue eyes, being uncommon, are regarded by many in America as "beautiful." America has a lot of spending capital. Marketing towards Americans, especially when using women, often reflects symbols of beauty, of which blue eyes is an easily recognizable trait.

-

Likewise, blonde hair is not a common trait. For many outside of Europe, blondes were/are considered to be exotic and foreign. The "blonde bimbo" trope is something that began back in the 1800's, and is probably most notable in the 1925 novel, "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes." Prior to that, blondes have traditionally been seen in European folktales as heroines and heroes. Blondes have also been used for years as sexual entities (Aphrodite was depicted as blonde) in both lore and paintings. (Renaissance painters used blondes to show sensuality and eroticism, hence why biblical Eve is typically depicted as blonde and Mary depicted with dark hair) So, it's not like this is a modern thing. The notion of blonde beauty is classical and well-engrained within the movement and development of the human species.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

That comment was better laid out than my rant. Well done to that person.

But yeah, that the article was published on the site for a popular gaming magazine was just... astounding.