Raider5678

There is a problem with that idea, however. The legal process immigrants face in those types of trials are often extremely biased. Often hundreds of people can be tried at the same time in less than 3 minutes, and I highly suspect that's not exactly a fair process. Edit: Tried and trials are probably not the correct words. But there is some kind of sentencing procedure they go through to be admitted into the U.S. that I am referencing.

According to your links they were trying to jump fences, rush past the border security, etc. There is a difference between requesting asylum and rushing the border and crossing it. For example, there is a difference between me knocking on your front door, and me jumping through an open window into your house. I'm not sure how well a group of immigration lawyers and judges would have stopped a mob of immigrants climbing over fences, etc, either. I can agree with this. We should be drastically changing the way we handle immigration in terms of bureaucracy. However, I still maintain the position, that in this situation, they shouldn't have attempted to rush the border. We should give them food and water, however, the logistical concerns of getting hundreds of thousands of immigrants showers and a place to rest on a daily basis are a bit concerning.

That's not how I'm thinking about it as. I've broken it down repeatedly how I am looking at it and you're not even attempting to address any of those points. Do that, and I'll address yours. But until then I feel as though we're talking past each other. For example: You've said this already. I've pointed out that's not what I'm saying. You said it again. I've also specifically taken this point, told you why I don't believe it, and you simply restated it. If you believe it, that's fine, but please justify why you believe a significant proportion of the populace is cheering him on for the specific goals you've mentioned. I've also specifically taken this point and said I don't feel that what Trump is doing is the same as the steps Hitler did, and I also said I don't think the population would still support him if he tried to do so. Again, you've seemingly simply repeated the position and didn't address any of the examples I raised. Address this, and I'll address you. I've also specifically pointed out what my overall point is, many, many, many times. It was not this. Yet you say once again that's my main argument. Again, you're talking about a position I don't hold. Early on in the conversation, I mentioned economic conditions as a single factor. iNow brought up that just because the conditions are different, doesn't mean the feelings are the same. We had a discussion about whether the conditions affect the intensity of feelings or not. That was related to the economic conditions, but I wasn't saying it was the only possible way Hitler could rise to power. If you really want to say that, then quote me where I said that. This is the only part of my argument you address, but only somewhat. I talked about feelings of desperation being the enabler, and you pointed out that people don't have to be in a desperate situation specifically, they only have to believe they are. So we agree on that.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the dog should attack the bear, especially if the dog would get killed by the bear and the bear would be shot by the dog's owner. Also known as Mutually Assured Destruction. That's the truth. But what should we do with our hands?

No, reductio ad hitlerum is petty. And off topic.

I'm sure I played a role in it as well. I agree with this. This is what I disagree with. Very simply, I feel that the intensity of these feelings does change based on the situation. I'm not saying they're looking back in Germany and comparing themselves, I"m simply saying the amount of pressure they were under is drastically different and you'd see that in how they respond to situations. I wasn't ignoring context, I was simply pointing out that Trump is no Hitler. Again, look at all of the different things that Hitler did to obtain power. Then look at what Trump has/is doing. There are a couple of similarities, but then again there were similarities between Obama and Hitler as well when it came to their policy. All the similarities are, as you yourself said, superficial. When you begin to compare politicians to Hitler simply because you disagree with them, you're taking part in fear mongering. Additionally, there are things Trump is doing that Hitler did the exact opposite of. Does that make him an anti Hitler? There is a difference between saying what he is doing is bad, wrong, ineffective, etc, and saying he's just like Hitler and taking only the things that make him similar. One is pointing out flaws and explaining them, another is simply fear mongering. Fear mongering is never good for democracy. I don't believe I declared this. I simply said that they do not appear to be anywhere near the same amount of radicalization of Hitler, and that's something I still stand by.

Except I'm not the one claiming things and then saying I never held that position. I'm also not the one constantly changing what the discussion is about. But you are saying that people in different situations feel the same way and that it's absurd to point out that levels of desperation change depending on the situation. Stop moving the goalposts, and stop changing what you're saying and denying that's what you're doing. It's one thing to simply change what you're saying. It's a totally different thing to change what you're saying and then deny that you ever said the previous thing. And I've respected you enough to point out where you were saying that's that completely contradicted yourself, and I intend to stop now as you refuse to acknowledge anything.

Regardless of that, however, I've already gone into the massive difference in economic conditions. You can say all you like that people FEEL the same way, that people FEEL like they have it just as hard, and that people FEEL that it's hopeless, but it seems like an absurd position to me that there can be no difference in the amount of desperation people feel based off of economic conditions. Your analogy of a broken leg versus getting shot is flawed. In terrible economic conditions, you're under pressure. A more accurate analogy would be someone who's about to be thrown into the water with a cement block tied to their legs, to someone who's about to be thrown into the water. Who do you think is feeling more desperate? Feelings don't exist on a binary scale of "Feels bad" vs "Feels good." It can be "Feel's like you're absolutely about to die" or "feels terrible" or "feels bad" or "feels annoying", etc, etc, etc. Stop moving the goalposts. First, you said that me saying they were equivalent is an unfounded conclusion. Now you're saying you never said that they were equivalent. Additionally, you're also still attempting to move the discussion. My point, very simply, is that people in America are not nearly in the same position(or mindset) that Germans were around World War 2. My point continued, pointing out that Hitler declared himself virtually supreme ruler with relativistically little pushback as compared to what you'd see in the U.S. if Trump tried to do the same thing. I'm not debating whether people are comparing themselves or not to folks in Germany. I'm saying they are not in the same mindset of desperation. Do you disagree with this or not?

I'm sorry, I was mistaken then. I thought your overall point was that Trump is like Hitler, hence why you compared the things Hitler did to what Trump is doing. However, I feel you've misread my position. I did point out that there was a lot of push back. What I was saying is that you should compare the amount of pushback Hitler got when he declared himself supreme ruler to the amount of pushback Trump would get if he declared himself supreme ruler. Do you really believe they'd be equal? My overall point is that Trump is no Hitler. We can try to paint him into a box where he is by taking only a few things he's done, however, that requires a level of mental gymnastics I'm not ready to participate in. You said people were in the same mindset first, I do believe the burden of evidence is on you to prove that statement rather then me trying to prove it a negative. Here's where you said that: "I could go on, but my point remains. When people view their current situation and the economic pains they feel, they’re not comparing it to Germany decades ago. This isn’t some rational cognition calculation. It’s about gut feelings, and people feel like they’re being punched in the gut then kicked in the nuts." Also, the fact you're asking me to prove a negative gives me the idea you don't believe it. So if you believe people today feel the same way Germans did in the 1940's, it's your job to prove it, not my job to prove they don't.

I did not strawman you, I very clearly said: Allow me to remind you, you said, "We’re doing spectacularly, but that’s not how millions of people feel." If we're talking about feelings, as you very clearly stated, then don't accuse me of strawmanning you when I did not. Except they can still earn money, and that money they earn doesn't immediately become so worthless they can't buy food. You were literally just saying how our economy definitely wasn't as bad as the Germans, and now you're saying it's bad. You're contradicting yourself my friend. There is a certain level of hopelessness that comes when the wages that you earned on that very day lose 10,000% of their value by the next morning. In America, when you earn your money, you can still spend it without worrying that by tomorrow, you won't be able to buy a bag of garbage with it. Attempting to compare people not having savings because they spent it to people who literally could not save a dime because their money became worthless does a disservice to your argument. Be intellectually honest with yourself. Well now you're completely shifting the discussion. My point, very simply, is that people in America are not nearly in the same position(or mindset) that Germans were around World War 2. My point continued, pointing out that Hitler declared himself virtually supreme ruler with relativistically little pushback as compared to what you'd see in the U.S. if Trump tried to do the same thing. I'm not debating whether people are comparing themselves or not to folks in Germany. I'm saying they are not in the same mindset of desperation.

Sure. Because millions of people walk into a coffee shop, and in the time that it takes them to order 2 cups of coffee, the price of the second one has jumped $4,000 more due to hyperinflation. Millions of people are starving because their last 10 years of savings are no longer enough to buy a piece of gum, let alone something to eat for the family. Etc, etc, etc. You can portray life in America as so absolutely terrible, but there is no way even you believe they feel the same way the Germans did. Well, luckily I already pointed out there was a lot of pushback, but my point was it'd be nowhere near what would happen if Trump tried the same thing. Again, you guys can believe Trump is the next Hitler but it doesn't make it true. The facts aren't supporting you unless you make leaps and bounds in logic and reasoning to assume so. Hitler's systematic dismantling of everything that could stop him is far worse than Trump telling people not to believe the media. This reminds me of people saying Obama was the next Hitler and using ridiculous assumptions to assume his real intentions, and comparing things he did to Hitler, etc. You provided a very clear and accurate picture of what Hitler did to secure power. Your comparison to Trump is literally "he tries to convince folks not to listen to them." There is a difference between shutting down media sources and then forcibly taking them over and making them pump out Propaganda, and telling people not to listen to the media. Let's all use some logic and understanding here to overcome our hatred of Trump. Trump is no Hitler.

I'd say not. The German economy, social life, and government structure was much much much worse then what we have today. That opened it up to Hitler swaying the masses and literally establishing himself as a supreme ruler, with relatively little pushback. There was pushback. There was a lot of it. But it was nowhere near what you'd see if Trump tried to do the same thing. Doom and gloom get parties votes, but it isn't reality. As a country, we're doing quite well.

Interesting, I did not know this before.

I'd say other than this paragraph, you have a very well written and informed post. Anyways, a couple of things. First of all, the reason the feminist movement is more powerful is not simply mostly because it's easier to tackle, it's a lot more complex than that. I'd agree that it plays a partial role, but there are other ones. For example, feminists actively oppose virtually every men's activist group. Even you've done this here. You referenced the men's group in the documentary as promoting "just a different flavor of toxic masculinity." The men's group referenced in the documentary were mainly addressing things such as men's suicide rates, workplace deaths, the disparity in prison sentences, and the disparity in child domestic cases. Those are all valid concerns, in my opinion, however they're considered toxic masculinity to the feminist movement. The University of York had to cancel a men's event about those issues simply due to the number of protests and outcry from students, staff, and the feminist movement. When the documentary came out, it was widely protested by the feminist movement, the majority of whom never even watched it. You claim they're doing little but increase gender tension, however, they're actively going around the country speaking about men's health, encouraging men to seek mental help when they need it, setting up mental health hotlines, and more. That is a lot more than simply increasing gender tension in my opinion. Another thing you said here is that they went to anti-feminists. Again, they were men's groups, not anti-feminists. Just because there is a men's right's group doesn't mean they're against women's rights, the same way Black Live's Matter isn't saying only black live's matter. Additionally, fun fact, The Red Pill was originally designed to be a literal anti-men's movement. The woman who put it together was an outspoken feminist who she herself admitted was bent on destroying the men's movement once and for all. However, during editing the documentary together, she eventually changed her mind because she realized how much she had to assume about these people to villify them to the degree she was, and that she had so many false prejudices against them that she changed her position. In fact, this is her at a Ted Talk she gave: I highly encourage you to listen to it, as it gives an entirely new perspective when watching the Red Pill. By the way, when was the last time you watched it?

Alright, I changed my mind. I agree with your position now about kids doing those types of salutes at school. However, again, I still maintain my position that I don't really think that's what they were doing.

According to the article, the photographer told the boys to wave goodbye to their parents before heading to prom. As a result, when you have 60 boys wave for a photograph, some are going to look like they're giving a Nazi Salute. Mind you, people aren't saying all the boys are doing the salute, just a few of them. I think the school saying they don't want to infringe on their First Amendment rights was just the school's way of trying to get out of punishing a bunch of kids for nothing but an accident. See above for my opinion on if they were actually doing it or not, but regardless, I agree with your general position. Hate speech shouldn't be illegal. It's speech. I don't think to tolerate it gives it credibility or anything if all speech is tolerated. It's when some speech is tolerated, and other speech isn't, that suddenly the speech that is tolerated gains credibility. Additionally, when you get into the grounds of defining hate speech, it can get questionable really quickly. For example, on several college campuses, students are taught that asking "Where are you from?" is a minor form of hate speech because it implies they aren't from here. I can see how you can draw the correlation between that, but I also really don't think that should qualify as hate speech. So if we set the precedence now of punishing hate speech, what happens as the definitions of hate speech broadens over time, as it already has? If my future grandkids are punished for asking "Where are you from?" I'll roll over in my grave.

I find humor in the irony, not so much the results. In my opinion, sometimes the best thing to do is look for the humor in situations, as it typically opens people up to realize that maybe the said situation actually does need to be changed/shouldn't have been changed. But agreed, back on topic now.

And my point was about the filibuster as well.

I laughed my ass off when Kavanaugh was being appointed while I was at my state capitol. Democrats previously: "We can't have a filibuster when appointing a supreme court justice." *get's rid of it to get their guys appointed* Democrats during the appointment: "Ah! Fuck! Put it back! Put it back! Put it back! This was a terrible idea! Oh my god!!!!! It never occurred to use that us getting rid of that it be used against us! Dammit! Fuck! Ahhhh!" Not publicly, but I sat in during a State Senators Democratic Caucus, and they were talking about it. It was basically this when one of them said, "The Republicans don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. There is no way Brett gets appointed." "Uh. Didn't they change that?" *Page pipes up* "Yeah. You guys got rid of it under Obama." *Room bursts into yelling and arguing between the State Senators* Don't be too quick to get rid of the filibuster.

Well, despite a few people thinking people were gonna die if Trump got his hands on the Presidential alert system, nobody has yet, and it's 2(almost 3) months in. It's not bothering me, it hasn't done any damage, and it doesn't seem like even Trump is abusing it, so I don't have a problem with it.

My only problem with that, is that it'd most certainly be considered racist/sexist. If you put education requirements on voting, it's racist. If you do the same for president, it'd also be racist.

Ah, yeah. Okay. I did mean 180 degrees, but I wasn't accounting for the fact that the Sun doesn't actually set exactly West and exactly East unless you're on the equator.

Since when have they not been? Populist presidents virtually always win, and they're simply sold America on what they're promising to give them.

Wait, why wouldn't it give you the North and South? I'm envisioning two sticks facing 180 degrees away from each other. In my mind, the bisector could point north or south, depending on which side of the two sticks you placed it....

Since you apparently can't read the entire thread, let me fill you in. 1. Sensei believes farming can be replaced with Virtual Reality. 2. I say it won't be because automation can do it cheaper and more efficiently. 3. The inherent question is whether or not farming can be replaced with Virtual Reality.