Politics Generations

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Yesterday Trump said they are building a wall in Colorado. Thanks God! Soon we will all be safe from Coors beer, legalized pot and disreputable characters like @ShadySands & John Elway!

Feel for the civil servants who have to have meetings with this guy

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Hurlshot said:

This is completely detached from reality. 

 

4 hours ago, Skarpen said:

No. Holocaust can be used by everyone. No one should have exclusivity on spoken words. 

Oh the good old double standards "we can say this but you cannot". How incredibly Orwellian of you 

Interestingly enough you can use the word holocaust to describe a mass killing/genocide but if you use it with a capital, Holocaust, then this describes what happened to the Jews in WW2 by the Nazis ....so you both right in different ways 

 

 

[smjjames]

I think there was a touch of sarcasm in what hurlshot said earlier, but still, context does matter, if you say 'a holocaust', you mean the concept, if you say 'the holocaust' (capitalized 'h' or not), it's usually referring to the event in WWII. The word 'lynching' doesn't have a single period of time attached to it the way the word Holocaust does.

[Hurlshort]

In the US, the word 'lynching' typically refers to the period between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement where thousands of black men were targeted by mob violence. Just like the word 'holocaust' typically refers to what happened in WWII.

This is how etymology works. Historical events affect the definition of words. 

[213374U]

15 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

What about the word holocaust? Do the Jewish get to keep that one?

That's usually capitalized to distinguish from the original practice the term refers to -- or even better, prefaced by "Jewish". But in strict terms, no. The Jewish don't get to keep the word "holocaust" as a sort of exclusive reference to the mass murder of Jews (among many others) during WWII.

It's interesting because as a non-American, the way people react to certain words with a connection to local (American) events -or just the American historical perspective of other events- is often super weird to me. Lynching for instance is a term that is to me completely devoid of any racial undertones.

However, this is a US President making a statement for domestic consumption, and he could have used any other word.

[BruceVC]

21 minutes ago, smjjames said:

I think there was a touch of sarcasm in what hurlshot said earlier, but still, context does matter, if you say 'a holocaust', you mean the concept, if you say 'the holocaust' (capitalized 'h' or not), it's usually referring to the event in WWII. The word 'lynching' doesn't have a single period of time attached to it the way the word Holocaust does.

I hear you but without being pedantic Hurlshot didnt say " the holocaust " he used the word holocaust which is not not exclusive to the Jews 

[smjjames]

4 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

In the US, the word 'lynching' typically refers to the period between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement where thousands of black men were targeted by mob violence. Just like the word 'holocaust' typically refers to what happened in WWII.

This is how etymology works. Historical events affect the definition of words. 

Yeah, but my point is that I haven't heard the word lynching to refer to it's corresponding era in quite the same way.

5 minutes ago, 213374U said:

It's interesting because as a non-American, the way people react to certain words with a connection to local (American) events -or just the American historical perspective of other events- is often super weird to me. Lynching for instance is a term that is to me completely devoid of any racial undertones.

That's understandable since you don't have the same historical context. It may be possible to intend to use it in a way devoid of any racial undertones, but it's almost impossible to avoid here in the US. Especially since it's said by a President who has a propensity for saying racist stuff.

[ShadySands]

Just for reference for those non US folks. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

Similar to the discussion we had about Trump's "go back" comment he says a lot of things which can be considered racially charged based on our national history and his past history. It can seem innocuous and it may even be intended that way but with our President it's always impossible to know. At least it should help inform why some people consider him racist and/or why some white supremacists feel supported by him whether intentional or not. 

[Skarpen]

29 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Yeah, but my point is that I haven't heard the word lynching to refer to it's corresponding era in quite the same way.

Neither did anybody else. This was made up just now after Trump tweet. Up to the point of Trump historical tweet everybody in every state and around the world used the word normally in dictionary context. 

[Hurlshort]

Context and setting are important, as I said earlier. If you talk about a genocide while in Central Africa, you can infer what is being talked about. 

Whether you capitalize holocaust or not, it is hard to imagine a situation where it wouldn't refer to WWII. Nuclear holocaust would be an exception, I suppose. If a German Chancellor got up and started referring to a really bad wildfire as a holocaust, that would be stupid. It may be a technically correct usage of the word, but it would still be a stupid word to use in the situation.

(Interesting to think that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't typically get the holocaust label. Why?)

Edited October 24, 2019 by Hurlshot

[Elerond]

Because Japanese were bad people. It is same why bombing of Dresden is not considered as war crime.

 

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Neither did anybody else. This was made up just now after Trump tweet. Up to the point of Trump historical tweet everybody in every state and around the world used the word normally in dictionary context. 

Ah, to live a life without doubt. 

[Hurlshort]

2 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Because Japanese were bad people. It is same why bombing of Dresden is not considered as war crime.

 

That truth bomb you just threw should be a war crime. 

[Zoraptor]

Ultimately the bombing of Dresden is not considerd a war crime because the allies won. As a number of allied commanders observed during Nuremberg and other trials (Doenitz and unrestricted submarine warfare being the one I'm sure of), if they'd been on the losing side they would have been standing there instead.

So far as I am aware there is no particular claim to the word holocaust specific to Jews beyond etymological ones- as the word used by them for The Holocaust is 'Shoah'. Genocide was a bit of a silly choice originally though too, as it was coined for the Armenian Genocide of 1915-6 and is and has always been used for mass killings of anyone whether Jewish or not. And as others have observed, while lynching outside the US is applied to any sort of mob justice execution Donald Trump is not from the rest of the world.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Zoraptor

[Skarpen]

2 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Ultimately the bombing of Dresden is not considerd a war crime because the allies won. As a number of allied commanders observed during Nuremberg and other trials (Doenitz and unrestricted submarine warfare being the one I'm sure of), if they'd been on the losing side they would have been standing there instead.

So far as I am aware there is no particular claim to the word holocaust specific to Jews- as the word used by them for The Holocaust is 'Shoah'. Genocide was a bit of a silly choice originally though too, as it was coined for the Armenian Genocide of 1915-6 and is and has always been used for mass killings of anyone whether Jewish or not. And as others have observed, while lynching outside the US is applied to any sort of mob justice execution Donald Trump is not from the rest of the world.

I would understand if lynching was considered tabu in US like the N-word for example. But it's not and it never was. As shown at the start the people attacking Trump used the word, the media used the word, the press, movies, popular culture and so on and so forth. Have anyone ever heard of someone getting in trouble for using the word before now? 

Come one guys. You know you are stretching when you have to pull out holocaust and such. 

[Chilloutman]

not sure where to put this so here we go:

 

 

[Hurlshort]

20 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I would understand if lynching was considered tabu in US like the N-word for example. But it's not and it never was. As shown at the start the people attacking Trump used the word, the media used the word, the press, movies, popular culture and so on and so forth. Have anyone ever heard of someone getting in trouble for using the word before now? 

Come one guys. You know you are stretching when you have to pull out holocaust and such. 

https://nypost.com/2019/03/08/hockey-announcer-yanked-from-booth-after-lynching-comment/

 

[Gfted1]

No aliens? Bummer.

[Gromnir]

the germans bombing o' stalingrad was horrific. in total, something like a million bombs were dropped by the germans on stalingrad. is not simple a matter o' victors painting with brush o' convenience. keep in mind that immediate after the war the soviets were still considered allies, and the vast majority o' Americans at the time believed the soviets had done most o' any nation to win the war in europe. that said, norms o' the time had been altered. daily pictures in newspapers and images on film o' destruction and death had folks viewing events different, although the images were far less brutal than what we expect today. regardless, am suspecting folks were becoming numb to descriptions o' dead from bombing. firebombing o' tokyo had killed ~100,000. took hiroshima and nagasaki to eclipse that mark. insofar as total destruction, hiroshima and nagasaki weren't special.

am rare mentioning actors and their political opinions 'cause we ordinary don't care what such folks think. we care little for the opinions o' actors save for what they has to say 'bout anything save acting... unless they has some other area o' expertise which is relevant and such is why we mention paul newman. newman were a liberal in hollywood when it weren't all that popular to be a liberal. anti-war activist who earned a spot on nixon's infamous enemies list. don't care. we bring up newman 'cause he were a gunner on avenger aircraft in the pacific. newman, for all his liberal positions and contributions, thanked god, and would do so "until the day i die" that the bombs were dropped, ostensibly saving countless american and japanese lives. sure, the japanese didn't actual surrender after bombs were dropped-- were soviets declaration o' war and their intent to invade hokkaido which actual finally convinced the japanese to surrender to Americans instead. even so, after having witnessed iwo jima and okinawa, folks 'round the world were convinced that the anticipated japanese invasion would result in millions o' dead. 'pon hearing o' japanese surrender, can't imagine what were conflicted feelings o' shock and guilt and gratitude all rolled together for those who woulda been part o' a japanese invasion, not to mention what were emotions o' their families and loved ones. 

as to lynching...

“given the history of our country, i would not compare this to a lynching,” said mitch mcconnell 'bout trump's crude description o' the impeachment inquiry.  mitch admitted lynch were inappropriate and a poor choice of words. *shrug* this weren't the grey-area kinda issue many make it out to be. even so, more than a few democrats and sources already opposed to trump went after the lynch comment with more vigor than they would have if were one o' their own decrying some excess by... whomever. arguable disproportionate response to lynch comment, admitted wrong lynch comment, were giving trump defenders and their pocket media a chance to distract folks from recent inquiry events and make the narrative 'bout race and democrat hypocrisy.

were watching a recent c-span bit with mcmaster and were stated how 80% o' 2016 russian election interference were race-based, with immigration a distant second. trump has taken another page from the russian playbook on how to divide americans. the POTUS is following the russian playbook?

HA! Good Fun!

ps thought he were funny on news radio, but after having seen rogan embarrass himself with his moon hoax nonsense, am confident 'bout where to put his stuff.

moon hoaxers. sheesh.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Gromnir
ps

[ShadySands]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

No aliens? Bummer.

That's what they want you to think

[Gromnir]

42 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

That's what they want you to think

just an excuse to hear sagan say, "billion."

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

That's what they want you to think

Or imagine another organization even more covert than the NSA, CIA, etc. Something he couldn't access. *dun dun dun*

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

sure, the japanese didn't actual surrender after bombs were dropped-- were soviets declaration o' war and their intent to invade hokkaido which actual finally convinced the japanese to surrender to Americans instead.

Still peddling that fringe theory? The two things that got Japan to surrender were the loss in a week of their Manchukuo Army which left every remaining Japanese soldier in mainland Asia- millions of them- except those in Korea cut off, and the nukes neither of which they had no effective retaliation for nor realistic prospect of being able to retaliate against later. Claiming it was the purely hypothetical threat of a soviet mainland invasion sounds like, hmm, something a soviet asset would say.

Kind of hilarious how a US invasion from a large, competent and experienced navy- 300+ large warships alone- and large, experienced, well equipped specialist invasion force would cost, quote, 'countless' US and Japanese lives but was not enough to get them to surrender while an invasion from the soviets was a simple matter terrifying enough to the Japanese to get them to surrender despite the soviets having very few ships available either civilian or military, a tiny logistical base due to having few ships with very low ability to project that base anywhere; few and untested specialist invasion equipment plus very few trained marines who were also inexperienced in invasion. All to cross a rough sea against a large, fanatic enemy in either hurricane season or the approach to winter and in terrain that massively favoured defence and didn't suit soviet military doctrine at all, even if they had a practical way to get their tanks, ammunition and fuel there and supplied in the first place.

In the Kurils the soviets landed 15k men, over 5 days- and lost ~15% of them, despite the vast majority of the Japanese surrendering as ordered. Indeed, the casualty rates were 2:1 in favour of the Japanese despite most of their troops offering no resistance. The Soviet Military and amphibious assaults are about as uniconic a duo as you can get, and always has been.

[Gromnir]

as you observe, have been down this road before. your ignorance continues in spite o' our best efforts to educate, which is expected. you also misrepresent, which is understandable but inexcusable as is well-trod.

after bomb were dropped, the japanese military were still talking 'bout defense o' the mainland, but zor wants to ignore timing as well as actual statements by suzuki kantaro and testimony from japanese commanders. heck, suzuki were  directed on august 8th to convene the supreme council to discuss the bombing o' hiroshima and members refused. general anami, on august 13, stressed how the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings were no worse than what tokyo had already suffered.  

and again, is not suggestion russian invasion were sole reason for capitulation, but try and claim planned soviet invasion o' hokkaido were mythical is laughable in 2019.

"Hasegawa fails to sustain his main arguments with the necessary evidence. At best, he leaves the revisionist case as he found it, in ruins. Indeed, he makes the rubble bounce by convincingly demonstrating that the Soviet Union very much was racing to get into the Pacific War in order to facilitate its expansionist policies in the Far East. Those who seek the definitive analysis on the end of the Pacific War will have to look elsewhere. A good place to begin is Frank’s Downfall." --prof. michael kort

you got "fringe" reversed. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

revisionist nonsense and weird soviet blindness o' zor aside, is consensus and largely undisputed that soviets were intending invasion and had sped up their time table after bomb drop. there is still debate as to how much impact the bombs had on ultimate japanese decision, but is a given that soviet declaration o' war and intention to invade were a large part o' the japanese calculus.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 25, 2019 by Gromnir

[Agiel]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

revisionist nonsense and weird soviet blindness o' zor aside, is consensus and largely undisputed that soviets were intending invasion and had sped up their time table after bomb drop. there is still debate as to how much impact the bombs had on ultimate japanese decision, but is a given that soviet declaration o' war and intention to invade were a large part o' the japanese calculus.

HA! Good Fun!

Also of note that upon hearing of the Hiroshima bombing Stalin did fall into a state of depression similar to how he was when Barbarossa kicked off before issuing orders to move up the Red Army's invasion timetable. It was true that as a result of Klaus Fuchs the Soviets did have an inkling of the Manhattan Project, but because Fuchs was compartmentalised from information related to actual bomb production (or even due to the fact that Beria, being the paranoid piece of work that he was, did not fully trust information coming from his sources inside the program) the Soviets were caught off-guard by the speed by which usable weapons had been produced (to this day the Manhattan Project remains the fastest nuclear weapons program in terms of the time between when the decision was made to create one and when weapons were finally assembled).