Subject:
|
Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:43:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1090 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Samuel Morrison wrote:
| |
| |
You don’t see a difference between a coordinated effort to complete destroy
a race of people vs. a criminal justice system gone horribly wrong? Stalin
had almost 30 years to kill roughly 20 million Russians - most of whom were
killed in Gulags for political crimes. Hitler had 13 years (4 of which were
the Holocaust proper) to kill 12 million people - most of whom were killed
for being the wrong race/religion.
|
So it’s not as bad if you stretch out your genocidal activities over a few
decades rather than just one? And I’m sure a few ethnicities within the
former Soviet Union may disagree that they committed “political” crimes. Like
the Kulaks, the Chechnyans, or perhaps the Poles.
|
Are you suggesting the Kulaks, Chechnyans and Poles have been the victims of
genocide? That would be a massive expansion to the definition of genocide.
Again you snip out my point about American atrocities. Tell me the difference
between American genocide and the Nazi genocide. Where exactly do we draw the
line? The Nazis tried to kill off the Jews and failed; the Americans tried to
kill off the Indians and basically succeeded. If Soviet MOC is just as bad as a
Nazi one, then why isn’t an American MOC just as bad as a Nazi one?
| |
| |
What do you disagree about? That I’m advocating censorship? That my
critique misses the point? Yet you agree that the MOC is potentially
offensive. Do you think the MOC is really great, with innovative techniques?
I didn’t say it was obscene. You’re putting words in my mouth again. I
didn’t say it advocated Nazism either.
|
I didn’t say you said it was obscene - the only harm it does is upset people,
so why ban it? Should we ban everything that causes the least bit of
controversy? And if it’s not a truly innovative, MOC, that really shouldn’t
matter. There are plenty of MOCs here that aren’t that innovative. And
frankly, satire should still be treated as satire, even if it isn’t
successful in all circles. Lighten up a bit.
|
You lighten up a bit. You keep saying someone wants to ban this MOC. No one
does. It is an unimpressive MOC. Should I have not said that? It shouldn’t
have been posted here. Should I not have said that?
If yes, then how is it that you aren’t trying to ban MY criticism?
And just because I call something satire means it IS satire. Not to mention,
you’re the first person to call this thing a satire. I don’t think it is one.
Am I still obligated to call it that?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
| (...) So it's not as bad if you stretch out your genocidal activities over a few decades rather than just one? And I'm sure a few ethnicities within the former Soviet Union may disagree that they committed "political" crimes. Like the Kulaks, the (...) (19 years ago, 10-Aug-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
