magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
My point was that this adds on to the list of shit Hitler ruined for Germany and Germans.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
3d ago
Hitlers success at making Germany great again was very short-lived, and most German nationalists would not claim that a few years of ruling most of Europe at gunpoint was worth the eventual defeat, the splitting of Germany (with the East still worse off than the West today) and the destruction of the Germany cities, even if they were totally indifferent to the pain the Wehrmacht inflicted on the rest of Europe.
From a German nationalist point of view, East Germany wasn't all that bad compared to the rest of what Stalin did - the annexation of Prussia, Silesia and the Sudetenland, with the entire German population of those regions expelled. There are plenty of Germans today for whom the land of their ancestors is forever gone.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
Aboriginal children were taken from remote locations and forcefully taken to the cities to be educated. This largely impacted children with European admixture.
It was specifically targetted at the "half-caste". I will note that characterising them as "Aboriginal children" (which, to be fair, essentially all Reliable Sources do because of course they do) is actually quite dubious - the kids were just as white as they were Aboriginal, and leaving them where they were (i.e. Aboriginal tribes) would also have severed them from their white cultural heritage.
The actual way it was done was pretty shitty, but the idea that hey, maybe raise the half-and-half kid in the half with an actual civilisation? Not really objectionable.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
6d ago
· Edited 6d ago
Unless the argument is there are no native beasts of burden, period.
There are no native beasts of burden in Australia.
There were megafauna when the Aboriginals got here. The Aboriginals killed them all.
(I will note that "not trainable" does have some legs as an idea; the Australian megafauna was marsupial, and hence less intelligent. I'm not aware of any prehistorically-domesticated marsupials, although only the South Americans would have had the chance to try and even then not for all that long given how late it was settled.)
I mean, Chesterton's Fence in its original form refers to something that was put up with a purpose but whose purpose has been forgotten. Technically, that doesn't apply to things without telos, but the basic conservative principle underlying it does. The lack of greater-than-OMG-available-energy particle collisions on Earth doesn't seem to be purposeful, but I'd still recommend against ending it until one knows what will happen (doing it in space would appear safer).
The conservative principle here actually is satisfied in the case of "substantial excess of women"; male mortality from combat has reached very high levels in the past, such that there have been large female excesses without apparent issues. This is why the objection I made was a purely "it looks like the political consequences of this could be dystopian" one, because doing this with women's suffrage would translate to full political matriarchy, where values that are mostly only held by men are totally shut out of policy, and AFAIK that is unprecedented with perhaps some hunter-gatherer exceptions. I suppose the social justice movement does try its best to centre women's values, so it's kind of a prototype, but it's not a full society, and it's not exactly reassuring.
(I hate staring into this abyss.)
More options
Context Copy link