The rise of dictators

[Siro]

No I would only do wonderful things.


In fact that is my go-to wish if I ever found a genie in a bottle. You know, the whole you wish for something cool (like a billion dollars) and then something terrible happens that go along with it (you are a quadriplegic so you have to spend the money on treatment or whatever). My wish would simply be for omnipotence. Direct and straightforward and you can undo any weird **** that ****ing genie tries to pull on you. So the 3-wish thing is 1st: nothing changes until I am done wishing, 2nd: omniscience, and 3rd: omnipotence

That's like the "infinite wishes" thing. It's not allowed.

 

[Red]

Dictators require military allegiance. Anyone who thinks a dictator would get that support here has their head crammed so far up their *** that they have to burn their name into the back of their belt so they know who they are when they pull it out.

Actually, sounds like you got your own head crammed up your own *** if you're actually sitting there developing a conspiratorial grand-alt theory. Too funny!

 

[Stoked]

I missed most of this. The closest thing I can think of was pardoning Arapaio. Maybe some of his Executive actions could be interpreted as such.

Then again, I'm not sure there's a black and white while declaring Dictator/Strong Ruler/President. Maybe signing off on the North Dakota Pipeline standoff?

If those are within his prescribed powers I would not consider any of them remotely dictatorish. Even if they were dumb moves.

 

[LogGrad98]

That's like the "infinite wishes" thing. It's not allowed.

It's a loop-hole.

 

[Rubashov]

lol. If you're referring to me as an alt, I didn't even know what an alt was prior to joining this forum. I'm a member of several special interest forums, a moderator on one, and I was completely unfamiliar with the practice. Once I understood what it was describing, I thought it sounded like a fun activity. Or it had the potential to be. But I myself have never engaged in it. I'm just me. I'm not interested in pretending to be someone else. But now I see it's a little bit like fake news, isn't it? Meaning, once one accepts that alts exist, you can never be sure who's who. Just as once we've transitioned into the post truth era of fake news, we'll never be certain what's real and what's fake where news is concerned. Sounds like alts have a negative effect in that case. Just as the post truth era can only really have a negative effect on our democracy. In any case, twinkle toes, I'm Red, only Red, and nobody but Red. And here I thought you were fairly sharp, lol. Guess not. Ya big lug...

I agree with myself completely.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Dictators require military allegiance. Anyone who thinks a dictator would get that support here has their head crammed so far up their *** that they have to burn their name into the back of their belt so they know who they are when they pull it out.

but changing the culture via the media, news, print and hollywood. might make it possibly in 40-60 year!

it starts by alienating 2nd amendment. making ti look evil. then it move on to the 1st amendment.

you cna keep a large population in check if they are afraid to speak, and are afraid of violence.

that is how kim yung whatever keeps his world under check.

you should read the book of michael malice. basiclaly people are afraid to speak their mind(1st amnedement) because the people are forced to snitch. and if your group has nothing to snitch about the whole group is in trouble. so no one ever talks against government because you don't know what the other party will say or do

kinda like how the world is getting you cannot say certain liberty minded things, because people will chastise you! you cannot wear a maga hat in california! or support farage in london neighborhoods. or other liberty minded small government people around the world!


so yeah their is a rise of dictators. but in usa it is a few decades away.

in england and netherlands is it is full force, their are posters in public places warning you about some mythical non existent thing called HATE SPEECH!

this is a sign of real dictatorship on the rise

5 yea rin prison to say something offensive. who decides what offensive is. to every person offensive s or hate speech is different! i can go to the middle in the African desert and use derogatory words for jews, and no one would bat an eye! but do that at a family party of mine and people will lose their mind.

on here you cna spout socialist communist drivel and nobody bats an eye, come to a hangout of me and my friends, and your communist socialist drivel is offensive, it is almost liek a call to action to commit criminal acts.


so their is no such universal thing as hate speech!m it is just a dictatorship on the rise.!

 

[DutchJazzer]

long story short the rise of dictatorship is happening but not on the right as you think.

as history proves it always happened form the left,from mao, to stalin. from lenin to hitler, from pol pot to castro and from idi amin to mousilini!

stop being distracted and truly see where the dictatorships are rising from. supported by the stupid brainwashed liberals who hate self preservation(2nd amendmment) and free speech(1st amendment)

 

[addictionary]

Turkey is your only good example of a new dictator. There is reason to be alarmed by the recent political developments, but I am not so sure you have a useful perspective on them, given your contributions so far.

This and some other examples in open world social media like Twitter really scares me.

We have viewed him as a potential one until the last few years, but now, people from all over the world unfortunately count him in the list of dictators or bad figures around the world when they start counting.

I'm frightened for the future of this country.

 

[Stoked]

There definitely is a tendency towards it. And towards a new form of conservatism. And it is defined by the new form of communication which is internet and social media. People are so nauseous of all the diversity that hit their understanding of life and values, they grow defensive and as a natural reaction stick to people like Donald Trump who satisfies their most ignorant and unquestioning mindsets against a hard to digest look of diversity.

How much is justified if people feel that those coming in are rejecting the culture of those taking them in and supplanting it with their own?

Really just looking for opinions instead of staking that stance for myself.

[MENTION=2142]addictionary[/MENTION]

What I mean by this is how much resentment towards immigrants is justified if they are brought in and reject local customs, laws and society. The immigrants certainly deserve to honor and be a part of their heritage. But there is also the feelings of the locals over what they see as a rejection of their ways despite letting these people in.

Where is that line and what is justified and what isn't?

I wasn't taking a stance myself as much as I was seeing what others felt. How much accommodation and acceptance should each side show towards the other to get along peacefully and integrate?

 

[JazzGal]

[MENTION=2142]addictionary[/MENTION]

What I mean by this is how much resentment towards immigrants is justified if they are brought in and reject local customs, laws and society. The immigrants certainly deserve to honor and be a part of their heritage. But there is also the feelings of the locals over what they see as a rejection of their ways despite letting these people in.

Where is that line and what is justified and what isn't?

I wasn't taking a stance myself as much as I was seeing what others felt. How much accommodation and acceptance should each side show towards the other to get along peacefully and integrate?

That's a good question, and one that is really hard to answer. I can see both sides. Meeting in the middle by both sides would be ideal, but not too likely.

 

[LogGrad98]

[MENTION=2142]addictionary[/MENTION]

What I mean by this is how much resentment towards immigrants is justified if they are brought in and reject local customs, laws and society. The immigrants certainly deserve to honor and be a part of their heritage. But there is also the feelings of the locals over what they see as a rejection of their ways despite letting these people in.

Where is that line and what is justified and what isn't?

I wasn't taking a stance myself as much as I was seeing what others felt. How much accommodation and acceptance should each side show towards the other to get along peacefully and integrate?

That's a good question, and one that is really hard to answer. I can see both sides. Meeting in the middle by both sides would be ideal, but not too likely.

Meeting in the middle is what nearly always happens historically. Well not necessarily in the middle but few of our current cultures are the same cultures in these regions for centuries. It evolves and takes on different aspects depending on who lives there, who moves in, new social norms, etc. German culture is not the same as it was during the Kaiser years, Mexican culture is definitely not the same as Aztec or Mayan culture. It changes when people migrate. Normally, unless it is entirely through conquest (as in the case of South America for example) the current culture has a heavier weight when new people move in, but groups of people moving around generate changes in culture. In fact I think it is more unnatural, and detrimental, to try to keep every distinct culture as its own little bubble within the larger culture of a given society, just as it is a mistake to try to keep the current majority culture in a given region "pure" by forcibly excluding all facets of a migrant culture.

That is what made America, it used to be a "melting pot" because each new group that came in added to the overall culture and became part of it. Even while forming pockets of culture in some regions (think Amish maybe, or Italians in New York, etc.), still by and large their cultures influenced American culture as they assimilated to the larger society, which included learning English (the dominant language). This happened organically. It wasn't forced really one way or the other. I think now though we are sliding more toward a "my food can never touch" scenario as opposed to a "melting pot", where any failure to recognize each individual cultural element is vilified, or rather any attitude that maybe people coming into a new region or society should actually make at least an attempt to learn and fit into that culture, including the dominant language, is vilified.

 

[addictionary]

[MENTION=2142]addictionary[/MENTION]

What I mean by this is how much resentment towards immigrants is justified if they are brought in and reject local customs, laws and society. The immigrants certainly deserve to honor and be a part of their heritage. But there is also the feelings of the locals over what they see as a rejection of their ways despite letting these people in.

Where is that line and what is justified and what isn't?

I wasn't taking a stance myself as much as I was seeing what others felt. How much accommodation and acceptance should each side show towards the other to get along peacefully and integrate?

Thank you for this. You and Log has a very valid point there. I think the melting pot is still what defines your country. It doesn't matter how much ethocentric resistance emerges against the winds of change and immigration, America still can be seen as a melting pot for cultures. This is why I see America farther to despotism compared to other countries. As harsh as America's us against the world mentality exists in their foreign policies, you can see the tendency towards cherishing the diversity on some parts of the society too. It is at a level that balances the other side. That is why you don't go full despot but don't go full wuss too. I know that things are not what used to be to you guys too, but it's the way things are in most of the world right now. Internet entered our lives, hence the social media, and the format of communication is changing our entire view of how the world works, how different we are from each other. But I still stand behind my feeling that there is a strong tendency towards a lazy and ignorant form of conservatism. Neo-Dictators will keep merging from it. Because fascism sucks its power from society's fear of losing what they have in hand, and the "other" as a common enemy. Their view of governing is you need a common enemy to stay together, bind, work and die for their existence and power.