Doc Democracy

I think there is a huge variety of things in what people think of as a right. We often speak of them but we rarely, and I think for very good reasons, try to define what a right is.
 
I think that it is difficult to say any right is inalienable and absolute under all circumstances. The right to think what I want had me stumped until I thought about juries. I will not be allowed to sit on some juries if I think that religion is a good reason to attack people, or that one race is inherently bad or greedy or any number of other things. So I will have my ability to sit on a jury impinged by what I think, even if I have never acted detrimentally to someone due to those beliefs.
 
I think there are likely to be other cases but this is the HERO forums dammit - we should all be bought into the no absolutes rule!!! (Or is that, in itself an absolute....)
 
 
Doc

If America has the absolute freedom of belief, and has always maintained that high standard, please explain "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"
 
For that matter, please reconcile the belief that Muslims should not be permitted entry into the United States with the holding of Muslim religious beliefs while residing in the United States.
 
A less controversial perspective, perhaps, but if I believe in my own mind that everyone in a position of authority is a three-armed alien from Alpha Centauri working to enslave the Earth, I suspect I will end up locked up for the protection of myself and others.
 
Now, one could split hairs - you can believe something as long as you never act on, or share, that belief in any way. But I question the sincerity of such a belief.
 
There are no absolutes.

I think my problem with antifa is when they take the the offensive. There is a need to stand up for freedom and to fight for them in the streets if necessary. You should not go looking for those fights.

I think my problem with antifa is when they take the the offensive. There is a need to stand up for freedom and to fight for them in the streets if necessary. You should not go looking for those fights.

Hmm. I am not sure where to start but I shall attemp to live by the rest of you post that is, like the rest of us, shaking our heads at how we have come to the point of active conflict on our streets.
 
As to the above, I initially thought you were riffing on the National Socialist name but I think there are misconceptions behind what you are saying.
 
My first question would be how you define socialist, there are many but I am not sure many of them would include Hitler and the nazis beyond the inclusion of the actual word. You will, I think, agree you judge people not by what they call themselves but how they act? I am amazed that you can say nazis are socialist and so are many on the left. In America I am not sure many on the political left would call themselves socialist, I am almost certain most nazis would not define themselves as such.
 
To me a socialist, and I class myself as one, looks for a society based on equality of opportunity, where no one is denied the basics of a decent life and everyone has access to the levers of power. A socialist state would also prioritise labour (those who work and create) over capital (those who inherit wealth). I don't think the nazis in Germany sought any of those principles, nor do many of the groups currently described as nazi.
 
To me a nazi looks for a society based on race, where some are superior and more deserving than others. Nazis appeal to the working class by blaming outsiders for the deficiencies in their lives and defining those outsiders as the enemy. Most nazi organisations are based on personality leaders with no real way of getting rid of them outside of political assassination. A nazi government is authoritarian and restrictive.
 
I think it is easier to locate Trump closer to the latter than the former, regardless of labels.

Hmm. I am not sure where to start but I shall attemp to live by the rest of you post that is, like the rest of us, shaking our heads at how we have come to the point of active conflict on our streets.
 
As to the above, I initially thought you were riffing on the National Socialist name but I think there are misconceptions behind what you are saying.
 
My first question would be how you define socialist, there are many but I am not sure many of them would include Hitler and the nazis beyond the inclusion of the actual word. You will, I think, agree you judge people not by what they call themselves but how they act? I am amazed that you can say nazis are socialist and so are many on the left. In America I am not sure many on the political left would call themselves socialist, I am almost certain most nazis would not define themselves as such.
 
To me a socialist, and I class myself as one, looks for a society based on equality of opportunity, where no one is denied the basics of a decent life and everyone has access to the levers of power. A socialist state would also prioritise labour (those who work and create) over capital (those who inherit wealth). I don't think the nazis in Germany sought any of those principles, nor do many of the groups currently described as nazi.
 
To me a nazi looks for a society based on race, where some are superior and more deserving than others. Nazis appeal to the working class by blaming outsiders for the deficiencies in their lives and defining those outsiders as the enemy. Most nazi organisations are based on personality leaders with no real way of getting rid of them outside of political assassination. A nazi government is authoritarian and restrictive.
 
I think it is easier to locate Trump closer to the latter than the former, regardless of labels.

I think my problem with antifa is when they take the the offensive. There is a need to stand up for freedom and to fight for them in the streets if necessary. You should not go looking for those fights.

I think my problem with antifa is when they take the the offensive. There is a need to stand up for freedom and to fight for them in the streets if necessary. You should not go looking for those fights.

I think my problem with antifa is when they take the the offensive. There is a need to stand up for freedom and to fight for them in the streets if necessary. You should not go looking for those fights.

Hmm. I am not sure where to start but I shall attemp to live by the rest of you post that is, like the rest of us, shaking our heads at how we have come to the point of active conflict on our streets.
 
As to the above, I initially thought you were riffing on the National Socialist name but I think there are misconceptions behind what you are saying.
 
My first question would be how you define socialist, there are many but I am not sure many of them would include Hitler and the nazis beyond the inclusion of the actual word. You will, I think, agree you judge people not by what they call themselves but how they act? I am amazed that you can say nazis are socialist and so are many on the left. In America I am not sure many on the political left would call themselves socialist, I am almost certain most nazis would not define themselves as such.
 
To me a socialist, and I class myself as one, looks for a society based on equality of opportunity, where no one is denied the basics of a decent life and everyone has access to the levers of power. A socialist state would also prioritise labour (those who work and create) over capital (those who inherit wealth). I don't think the nazis in Germany sought any of those principles, nor do many of the groups currently described as nazi.
 
To me a nazi looks for a society based on race, where some are superior and more deserving than others. Nazis appeal to the working class by blaming outsiders for the deficiencies in their lives and defining those outsiders as the enemy. Most nazi organisations are based on personality leaders with no real way of getting rid of them outside of political assassination. A nazi government is authoritarian and restrictive.
 
I think it is easier to locate Trump closer to the latter than the former, regardless of labels.

Hmm. I am not sure where to start but I shall attemp to live by the rest of you post that is, like the rest of us, shaking our heads at how we have come to the point of active conflict on our streets.
 
As to the above, I initially thought you were riffing on the National Socialist name but I think there are misconceptions behind what you are saying.
 
My first question would be how you define socialist, there are many but I am not sure many of them would include Hitler and the nazis beyond the inclusion of the actual word. You will, I think, agree you judge people not by what they call themselves but how they act? I am amazed that you can say nazis are socialist and so are many on the left. In America I am not sure many on the political left would call themselves socialist, I am almost certain most nazis would not define themselves as such.
 
To me a socialist, and I class myself as one, looks for a society based on equality of opportunity, where no one is denied the basics of a decent life and everyone has access to the levers of power. A socialist state would also prioritise labour (those who work and create) over capital (those who inherit wealth). I don't think the nazis in Germany sought any of those principles, nor do many of the groups currently described as nazi.
 
To me a nazi looks for a society based on race, where some are superior and more deserving than others. Nazis appeal to the working class by blaming outsiders for the deficiencies in their lives and defining those outsiders as the enemy. Most nazi organisations are based on personality leaders with no real way of getting rid of them outside of political assassination. A nazi government is authoritarian and restrictive.
 
I think it is easier to locate Trump closer to the latter than the former, regardless of labels.

I have a real problem here. I think that the right wing (in any country) are a real problem. I do not think that we have an equivalent left wing issue to point to.
 
Those who oppose right wing marchers have a problem in that those marchers often consider it acceptable to use violence against those that oppose them or to prevent them accessing areas that do not wish their presence.
 
What do they do? Do they passively resist and accept the beatings etc that come? Do they stand aside and allow marches despite opposing the march? Do they fight back?
 
One of my favourite songs is the Ghosts of Cable Street which remembers ordinary people erecting barricades in the streets to prevent the British fascists in the 1930's marching through jewish areas of London. The similarities with today in the US are amazing. In 1936, about 20,000 anti-fascists were met by 6,000 police to permit a march of 2,000–3,000 fascists. The police ended up fighting the demonstrators because the Government would not ban the marching. The battle of cable street however did effectively end the ambitions of the fascist movement in the UK and put us firmly on the right side of the conflict that followed a few years later.
 

 
Doc

I have a real problem here. I think that the right wing (in any country) are a real problem. I do not think that we have an equivalent left wing issue to point to.
 
Those who oppose right wing marchers have a problem in that those marchers often consider it acceptable to use violence against those that oppose them or to prevent them accessing areas that do not wish their presence.
 
What do they do? Do they passively resist and accept the beatings etc that come? Do they stand aside and allow marches despite opposing the march? Do they fight back?
 
One of my favourite songs is the Ghosts of Cable Street which remembers ordinary people erecting barricades in the streets to prevent the British fascists in the 1930's marching through jewish areas of London. The similarities with today in the US are amazing. In 1936, about 20,000 anti-fascists were met by 6,000 police to permit a march of 2,000–3,000 fascists. The police ended up fighting the demonstrators because the Government would not ban the marching. The battle of cable street however did effectively end the ambitions of the fascist movement in the UK and put us firmly on the right side of the conflict that followed a few years later.
 

 
Doc

I have a real problem here. I think that the right wing (in any country) are a real problem. I do not think that we have an equivalent left wing issue to point to.
 
Those who oppose right wing marchers have a problem in that those marchers often consider it acceptable to use violence against those that oppose them or to prevent them accessing areas that do not wish their presence.
 
What do they do? Do they passively resist and accept the beatings etc that come? Do they stand aside and allow marches despite opposing the march? Do they fight back?
 
One of my favourite songs is the Ghosts of Cable Street which remembers ordinary people erecting barricades in the streets to prevent the British fascists in the 1930's marching through jewish areas of London. The similarities with today in the US are amazing. In 1936, about 20,000 anti-fascists were met by 6,000 police to permit a march of 2,000–3,000 fascists. The police ended up fighting the demonstrators because the Government would not ban the marching. The battle of cable street however did effectively end the ambitions of the fascist movement in the UK and put us firmly on the right side of the conflict that followed a few years later.
 

 
Doc

I have a real problem here. I think that the right wing (in any country) are a real problem. I do not think that we have an equivalent left wing issue to point to.
 
Those who oppose right wing marchers have a problem in that those marchers often consider it acceptable to use violence against those that oppose them or to prevent them accessing areas that do not wish their presence.
 
What do they do? Do they passively resist and accept the beatings etc that come? Do they stand aside and allow marches despite opposing the march? Do they fight back?
 
One of my favourite songs is the Ghosts of Cable Street which remembers ordinary people erecting barricades in the streets to prevent the British fascists in the 1930's marching through jewish areas of London. The similarities with today in the US are amazing. In 1936, about 20,000 anti-fascists were met by 6,000 police to permit a march of 2,000–3,000 fascists. The police ended up fighting the demonstrators because the Government would not ban the marching. The battle of cable street however did effectively end the ambitions of the fascist movement in the UK and put us firmly on the right side of the conflict that followed a few years later.
 

 
Doc

I have a real problem here. I think that the right wing (in any country) are a real problem. I do not think that we have an equivalent left wing issue to point to.
 
Those who oppose right wing marchers have a problem in that those marchers often consider it acceptable to use violence against those that oppose them or to prevent them accessing areas that do not wish their presence.
 
What do they do? Do they passively resist and accept the beatings etc that come? Do they stand aside and allow marches despite opposing the march? Do they fight back?
 
One of my favourite songs is the Ghosts of Cable Street which remembers ordinary people erecting barricades in the streets to prevent the British fascists in the 1930's marching through jewish areas of London. The similarities with today in the US are amazing. In 1936, about 20,000 anti-fascists were met by 6,000 police to permit a march of 2,000–3,000 fascists. The police ended up fighting the demonstrators because the Government would not ban the marching. The battle of cable street however did effectively end the ambitions of the fascist movement in the UK and put us firmly on the right side of the conflict that followed a few years later.
 

 
Doc

I do love how people talking comics take on quasi-scientific stuff, apply what may be real world scientific principles and then provide quasi-authoritative responses for the quasi science.
 
When my son asks me that kind of stuff my stock response is, it depends on what the writer thinks makes for a better story...
 
It is a great response and often a decent principle when ruling in an RPG...
 
Doc

I remember one of my first AD&D characters to survive to high levels was a monk that switched class to Wizard. I "think" it was 12th level monk walking about as a first level wizard, looking to gain experience without utilising his monk skills. When he got to 12th level wizard, both sets of skills were available. It was an awesome combination...

My D&D favourite character of recent times was a half-orc monk. I think the addition of other races provides for an injection of mysticism etc.
 
As it happens the order he belonged to was an obscure sect of Gruumsh, a lawful good one, that promulgated an alternate history of the races. In olden times, according to this sect, there were no humans and the elves and orcs were equally civilised. Corellion and Gruumsh decided to end the constant warfare between their children by merging them into one race (humans). Corellion cheated though and only merged half of his elves and then persuaded the humans that orcs were evil. Gruumsh was devastated and plucked out an eye, the one that did not see the trick.
 
Over centuries the orcs and their god were brutalised and came to reflect the propaganda. This sect keeps the story alive, seeking ways to redeem their race and bring them back to civilised ways. There is a schism as to whether the elves should be forgiven or punished for millennia of hurt.
 
Their biggest piece of evidence is the existence of both half elves and half orcs. How could that be unless humans were not already half and half....
 
:-)
 
This sect were mystics, forswore metal weapons and communed with an ancient version of their god, the current version being too far removed from their iconography....
 
Doc

I remember one of my first AD&D characters to survive to high levels was a monk that switched class to Wizard. I "think" it was 12th level monk walking about as a first level wizard, looking to gain experience without utilising his monk skills. When he got to 12th level wizard, both sets of skills were available. It was an awesome combination...

My D&D favourite character of recent times was a half-orc monk. I think the addition of other races provides for an injection of mysticism etc.
 
As it happens the order he belonged to was an obscure sect of Gruumsh, a lawful good one, that promulgated an alternate history of the races. In olden times, according to this sect, there were no humans and the elves and orcs were equally civilised. Corellion and Gruumsh decided to end the constant warfare between their children by merging them into one race (humans). Corellion cheated though and only merged half of his elves and then persuaded the humans that orcs were evil. Gruumsh was devastated and plucked out an eye, the one that did not see the trick.
 
Over centuries the orcs and their god were brutalised and came to reflect the propaganda. This sect keeps the story alive, seeking ways to redeem their race and bring them back to civilised ways. There is a schism as to whether the elves should be forgiven or punished for millennia of hurt.
 
Their biggest piece of evidence is the existence of both half elves and half orcs. How could that be unless humans were not already half and half....
 
:-)
 
This sect were mystics, forswore metal weapons and communed with an ancient version of their god, the current version being too far removed from their iconography....
 
Doc

My D&D favourite character of recent times was a half-orc monk. I think the addition of other races provides for an injection of mysticism etc.
 
As it happens the order he belonged to was an obscure sect of Gruumsh, a lawful good one, that promulgated an alternate history of the races. In olden times, according to this sect, there were no humans and the elves and orcs were equally civilised. Corellion and Gruumsh decided to end the constant warfare between their children by merging them into one race (humans). Corellion cheated though and only merged half of his elves and then persuaded the humans that orcs were evil. Gruumsh was devastated and plucked out an eye, the one that did not see the trick.
 
Over centuries the orcs and their god were brutalised and came to reflect the propaganda. This sect keeps the story alive, seeking ways to redeem their race and bring them back to civilised ways. There is a schism as to whether the elves should be forgiven or punished for millennia of hurt.
 
Their biggest piece of evidence is the existence of both half elves and half orcs. How could that be unless humans were not already half and half....
 
:-)
 
This sect were mystics, forswore metal weapons and communed with an ancient version of their god, the current version being too far removed from their iconography....
 
Doc

I liked the campaign that started with a newspaper running trash stories on the PC heroes causing them to investigate each other only to find that a local crime boss was feeding the newspaper with pictures and stories that were untrue. There were several set piece battles to confront the crime boss but the need to roleplay their way out of a difficult social situation.
 
The whole thrust of the campaign was to establish themselves as heroes rather than dangerous vigilante/probable villains.
 
Doc

I liked the campaign that started with a newspaper running trash stories on the PC heroes causing them to investigate each other only to find that a local crime boss was feeding the newspaper with pictures and stories that were untrue. There were several set piece battles to confront the crime boss but the need to roleplay their way out of a difficult social situation.
 
The whole thrust of the campaign was to establish themselves as heroes rather than dangerous vigilante/probable villains.
 
Doc

I liked the campaign that started with a newspaper running trash stories on the PC heroes causing them to investigate each other only to find that a local crime boss was feeding the newspaper with pictures and stories that were untrue. There were several set piece battles to confront the crime boss but the need to roleplay their way out of a difficult social situation.
 
The whole thrust of the campaign was to establish themselves as heroes rather than dangerous vigilante/probable villains.
 
Doc