You are not that different compared to Nazis

Open your mind, and Think about it: You would have done the same thing if you lived there during those times

Just like you do the same thing everyone does right now where you live: vote for whoever, believe what you're supposed to believe, etc

You would have conformed, just like you conform now. It is those few like me and others who would have opposed. You (majority) would have done what you were told to.

Watch untill the end

Https://youtu.be/_5mZ5FBHg0A?t=15m36s

No, just no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

the ones who belive to be very unconformed will follow such an authority as the nazis easier than those who belive to be "normal". the 20% who might belive that they are conformed at the moment are the 20% that stand up when an unethical regime forms. trust me, you're not a part of these 20%

I will laugh as a servant of the new regime as I drive my bayonet into nonconformists like yourself, Unleashed.

My thought and opinions are inviolable to any regime, but I will be sensible and will be doing what the new regime says I must do, not what I think I should be doing.

Nothing new under the sun.

Can this be changed?
If not, why?
If yes, how?
Are we willing to change this?

Kids, dont do drugs.

Scritto da International, 26.04.2015 at 05:13

My thought and opinions are inviolable to any regime

First and foremost, they are not yours. You just think they are.

Scritto da Unleashed, 26.04.2015 at 16:28

First and foremost, they are not yours. You just think they are.

As you do.

Scritto da Unleashed, 26.04.2015 at 16:28

First and foremost, they are not yours. You just think they are.

By definition, my thoughts are mine. They have been formed through 15 years of personal experiences and is geared to figure out ways to satisfy my personal selfishness.

Which, by the way, clashes with national interests in more than one key issues.

Scritto da Goblin, 26.04.2015 at 18:52

Scritto da Unleashed, 26.04.2015 at 16:28

First and foremost, they are not yours. You just think they are.

As you do.

The moment you begin to question what you were taught to believe, is the moment you start to think, and that is when you have the ability to choose your thoughts according to reality and logic, and drop those that make no sense and have just been drilled into your head by others. That is what I meant by that. So no. My thoughts, although some are borrowed, are mine because I CHOSE them (some I came up with myself then later I was surprised that they actually matched the people's who I listened to). Most people also think they chose them: they think they chose their religion, they chose what to think of certain things, but they're blind. That was not their choice. They only know and repeat what they've been indoctrinated to believe. That is the difference. Makes sense?

Scritto da International, 27.04.2015 at 01:29

By definition, my thoughts are mine. They have been formed through 15 years of personal experiences and is geared to figure out ways to satisfy my personal selfishness.

Which, by the way, clashes with national interests in more than one key issues.

https://youtu.be/_5mZ5FBHg0A?t=17m42s

People like you is why this forum could not, and never will have truly intelligent discussions.

Scritto da Unleashed, 27.04.2015 at 03:07

https://youtu.be/_5mZ5FBHg0A?t=17m42s

People like you is why this forum could not, and never will have truly intelligent discussions.

I will have to disagree with that video.

Comparing the current state of affairs with the past is really a bad idea. Technology advances, and one clear trend from... well, the dawn of civilization is that our ability to do damage has increased at a faster rate than our ability to avoid damage.

Think about it. Right now, any random crackpot with a semiautomatic rifle can kill 20~100 people in a shooting. 500 years ago, you would have had to be a really good sword fighter or an excellent archer to achieve that.

As each citizen's ability to cause damage increases, so does the level of surveillance the state - or some organization like the state - has to impose on its citizenry in order to keep that damage to a reasonable level.

The simple conclusion that can be drawn from this is that in order to keep crackpots - which are an integral part of any society - under control today, society has to impose a level of control on its individual members that would have been considered totalitarian 200 years ago.

An open democratic society (Canada comes to mind) today has a stronger and more sophisticated internal security forces and a public education system (or a public brainwashing system, if that pleases you) than an absolute monarchy did 300 years ago, because that level of security is needed to simply keep things from falling apart.

Oh, and BTW, next time please provide a written transcript instead of a YouTube video, because videos are a pain to watch when you can't listen to anything (public library, and I don't own earphones).

Scritto da International, 27.04.2015 at 05:28

An open democratic society (Canada comes to mind) today has a stronger and more sophisticated internal security forces and a public education system (or a public brainwashing system, if that pleases you) than an absolute monarchy did 300 years ago, because that level of security is needed to simply keep things from falling apart.

Remember the inquisition and the church (religion in general)? Does that seem an unsophisticated security system and educational system to you? Think of the technologies they had back then and how they managed to control entire countries with that system, people's thoughts and actions were most of the times subordinate to what "god" would accept or condemn.

Scritto da International, 27.04.2015 at 05:28

Oh, and BTW, next time please provide a written transcript instead of a YouTube video, because videos are a pain to watch when you can't listen to anything (public library, and I don't own earphones).

So basically you commented on a video you didn't watch. Thanks for proving your ignorance. Anything you have to say can therefore be discarded as mental masturbation nonsense. Guess it won't be a problem if I won't bother reading your post either then. Your rules.

Scritto da Unleashed, 28.04.2015 at 03:50

So basically you commented on a video you didn't watch. Thanks for proving your ignorance. Anything you have to say can therefore be discarded as mental masturbation nonsense. Guess it won't be a problem if I won't bother reading your post either then. Your rules.

That sounds mostly correct. I was mostly replying to your notes and the comments on that video.

We're like Nazis in another way: We all play for world domination, eliminating anyone who stands in our way

Nazi issue was you should never fuck with Russia unless you can get an Asian ally and atleast a coalition of 5 1st world countries to attack in multiple direction as the same time. All Hitler had to do was crush the UK, America would of retreated after a major loss mass produced U boats to keep them in the west, then invaded Russia afterwards. I did not agree with everything Hitler did but his ideas aligned with my own more so then any America politician ever. Only major two where secret police which we still have and racial genocide. Every race is good at something and every race has bottom feeders. Instead of gassing jews they should of just started weeding out all the filth society, working them to death or rehabilitation whichever they choose. End of nazi rant

Scritto da International, 27.04.2015 at 05:28

Scritto da Unleashed, 27.04.2015 at 03:07

https://youtu.be/_5mZ5FBHg0A?t=17m42s

People like you is why this forum could not, and never will have truly intelligent discussions.

Think about it. Right now, any random crackpot with a semiautomatic rifle can kill 20~100 people in a shooting. 500 years ago, you would have had to be a really good sword fighter or an excellent archer to achieve that.

As each citizen's ability to cause damage increases, so does the level of surveillance the state - or some organization like the state - has to impose on its citizenry in order to keep that damage to a reasonable level.

The simple conclusion that can be drawn from this is that in order to keep crackpots - which are an integral part of any society - under control today, society has to impose a level of control on its individual members that would have been considered totalitarian 200 years ago.

An open democratic society (Canada comes to mind) today has a stronger and more sophisticated internal security forces and a public education system (or a public brainwashing system, if that pleases you) than an absolute monarchy did 300 years ago, because that level of security is needed to simply keep things from falling apart.

There's a flawed presumption there somewhere.... i think it's the state surveillance correlation with 'citizen's ability to do damage', followed by an imposed solution.

Surveillance has to be the solution of the voyeur... it never made much sense to me... i'm not aware of any causal affect, and even if there was, that's not why the state is in the 'surveillance business' for the most part. I agree, it's their justification for it... and every time they actually prevent a crime using 'surveillance', we know they pull out all the stops to promote it, and flood every media outlet they can. In a not so subtle effort to justify what they are doing.

But there are countless societies that don't have 'state surveillance' while at the same time have very low crime rates and low incidents of 'random crackpottery'.

Personal relationships can play a more prominent and effective role than 'after the problem' state surveillance ... most kindergarten teacher's can identify the problem children (i think there was a study done, they had a 90% accuracy rate of predicting sociopathology later on.) Yet we don't do a hell of a lot to prevent this... canada seems to prefer spending billions on surveillance, capturing the bad guy, trials, court process, imprisonment, etc... all which costs enormous amounts of resources.

Far better results would be achieved intervening at an early age... and since the mechanisms already exist, essentially no additional cost to the state.

It's when you start to ask 'why then?', that you run into some interesting and rather difficult truths about what the state is actually doing, and why they continue to 'intrude' on privacy, despite nearly no one i know actually welcoming more intrusion into their personal lives.

Anyway, if we accept this premise of state surveillance, it won't be more than a generation or two before we are all chipped, PoV camera'd, which i suppose for some isn't a problem.... i just know if there was a choice, i'd live on the side of the river that didn't implement this... Unfortunately, all societies are headed this way.... which given the inability for most countries to agree on the most simple things sometimes, makes you wonder again why they can all agree on this, and what their motivating force is...

♥

Because surveillance works so well. The Boston marathon was totally not bombed in the country which surveills its citizens more than any other in the world. Anyway. You can't reason with monkeys.

Scritto da Unleashed, 08.05.2015 at 13:07

Because surveillance works so well. The Boston marathon was totally not bombed in the country which surveills its citizens more than any other in the world. Anyway. You can't reason with monkeys.

Clearly, the solution is more surveillance.

Complete bi-lateral surveillance between the state and the people ought to be fairly effective at stopping these incidents. Unfortunately, governments don't like citizens spying on them, and citizens don't like governments spying on them. Ah well...