Disaster 11 Dead, Several Others Shot At Pittsburgh Synagogue - oy vey it's like anudda shoah!

Anonymousshitposter09 · Oct 28, 2018

Wesley Willis said:
Highly disappointed that Sam Hyde wasn't reported by any media outlets as the shooter.

Watch and cry, friendo:

https://twitter.com/icecoil1/status/1056274814795685890

Zaryiu · Oct 28, 2018

frozenrunner said:
Or maybe the reason they don't call them terrorists is they're not part of a prominent and well-defined movement to create social change through terrorist attacks. A bunch of speds on /pol/ who believe anti-Jew conspiracy theories are not equivalent to a huge, armed militant group in the real world.

Wait, i thought terrorist could act solo too?

byuu · Oct 28, 2018

Übertroon said:
Worked with National Socialism. Remember kids, creating the world's first welfare state was done by a far right regime.

Welfare in Germany dates back to Bismarck.

Hitler wanted to kill cripples because they cost to much.

whatever I feel like · Oct 28, 2018

frozenrunner said:
Or maybe the reason they don't call them terrorists is they're not part of a prominent and well-defined movement to create social change through terrorist attacks. A bunch of speds on /pol/ who believe anti-Jew conspiracy theories are not equivalent to a huge, armed militant group in the real world.

Not sure of the legal definition of terrorism but the academic one was a non-government actor (1) using violence (2) to cause fear (3) in order to effect political change (4).

Thats gotten a bit messier recently because of number 4, some recent so-called terrorists have given up on political change and are committing violent acts just so that they can kill a few *insert ethnic group here* before they go. Breivik, for instance, had given up on saving the white race and just wanted a bunch of dead socialists. I believe that Dylan Roof was the same. I'd damn the text books and call them terrorists anyway.

frozenrunner · Oct 28, 2018

Zaryiu said:
Wait, i thought terrorist could act solo too?

Lou Wrong said:
Not sure of the legal definition of terrorism but the academic one was a non-government actor (1) using violence (2) to cause fear (3) in order to effect political change (4).

Thats gotten a bit messier recently because of number 4, some recent so-called terrorists have given up on political change and are committing violent acts just so that they can kill a few *insert ethnic group here* before they go. Breivik, for instance, had given up on saving the white race and just wanted a bunch of dead socialists. I believe that Dylan Roof was the same. I'd damn the text books and call them terrorists anyway.

I responded to that in an earlier post. I get it, technically you could call them terrorists, but I don't think the people demanding every white male shooter (it always has a racial component) be branded a terrorist are doing it because they're sticklers for accuracy. I think they're engaging in a weird form of tribalism and identity politics.

whatever I feel like · Oct 28, 2018

True enough. The guy who flew a plane into that IRS building, for example, did not not fulfill 3 or 4 and was only attacking the IRS because he hated them personally for taking his house. And when you are just a non-government actor using violence, then you might as well classify petty thieves or violent drunks as terrorists.

And then there's so-called government sponsored terrorism which is often just a way around having to admit that an act of war had occurred.

Übertroon · Oct 28, 2018

garakfan69 said:
Welfare in Germany dates back to Bismarck.

Hitler wanted to kill cripples because they cost to much.

Big difference between welfare policies and crafting a welfare state. Bismarck had to appease the growing socialist movements and introduced worker rights that are considered universal today. Meanwhile the nazis were the first to introduce paid vacation and sick days, a guaranteed workplace, stipends to mothers, etc. These policies were part in why the Third Reich had to rob Europe so as not to go bankrupt.

As for cripples, the communists in the USSR and China considered them parasites as well. Why would you consider purging cripples for the greater good a solely right wing policy?

Tranhuviya · Oct 28, 2018

>the Rabbi is about to cut your lil' baby dick off
>in bursts Foreskin Man, guns blazing and screaming "420 MAGA!"
>in the confusion, you escape with your dick intact
>to this day, you thank G-d for letting you keep your foreskin

byuu · Oct 28, 2018

Übertroon said:
the first to introduce paid vacation and sick days, a guaranteed workplace, stipends to mothers, etc

The nazis increased paid vacation but it already existed in Germany.

Übertroon said:
Why would you consider purging cripples for the greater good a solely right wing policy?

I don't. I'm saying it doesn't fit a welfare state.
I wouldn't call the USSR a proper welfare state either.
Welfare can be a right-wing position. E.g. Christians or an attempt for more increased stability and security.

FightenGnome · Oct 28, 2018

Übertroon said:
As for cripples, the communists in the USSR and China considered them parasites as well. Why would you consider purging cripples for the greater good a solely right wing policy?

It actually makes sense within the confines of its day. Back then the scientific technology was no where near as good as it is today, nor were the social programs, so the only way to make sure major genetic defects would never ruin people (or society's) lives again would be to not allow people with disabilities to reproduce so they couldn't pass on their defective genes.

These days there are all sorts of technologies to treat or cure illnesses. Look at this link about how a mother with faulty mitochondrial DNA was able to use another woman's mitochondrial DNA to birth a healthy child without the defect: https://www.livescience.com/56299-three-person-baby-created.html

Hell, it's not like the West was much better in the 30s/40s. They chucked epileptics, divorcees, and single moms into insane asylums to get experimented on in the United States. I think Nazis today would probably be more into transhumanism than forced sterilization or mass execution of cripples

Fareal · Oct 28, 2018

If you’re looking for the birth of a modern ‘welfare state’, the British Liberal government’s reforms 1906 to 1915 under Asquith is the one you would be interested in.

I’m lazy, so here’s the wiki link. The welfare systems introduced represent most of the major welfare systems still extant in the UK. (The NHS is of course the post war child of Beveridge, Attlee amd Bevan)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_welfare_reforms

Cosmos · Oct 28, 2018

frozenrunner said:
Or maybe the reason they don't call them terrorists is they're not part of a prominent and well-defined movement to create social change through terrorist attacks. A bunch of speds on /pol/ who believe anti-Jew conspiracy theories are not equivalent to a huge, armed militant group in the real world.

Technically, a terrorist is “a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Of course, there’s a big difference between a lone wolf and someone who’s part of Boko Haram or whatever, but technically a terrorist is just someone who uses violence to spread fear and to enforce their political ideology.

Speds on /pol/ aren’t terrorists, but this guy is because he used violence in an attempt to bring social change (killing Da Jewz to end their globalist conspiracy or whatever).

frozenrunner said:
I responded to that in an earlier post. I get it, technically you could call them terrorists, but I don't think the people demanding every white male shooter (it always has a racial component) be branded a terrorist are doing it because they're sticklers for accuracy. I think they're engaging in a weird form of tribalism and identity politics.

I agree that not all shooters are terrorists and it’s not accurate to label them as such, but this case is clearly terrorism.

Übertroon · Oct 28, 2018

garakfan69 said:
The nazis increased paid vacation but it already existed in Germany

Nothing before the nazis compares to stuff like this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy
To call Imperial Germany a welfare state is simply wrong

byuu · Oct 28, 2018

Übertroon said:
Nothing before the nazis compares to stuff like this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

Union organized vacations, financed by their members, probably existed before.
Not sure what nazis destroying all former unions and replacing it with a single state controlled one has to do with welfare states.

Übertroon said:
To call Imperial Germany a welfare state is simply wrong

It's pretty well accepted that Bismarck created the first German welfare state.
Sure, the Weimar Republic and the nazis expanded on it later (a lot of it a necessity after the Great Depression) but they weren't the one to introduce it.

Übertroon · Oct 28, 2018

garakfan69 said:
Union organized vacations, financed by their members, probably existed before.
Not sure what nazis destroying all former unions and replacing it with a single state controlled one has to do with welfare states.

It's pretty well accepted that Bismarck created the first German welfare state.
Sure, the Weimar Republic and the nazis expanded on it later (a lot of it a necessity after the Great Depression) but they weren't the one to introduce it.

Almost all socialist states have only allowed one state sponsored union. Why would independent unions be a welfare state requirement?
Also there's a difference between welfare policies and a welfare state. Calling Imperial Germany a welfare state is historical revisionism. Their welfare policies were lesser than those of present day US. A welfare state is the equivalent of say that of present day Norway. Free healthcare, state sponsored vacation, day pay for the unemployed. All pioneered by the nazis.

byuu · Oct 28, 2018

Übertroon said:
Almost all socialist states have only allowed one state sponsored union. Why would independent unions be a welfare state requirement?

What has a socialist state to do with a welfare state?

Übertroon said:
Their welfare policies were lesser than those of present day US. A

I'd call USA a welfare state. I guess we just have different standards for welfare states.

Übertroon said:
Free healthcare, state sponsored vacation, day pay for the unemployed. All pioneered by the nazis.

None of those were pioneered by the nazis.

wes · Oct 28, 2018

Splendid Meat Sticks said:
Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever?

It was speculation when the news literally just broke, and kebabs were still a viable guess. We didn't even have a name. I said "a shot in the dark" for a reason. If you want proof of Hasids being like a cult, that's only a Google search away.

On topic, I'd undoubtedly call Bowers a terrorist. His Gab posts alone are enough proof that he wanted to "inspire" others to follow in his footsteps of eradicating the Jews. Of course, it just made him look like a lunatic sped who poured the entire red-pill bottle down his throat.

The likes of James Holmes, Randy Stair and Adam Lanza get labeled terrorists because people want to prove that wypipo can be terrorists too!!!!! But those were just unhinged sociopaths who wanted to kill people. Dylann Roof and Robert Bowers definitely wanted their shootings to be more than just killing people.

Übertroon · Oct 28, 2018

garakfan69 said:
What has a socialist state to do with a welfare state?

I'd call USA a welfare state. I guess we just have different standards for welfare states.

None of those were pioneered by the nazis.

I didn't say socialist states has anything to do with unions, I simply stated that having a state controlled union is a socialist hallmark, that's why they had it. You still didn't answer why you brought it up, or why you think it invalidates the status as a welfare state.

Also I find your definition of a welfare state very liberal in usage. For example no Scandinavian would dare calling the US a welfare state.

Also since you dismiss so easily the idea of 1930s Germany being a welfare state pioneer, find then an example of an earlier state paying a worker his salary after losing employment and entering the job market.

byuu · Oct 28, 2018

Übertroon said:
I didn't say socialist states has anything to do with unions, I simply stated that having a state controlled union is a socialist hallmark, that's why they had it. You still didn't answer why you brought it up, or why you think it invalidates the status as a welfare state.

Because the vacations weren't state-sponsored, they were for union members, financed by the union members.

You're trying to paint the fact that the nazi rule established control over many private organisation, like the unions, as a move towards a welfare state and not the move towards a totalitarian state that it was.

Übertroon said:
Also since you dismiss so easily the idea of 1930s Germany being a welfare state pioneer, find then an example of an earlier state paying a worker his salary after losing employment and entering the job market.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_über_Arbeitsvermittlung_und_Arbeitslosenversicherung

KimCoppolaAficionado · Oct 28, 2018

Both of y'all need to shut the fuck up.

Disaster 11 Dead, Several Others Shot At Pittsburgh Synagogue - oy vey it's like anudda shoah!

Anonymousshitposter09

Zaryiu

byuu

Creator of ZSNES

whatever I feel like

Mushroom Kingdom Uber Alles!

frozenrunner

Thanks for the avatar, CrAIyon!

whatever I feel like

Mushroom Kingdom Uber Alles!

Übertroon

Gotta go fast

Tranhuviya

Degenerate Robot

byuu

Creator of ZSNES

FightenGnome

Amateur Christorian

Fareal

will definitely consider what you have said

Cosmos

Soldier of Love and Bitching on the Internet

Übertroon

Gotta go fast

byuu

Creator of ZSNES

Übertroon

Gotta go fast

byuu

Creator of ZSNES

wes

Übertroon

Gotta go fast

byuu

Creator of ZSNES

KimCoppolaAficionado

The most underrated actor of the 21st century