Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on October 25, 2003, 11:02:08 AM
-
OK, i bought it because they had a cover article about "Women of Arthurian Legend" which I have not gotten too.
As expected, I am stricken by the utter nerdery of some re-enactors. Some of this stuff is just way over the top, and while I admit that a wedding ring with some Celtic knot work would have been cool, having a "renaissance wedding" screams both expense and well, an inability to connect with the real world. I do, however, have to admit that getting reproductions of hte tabards and helmets of the characters in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (including the Black Knight -- yes, the dismembered one) would be a kick: too bad you can't get a full size wooden rabbit.
The ad that ticked me off the worst was an ad selling weapons and armor (not claiming to be authentic, however) where one border side listed the phone number, one side listed the web site, and the other two had Greek characters with the phonetic equivelent of "ChssSPSTphS OsS sTphSOo HESPchCHphO Pphr PSPHCHPS" The corners of the border had (clockwise from top left) PH, e, l, N (again, in greek). I'm not sure what they were trying to do with that. The crappy Greek mish-mash removes any claim to authenticity, and Greek doesn't seem particularly Renaissance (or Medieval, which more than half of the stuff has alluded to) anyway. Sounds like they got some guy in shipping to whip it up on his computer.
No, I haven't gotten to any articles, I'm on p 32 and finding the first non-ad, longer than one column piece in the magazine -- which appares to be feminist mis-representation of the definition of Chivalry. I don't think I'll be buying this magazine in the future.
-
Its pretty crappy, I've looked at it before...
their goal is to recreate Renfaire,... not the Rennaissance and their history articles are written by creative writing majors.
I bought a copy about 3 years ago and had to burn it,... and I dont burn periodicles.
-
/me dubs Jeffe a book burning nazi
-
Im going to ask you nicely to take that back, since its the rudest, most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me, especially since some of my relatives died in the holocaust and several members of my family also died removing the nazi's from power.
-
Ok, so i am pretty confused Jeffe. I apologize if i offended you.
But remember, it was a jest. I am not in the habit of offending people without good reason (at least, not while i am in a good mood).
-
and I know which was why I asked you nicely, calling someone a Nazi where I come from starts fistfights.
-
I'm afraid the term has kind of fallen out of the discomfort zone for most of us, Jeffe. Sienfeld's 'Soup Nazi' and other references have reduced the term to something more benign than it once was. When many of us worked at the sf magazine, the production staffers were often referred to as 'proofreading nazis.'
That is, of course, not to say you don't have a right to be offended by the term. It does, after all, refer to one of the more evil organizations in the modern world.
-
My great uncle spent half of WWII in a Nazi Prizon Camp, not exactly a fan of fascism.
-
Jeffe, you do realise that by your words you are implying that i do support fascism?
-
I've always thought that ppl who feel that calling someone a nazi in todays day and age is going to offend that person are just being ridiculous and incredulous.
-
1) in this particular thread, it IS kind of obnoxious for anyone to continue to think that anyone meant offense. Jeffe pointed out that Entropy said something he thought was appropriate. He did it nicely, and I don't think anyone really believes he was trying to say Entropy supports fascism. We should probably drop it.
2) however, it's incredibly insensitive to believe that people always use the term nazi without meaning offense. Sometimes they're joking, like with the Soup Nazi and in this thread, but esp in politics it is used quite often and quite effectively to call the object of the insult a subhuman bastard. It is still a very sensitive issue, esp for minorities and people who are sensitive to racial issues (like yours truly and Jeffe). Nazi-ism is still a current issue. All sorts of neo-fascists still exist and still commit violence.
-
How am I saying that entropy? Im just saying I dont like to be called a NAZI since Naziism and Fascism are diametrically opposed to what I or my family belive and have fought and bled for. I realized that you didn't know that, which is why I told you I found it offensive. As far as Im concerned you and I are square,... even (dont know the Slang for what im trying to say in British)
I've always thought that ppl who feel that calling someone a nazi in todays day and age is going to offend that person are just being ridiculous and incredulous
Wolverine-man.
Ridiculous and incredulous?
Refusing to belive that word NAZI is hurtful? Oh please, the word is not as harmless as you think. What image are you conjuring when you call a politician a book burning Nazi, or even a Jackbooted thug (one thats slightly less offensive but still tied to NAZI's) Your conjuring up imagages of mass book burnings in Munich, and concentration camps the mass execution of communists, Catholics, the Handicapped, Elderly, Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, the Blitz and Battle of Britain. the Occupation of France, Holland, Poland, Czechloslovakia, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Serbia, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Austria and huge portions of Russia, Dr. Mengela and all the other baggage of the Nazi regime. I bring all of that up for the impact no other nation in the History of the world has done what the Nazi Third Reich did and no one should ever forget it either.
Being called a Nazi is being called a lot of things at once, a warmonger, a racist, a murderer and a mindless thug.
Unlike Mel Brooks and Seinfeld, Im not Jewish, Im not an entertainer, I dont have a TV show and frankly
I dont see any need to soften the impact of Naziism, just like I dont see a need to soften the impact of Stalinism. If you think Im overreacting I invite you to visit the Holocaust museum in Washington DC or pay a trip to Buchenwald Belsun or Auchwitz.
-
I'll just toss this into the pile for no reason: nazism and fascism are two separate ideologies.
-
Not really. The only significant difference between the two is that Naziism adds racism to the mix. Nazism is a form of facism (although not all fascism is nazism). I admit that there is a discernable difference, but in the context of this conversation, the difference is minor.
-
Really. Lennin was not a nazi. Nor was Stalin for that matter.
-
No one ever said they were.
Lenin was a communist, specifically a Bolshevick Communist while Stalin was a different organ altogether. I dont like Stalin as much as I dont like Hitler. That little Georgian was cut from the same cloth.
-
Stalin was, well. communist. Fascism is really just communism without the economics. Lenin was a conquer with an ideologly is about all i know, but Stalin? If there is a hell, which i don't really think likely but i'll make an exception in this case, i hope that little scumbag is burning down there.
-
Holy crap. I forgot to check this thread and, when I finally did, I nearly choked on my smothered burrito at all the ignorance running rampant.
The term Fascism was originally thought up by Mussolini (it comes from the latin: 'fasces' - a symbol for power in Ancient Rome). Mussolini describes the ideology thus (and when you read this, think about the gross claims made by both Gemm and Entropy):
"Facism...believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.
"Fascism is the complete opposite of Marxian Socialism... Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology... Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society."
Now kids, how does that even come close to communism? Communism (the doctrine of Lenin and Stalin) believes in the complete withering away of the state, until people live in complete equality. On the other hand, Fascism believes in the 'natural aristocracy', where some people, by their nature, are superior to others and rise to positions of power.
Never forget that Dictatorship is not synonomous with Fascism. Stalin was a war monger and a mass murderer, as was Hitler, but they did not carry out their actions because of similar ideologies.
-
On the whole I agree with you mustard, but for a moment let me play devils advocate.
Stalin espoused being a communist, but the system he brought into being for Russia functioned more like a fascist regime, party members got more rights than other citizens, inner party members got more rights than party members, and anyone not native Russian got the short end of the stick. Georgians, latvians, Lithuanians.
Under the stalinist system the majority was denied any say in government, Leninism may have involved the withering away of the state, but stalin brutally changed it using much the same methods as the Spanish, Germans, and Italian fascists. Churches were burned, intellectuals rounded up, dissidents jailed or killed, and anyone who disagreed with "Big Brother" was made to disappear. Stalin effectively turned his state from the road of Communism to one strikingly similar to fascism, at least outwardly.
Still since Im playing DA I know that the USSR was nominally communist under Stalins regime.
-
I hate it when mustard does that. Acts all intellectual and whatnot.
I deny all knowledge of any posts i may have allegedly made.
Also, I promise never to swear again.
-
Dr Jeffe, you bring up some good points (and I know you're just playing devil's advocate), but you're wrong.
To repeat what I said before: Fascism is not the same thing as Dictatorship. While the methods may be the same (for Hitler and Stalin), the motivation was clearly different.
Communism believes that dictatorship is necessary to purge society of all the evils of capitalism, before pure peace and equality can be acheived. The Communist Manifesto set forth ten stages to make the transistion from Capitalism to Communism:
1. The overthrow of the capitalist state in a violent revolution.
2. Dictatorship by the proletariat.
3. Liquidation of the classes of society that are incurably diseased by capitalism.
4. Segregation of those who are diseased but capable of useful, isolated work.
5. Hospitalization of the diseased but curable.
6. Re-education of the total population.
7. The emergence of a young generation, uninfluenced by capitalism
8. The perfection of human nature.
9. The withering away of the state (end of the dictatorship).
10. The emergence of communism.
You're correct in saying that the Stalinist regime was not perfect communism. It was far more bureaucratic than the original Marxian ideology (leading to the inequality of power in the governmenal hierarchy).
However, it was still miles away from Fascism. Stalin and Lenin would never dream of claiming (as is a tenet of fascism) that peace is both impossible and useless.