The Anti-Targ

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Anti-Targ

  • Rank
    Level 20 Social Justice Mage, with melee ability
  • Birthday 07/03/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

8,096 profile views
  1. Once Iran is nuclear armed Israel won't be able to do squat, since Israel is a lot smaller than Iran, one nuke dropped on Israel is going to do a whole lot more harm than a couple of nukes dropped on Iran. Trump is backing the USA into a corner where it is going to be forced into taking military action against a nuclear armed country (DPRK) in order to demonstrate that having a nuke does not give you a shield against military aggression. If for all of Trump's bluster the DPRK situation remains at the same stand-off a year hence it is only going to serve to prove to all states who fear US military aggression that the one way to insure against it is to have a nuke. And thus begins the second nuclear arms race, if it hasn't already happened. If the USA or Israel take action on a pre-nuclear armed Iran, that's just going to send the message that countries need to not piss about in getting nuked up, and move to carrying out a successful nuclear weapons test ASAP.
  2. The next step in the quest is not being triggered, the reward screen / sub-quest completion screen is not showing up (apart from that one time with one of the Greenskin quests, but other Greenskin deploy hero quests have consistently failed just like the Bretonnian ones and VC ones).
  3. Is it though? It seems there are plenty of people among those who oppose the WS&N who are quite enthusiastically in favour of a strategy of violence. And it seems Antifa very much has violence as part of its strategic plan to oppose. If I am wrong that some people on this forum are in favour of planned, premeditated violent attacks on WS&N groups then I apologise for mis-reading them. I'm not sure I am wrong though.
  4. In terms of enthusiasm for violence, that's not an inaccurate statement. But I've not read any suggestion that the ideological position should in anyway be equated.
  5. There is a difference between violence as an immediate, protective reaction to a dangerous situation, and violence as a premeditated political strategy.
  6. So how I am doing hero deployment in TW:WH wrong? I use the deploy function in the region it says to deploy a hero (for lord quest items) and when the hero does the deployment the game doesn't recognise it and trigger the next step in the Lord's quest. It did work for a Greenskins Lord Quest once, but all other times no matter how I do it the hero deployment completion never gets triggered.
  7. Huh, I would think some intellectual curiosity about things outside the field would be part of being lawyerly.
  8. What organisation do you work in for people to see interest in science as boring?
  9. Moments from going out in a blaze of glory. The wonders of what humanity can achieve.
  10. I wonder why it's so large. I imagine a smart watch has enough grunt to run NES games. If you had a bluetooth controller you could basically make an NES classic in the style of a Chromecast type device shaped like a NES at about 1:10 scale, preloaded with about 100 NES games.
  11. And of course to a non-negligible minority of US folks you've already had a Muslim, foreign-born president.
  12. That's a shame, about 7 years ago I asked the question about whether a Muslim or an (out) atheist would be first to be elected POTUS. Several people speculated that some past presidents were actually closeted atheists (and some hoped that Obama is/was too). Would have been interesting for Zucks to run as a declared, loud and proud atheist. I suspect he'd probably talk more about being spiritual and not wanting to tie himself to any specific religion, so more just putting himself back in the closet, IMO. I don't recall how things split, but I must say I was surprised that many people thought it would be harder for an atheist to become POTUS than a Muslim. Not sure that still holds true, if it ever was, post 9/11.
  13. Why? I have no problem with people criticizing method, I strongly disagree with a violence on the street approach to opposing hatred. I'm pretty sure I haven't complained about people strongly opposing my advocacy for non-violent approaches. It's the accusation of being a hate group appeaser or apologist, or as bad as the Nazis themselves for wanting to be non-violent to which I object. I also object to the suggestion that non-violent people aren't willing to put their lives on the line. I suggest you go see Hacksaw Ridge (or see it again with more open eyes), to better understand what sacrifices non-violence advocates are willing to make in service to the cause in which they believe. I'm prepared to die for the things in which I believe most strongly. I'm just not prepared to kill for it. And to suggest non-violent people aren't willing to pay a substantial price to fight, non-violently, for what they believe is doing a massive disservice to many people throughout history who have achieved social change thought non-violence but paid the price with their own lives.
  14. I don't recall my post advocating for govt to pass anti-speech laws. Rather I'm arguing (or more accurately other people who have thought more deeply about it, and I am partial to that perspective) that free speech is a phantasm, it doesn't really exist, because at any given time someone's speech is being suppressed irrespective of what the written law says. So what exactly are you defending? The freedom to oppress? The discussion really is more like which marginal groups' speech should we seek to minimise the chances of being suppressed? Getting somewhat hypothetical, the argument by many currently goes that the WS&N groups felt able to step out into the light and be more brazen because Trump was elected, and so they did just that. Assuming that's true the converse means if Hillary Clinton was elected these groups would have stayed hidden from public view. The election of Hillary Clinton therefore would have been an act of suppression of the freedom of speech of these groups, because they would have felt constrained in their desire to get out on the streets and spew their hatred. No law would have been passed to suppress their speech, but the expression of the majority social will via the election of Hillary Clinton as President would have kept their mouths shut, their doors closed and their tiki torches unlit.
  15. I don't know anyone who is claiming all civil disobedience is wrong. But civil disobedience doesn't need to be or end up being uncivil disobedience. There are plenty of good arguments to support the approach of refusing to obey an unjust law. It is not necessary to refuse to obey an unjust law with violence. The only way to prevent Nazism and Fascism from taking over is for the vast majority of people to speak out in opposition to it. Arguably, violence by anti-fascists creates inertia for the masses to get fully on board with the anti-fascist perspective. The advocates for violence need to stop misrepresenting the perspectives of those who advocate non-violent opposition to fascism. You are isolating, alienating and threatening people who are ideologically aligned or sympathetic, but divergent on method. Which is counterproductive to the aim of keeping fascism, white supremacy and general hatred of "the other" on the social and political fringes. On freedom of speech, absolutists fail to see the paradox that exists in absolutist approaches to freedom of speech. Someone's speech, especially if it comes from the socially and politically dominant group, ends up suppressing the speech of others. It does seem like absolutists only concern themselves with the ability of people from one group being able to say whatever they want without considering the suppressing effect such speech has on others and whether that creates an imbalance and an injustice.