-
[QUOTE=Tuck;4444698]The research agrees with you on this.
Or at least it shows there's no evidence sex sells outside of products related to it, like lingerie.[/QUOTE]
CW's entire line-up of shows discounts this. Stephen Amell's abs were part to the cast in Arrow's early seasons. :)
-
Hyperbole and anecdotes do not “win” arguments.
Stop trying.
-
[QUOTE=Venomous Mask;4444781]Jokes about Godwin's Law aside, despite how monstrous a leader Hitler was, I hate how constantly compare any politician/regime/administration that they don't like to him. Not only does it cheapen the memory of the true horror of what he did, doing so ignores other horrid regimes like those of Pol Pot, Mao, or the myriad different paramilitary groups of varying ideologies who have committed countless atrocities over the last few decades. Also, on some level, the real dictatorial threat these days are often not those of megalomaniacal lunatics who are loud and proud about their autocratic ways, but sneakier autocrats who often hide their true nature beneath a thin but somewhat sturdy veneer of simply preserving law and order, 'traditional values,' the reclamation of land formerly held at some point in time, and/or national sovereignty, often using tactics like open but rigged elections to create the illusion of real democracy, going after political foes by having them charged with seemingly mundane crimes like slander/libel or tax evasion that still have the effect of silencing and often tarnishing the reputation of major opponents of the regime, and using divide and conquer strategies to keep their various opponents more preoccupied with attacking each other instead of attacking the regime. I'm talking about guys like Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Xi Jinping, and Lukashenko, devious politicians who know when to bring down the hammer on opposition and when to appear to ease off, keeping both their internal and external foes in a constant state of confusion and thus often not able to mount a sustained resistance that can keep average people engaged over in an effective, protracted opposition movement.[/QUOTE]
I read a very interesting thought piece (which I WISH I could find again) that basically presented the notion that “white people” have propped Hitler up as this “ultimate evil”, and that [I]that[/I] idea is a “white invention” that POC should ignore.
No joke about it being an interesting read, btw.
-
[QUOTE=Venomous Mask;4444781]Jokes about Godwin's Law aside, despite how monstrous a leader Hitler was, I hate how constantly compare any politician/regime/administration that they don't like to him. Not only does it cheapen the memory of the true horror of what he did, doing so ignores other horrid regimes like those of Pol Pot, Mao, or the myriad different paramilitary groups of varying ideologies who have committed countless atrocities over the last few decades. Also, on some level, the real dictatorial threat these days are often not those of megalomaniacal lunatics who are loud and proud about their autocratic ways, but sneakier autocrats who often hide their true nature beneath a thin but somewhat sturdy veneer of simply preserving law and order, 'traditional values,' the reclamation of land formerly held at some point in time, and/or national sovereignty, often using tactics like open but rigged elections to create the illusion of real democracy, going after political foes by having them charged with seemingly mundane crimes like slander/libel or tax evasion that still have the effect of silencing and often tarnishing the reputation of major opponents of the regime, and using divide and conquer strategies to keep their various opponents more preoccupied with attacking each other instead of attacking the regime. I'm talking about guys like Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Xi Jinping, and Lukashenko, devious politicians who know when to bring down the hammer on opposition and when to appear to ease off, keeping both their internal and external foes in a constant state of confusion and thus often not able to mount a sustained resistance that can keep average people engaged over in an effective, protracted opposition movement.[/QUOTE]
The phenomenon of autocratic rulers applying ruthless methods to maintain absolute power goes all the way back to time immemorial, while the scale of the brutality varies by time and place, at the very least for most of these dictators the killings were primarily a means to retain control, and they were capable of enacting serious and even benevolent policies if and when the people were pacified and obedient. The Nazis were something entirely different, for them murder was not a means to an end but the goal all along. Hitler had managed to gain complete control over Germany fairly early on and his death squads mostly didn't target political opponents, but rather people who were deemed enemies by virtue of their birth, regardless of how loyal they may have been to the country or even to the Nazi regime, as many Jews were.
-
I doubt the 20th century was remotely close to being the bloodiest one hundred years in human history if you factor in the carnage as a percentage of the world population of the time.
-
[QUOTE=The Darknight Detective;4465009]I doubt the 20th century was remotely close to being the bloodiest one hundred years in human history if you factor in the carnage as a percentage of the world population of the time.[/QUOTE]
With two World Wars? Dunno man. The 12th Century had the Crusaders to offer, but the scale? I'd need to see numbers.
-
[QUOTE=DrNewGod;4466686]With two World Wars? Dunno man. The 12th Century had the Crusaders to offer, but the scale? I'd need to see numbers.[/QUOTE]
Take our casualties in WWII compared to the Civil War - they're roughly the same in absolute numbers, but as a percentage of the US population, the latter was unquestionably more damaging to the citizenry than the former. In fact, you can combine both WWII and WWI casualties and they still don't remotely approach the Civil War numbers as a percentage.
-
[QUOTE=The Darknight Detective;4466893]Take our casualties in WWII compared to the Civil War - they're roughly the same in absolute numbers, but as a percentage of the US population, the latter was unquestionably more damaging to the citizenry than the former. In fact, you can combine both WWII and WWI casualties and they still don't remotely approach the Civil War numbers as a percentage.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but pretty much [i]every[/i] casualty in the Civil War was an American casualty.
-
[QUOTE=Tuck;4466912]Yeah, but pretty much [i]every[/i] casualty in the Civil War was an American casualty.[/QUOTE]
Okay, take the American Revolution instead. The US casualties were twice the number of the World War numbers as expressed a percentage of population.
-
[QUOTE=The Darknight Detective;4466939]Okay, take the American Revolution instead. The US casualties were twice the number of the World War numbers as expressed a percentage of population.[/QUOTE]
I think the Mongols take the cake as far as % of total population is concerned. Genghis Khan is credited with 10% of the global population (40 million people).
-
[QUOTE=The Darknight Detective;4466893]Take our casualties in WWII compared to the Civil War - they're roughly the same in absolute numbers, but as a percentage of the US population, the latter was unquestionably more damaging to the citizenry than the former. In fact, you can combine both WWII and WWI casualties and they still don't remotely approach the Civil War numbers as a percentage.[/QUOTE]
Ah. I thought you were talking about Global Carnage, not just US.
-
I don't think bad writing is possible.
-
[QUOTE=Gray Lensman;4467024]I think the Mongols take the cake as far as % of total population is concerned. Genghis Khan is credited with 10% of the global population (40 million people).[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I would think that era had far, far more killing and mayhem than the last century.
-
[QUOTE=DrNewGod;4467033]Ah. I thought you were talking about Global Carnage, not just US.[/QUOTE]
I believe it's the case globally, too, Doc. I'll try to back up my theory with numbers within the next few days.
-
[QUOTE=The Darknight Detective;4467151]Yeah, I would think that era had far, far more killing and mayhem than the last century.[/QUOTE]
I've said it before, and it's been stated by someone else, but what makes the Holocaust in particular stand out is that unlike most other genocides (which are about gaining or keeping power/resources), what the Nazis did was the end goal in and of itself. People can comprehend inhuman things done for some other goal, but when those things are the goal in and of themselves it becomes horrifying. Most people I know point to the Killing Fields of Pol Pot right after the Holocaust despite both of them being well outnumbered in the number of corpses by other events.