User talk:Hentropy

Welcome
FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 22:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Germany's conduct in World War II
First of all - yes there were war crimes on the side fighting against fascism in World War II. They were mostly committed by the Soviets and they of course pale in comparison to the mind boggling crimes of the Nazis. And maybe I understood you wrong and you are referring to the fact that Werwolf (the supposed Nazi resistance guerrilla movement) was a non-starter. On that we agree. However, many of the facets of fascism still persist in German and - especially - Austrian society to this day. But your point on the Germans not fighting on after they had already seen it was hopeless. That's not true. At least not for the Second World War. It is pretty much what happened in the First World War (hence the "stab in the back" legend). In the second world war, Hitler spewed "fight to the last drop of blood" BS until he was so surrounded in his Bunker in Berlin that his only choice was capture or suicide. In true Götterdämmerung-fashion (a perverse German interpretation of the Germanic concept of Ragnarök, popularized by Wagner and his music and beloved by the Nazis) he chose the latter. And in his political testament he wrote (among a lot of unkind stuff about Jews) that the German people had no right to live further as they had lost the war. Furthermore, the Nazi government used all resources at a time when the war was already lost to kill as many Jews as they could. They did not care about winning the war any more. But about killing Jews. And even after Hitler was dead almost all Nazis with any power left kept doing the Nazi shit. There were executions against "deserters" in May 1945. A general who surrendered (a 100 000 inhabitant city just over 200 km north of Munich) or tried to was killed by fanatical Nazis. And that is just one small example of the things that happened in the last days of the war. Sure many Germans noticed that the war was lost at the very latest when the Battle of the Bulge was lost. But the leaders did not care. And the vast majority of the Germans who held arms fought on to the bitter end. Only after 8 May 1945 did some sense appear in most Germans and they (grudgingly or enthusiastically) cooperated with the Allies, especially the Western ones. Didn't keep them for voting a bunch of Nazis into parliament. And was insulted and abused by a lot of Germans for the fact that he had not been a Nazi. For the fact that he had been abroad during the war and in contact with anti-Nazi activists... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking the time to try to elaborate on the point, I will often defer to others when it comes to detailed WWII history since I don't know as many little details as I would like to, and I didn't know much of what you said, so I do thank you for that. However, I was largely talking long-term, most of the times when a country loses a war there are "death throes", a time when it is over but they don't want to accept it, the same could be said for Japan during WWII. This could be said for many wars across history. However, these death throes and elements that wanted to keep fighting didn't remain long-lasting threats, new governments took over that were largely cooperative, and things could move forward in the long run, leading to "good" governments in both West Germany and Japan. Contrasting this with Palestine/Gaza, they lost a war that they started 70 years ago and rather than show even the smallest bit of deference to the victors, they keep restarting the conflict every now and then, pulling back right before they are destroyed/crippled entirely so they can try it again later. This seems to apply mostly to Gaza now, I just wish Israel could occasionally stop being dickish in other ways (like settlements and dumb rhetoric). Hentropy (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with you (except for the last sentence, obviously ;-) ). That being said, the common post war myth that all Nazis were some kind of space-aliens from the planet Naz and that they simply disappeared after 1945 taking their ideology with them is complete and utter bull. The same is of course true for the hyper-nationalist element in Japan, but I know less about that. And what I think we both can agree on is that a Palestinian state (apart from Jordan, that is) could have become a reality ages ago if only the Palestinians had not been so stupid in starting a losing war again and again. On a somewhat related note: Do you think a Palestinian state should have to tolerate the presence of Jewish inhabitants? That would imho be a nice solution to the "settlement" problem: Give them an option of becoming Palestinian citizens with full and equal rights or emigration to Israel... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel you on the stuff about Nazis, people have many misconceptions about Nazis and WWII in general, and I certainly didn't mean to intentionally or unintentionally reinforce misconceptions. As far as I know, Japan never gave up nationalism as a concept, they just redefined their national identity as one that was insular and embraced peace, a facade that is only now starting to crack. When it comes to settlements, I don't think many Israelis who live in these settlements will want to stay there if they do become part of a Palestinian state. As far as I'm concerned the settlements are the biggest problem right now because they pretty much only serve to make the establishment of a Palestinian state that much more complicated, and ensure Israel does not have to cede territory and so they might be able to take more if an agreement ever does happen. It's unfair to the Israelis who live in these settlements, but right now they are fully within their rights to move back and very likely will be after the creation of a theoretic Palestinian state. Jews will still be in Palestine for whatever reason, and they will have to be protected under laws for any kind of agreement to take place, but Fatah at least has always been amenable to this, the issue has always been one of border creep and intentionally making a two-state solution more difficult to achieve. Hentropy (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Still from a tactical standpoint it would be stupid to dismantle any of the "settlements" if nothing is gained in return. This might have bad consequences for many involved (and some uninvolved) but given what happened after the last Jew left Gaza, I kinda understand the Likud on that one. But I fear discussions of a Palestinian state (much less one reached through negotiations with the Palestinians) are and will stay academic for quite some time to come. With the recent outbursts by Abbas regarding the Oslo framework, there is really no one on the Palestinian side that I can see an Israeli politician talk to about any sort of settlement. This might of course change once Abbas (who is well into his ninth decade of life) is no more... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Do I know you from somewhere
Kyubey?
 * Wanna make a contract? ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work on other incubators. I think. Cracked is the only place I'm Kyuubei anymore and it also tends to be where I make the most poorly thought-out comments. It kind of rubs off on you. Hentropy (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The one who initially asked was Krashlia. I have this weird feeling that I'm shooting myself in the foot by doing this, for some reason.69.113.232.152 (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sysop
20:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, had wondered why she wasn't already.---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not have open primaries
How do you tell when someone is truly a Republican and therefore has a right to vote in the Republican primary? Someone could have a history of voting Democratic in every general election, and donating up to the maximum allowed by campaign finance law to Democratic candidates, and blogging nonstop in favor of the Democratic candidates, and posting yard signs for all the Democratic candidates to the point that it isn't possible to walk through his front yard anymore. Yet he can still register as a Republican and vote in the Republican primaries.

It's like how in prison, the have a rule that you can't wear headgear inside the cafeteria, and participate in prison-sponsored religious feasts, unless you register with the chaplain as belonging to the religion that uses that headgear and observes those feasts. Suddenly, a suspiciously large proportion of the prisoners have turned Rastafarian and are wearing Rastafarian headgear. Also, a suspiciously large proportion have turned Jewish and are munching on prison-issued matzo crackers all the time. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're never going to be able to eliminate the possibility of shenanigans, these are elections we're talking about here. But having to re-register to vote, which in some states is more of a hassle than others (though I certainly don't think it should be), is at least one hurdle to prevent such measures. However, it's not so much about cross-voting shenanigans, but more of the principle of the thing. Some seem to forget that political parties are private organizations at the end of the day, not governmental organizations. There is no reason or right to regulate them by law. From a more idealistic point of view, I understand the concept behind open primaries originally, it was meant to allow moderates to have a better chance to actually get their party's nomination. However, it seems it has had the opposite effect this year. Above all, I think it simply sends the message that the two parties are the "official" parties and the only ones that matter, simultaneously strengthening the two-party system, but also diluting the meaning of political party as a private organization. Hentropy (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the government shouldn't force parties to have open primaries. Also, a desire to win general elections can motivate party members to nominate more moderate candidates. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Feminism sects
Hey, I know you consider yourself a radical feminist so I was wondering what you thought about my list on the different branches of feminism? I haven't updated it in awhile because I feel that I am oversimplifying and whitewashing certain branches.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 19:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mostly I would organize it better, generally you have to "umbrella" terms such as radical, liberal, conservative feminism that most of the other forms flow from. Things like Amazon, Lipstick, etc. are more "styles" of feminism than distinct ideologies, and then you have feminism with different focuses and ethnicities and nationalities, but aren't that different at the core. I've thought about writing my own primer on feminism, but afraid it might be too biased. Wikipedia's list of feminist variants isn't a bad one, but when trying to explain it to those less initiated it's best to show how each relates to the others. Other than that the content seems mostly okay. Explanations of waves and sex-positivity should probably be separate from the named branches, as well. As much as I disagree with "equality" feminism and other forms of anti-feminist feminism, it should be included as well in some sense. Hentropy (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the advice. I will probably move some of them around and create subcategories. I may include anti-feminist sects as "proud contrarians" which is biased but that is mostly what they are. If you would like to contribute to it go ahead because I would rather create a heavily biased, though factually accurate, article then concede to criticism than a neutral one that concedes to criticism. Sorry, for the slow response btw.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 03:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well when I say bias I mean more unconsciously making certain types of feminism more or less desirable based on more subjective grounds. I can certainly look at it and contribute to it. Hentropy (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First, let me reorganize the page. A lot of the postmodern and standpoint stuff flies over my head so if you know anything about those branches I would appreciate your contributions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 03:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand postmodernism and its feminist tie-ins well enough to not like it much, but I could certainly try giving it a fair shake. It's certainly not as noxious as anti-feminism. Hentropy (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Finally, someone gets it!
That 538 article you found was great and I can't believe I didn't read it. I have been saying this since March and, as I have said here, all the conservatives I have talk to miss their labor union or feel that their current one has no power (I live in a "right to work" state).--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 05:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed it too, somehow. They've had that sumo story at the top of their headlines for a while, probably missed it there (though the sumo story is worth a read I guess). It might be interesting to see how Trump and political discourse in general treats Unions going forward. It wasn't a big issue during the GOP primary and Trump's ideas on unions are somewhat unclear- the same as most of his policies. The Democrats have largely failed to defend unions from GOP onslaught, letting them paint unions as the driver behind offshoring jobs, ignoring that the manufacturing jobs weren't really the height of employment by itself, the union benefits were what made them so good. Hentropy (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

An apology
Sorry buddy. This is only the primaries. You know, exposition season. Get ready for the primetime, cause this is what it's gonna be like. Nobody cares about global warming or terrorism; it's gonna be all about blowjobs & bimbos & rape, and what is  appropriate discussion in front of small children. Remember, Bill Clinton could have spared all our children these corrupting influences decades ago by doing the honorable thing. But no. He want's his wife to rehab his reputation now with some delusion that's she's gonna be the first female nominee to get elected president. These people's egos are too big for them. What goes around comes around. So, again, I'm sorry if your feelings about real issues have become collateral damage, but maybe Sen. Sanders is right: maybe the Democratic party's nominating process needs reform. nobsBernie bimbos r trailerpark trash 17:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Somehow this doesn't really seem like an apology. Not that I care. I'm not really much of a Clinton supporter and the choice of gendered insults was so boring it was difficult to take seriously. The teens playing Overwatch come up with creative things. Hentropy (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Democrats
I am sorry if I am annoying but I am curious why you won't vote for Hillary even though you seem to tolerate the New Democrats more than I do. I know that we, as Democrats, will suffer in Congress if we stay divided but these people support so much austerity so, in my opinion, they will have to go sooner than later. I know that we live in different states so you may not feel as frustrated with the national party as people in my state. I am also curious how you balance your radical feminism with your political moderation?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 04:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If I lived in a swing state I'd consider voting for Clinton more, for sure. Since I don't I just like voting my conscience. I didn't vote for Obama in 2012 and I can't really justify voting for Clinton on the same grounds. Regardless of ideological differences, I think Clinton is an effective and decisive administrator, and she understands the "game" all too well. I don't think Obama did and that's what led to his early failure to push his agenda. I suppose I could call myself more of a European-style leftist- and contrary to popular belief, Europe is not a socialist paradise. Capitalism is big there, but they have a strong social safety net. While radical feminism has its roots in Marxist feminism and theory, the two are not really inseparable. If anything, the shift from a manufacturing economy to a higher-educated service/tech economy, while very disruptive to the economy and the way we work, has helped women more than in old-school hard-left societies, who only used feminism as a strategy to supplement a very poorly-managed labor force. Neoliberalism didn't come about for no reason, in the US it came about because the American populace had been successfully convinced of the Reagan memes of "government bad" and welfare queens, and we're still not over that, as mismanagement and incompetence- not ideology- led to disaster for Democrats known as Obamacare. I'm not convinced that doing single payer in 2009 would have worked out any better when they couldn't even build a functional fucking website for what they had. I think in many ways a new left movement has to shake off both the specter of the Reagan years and some of the antiquated socialist ideas that revolve factory workers and farmers and class warfare. I'm honestly not sure how Bernie might have worked out. I was somewhat stoked at the possibility of a Bernie-Trump debate, because I'm genuinely curious as to how Sanders could handle true right-wing fire while standing in the same room with them. Hentropy (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well, as you may or may not know, my home state is Indiana and my family is a mix of Goldwater/Reagan and Eisenhower/Nixon. I supported the Iraq war as a child but I saw what war had done to a close family member and I saw all my friends and family members struggle from the financial collapse. I don't live far from trailer parks and ghettos and our life expectancy, in the area, is quite low for the nation. This may have caused me to become a socialist but I was satisfied with Obama for quite some time, though, I wish we could've gotten the public option. I realize that Europe isn't a socialist paradise, which is why I identify with the left in Latin America more, and that neoliberalism, like much of what Bill did, was most likely necessary in order to bring the Dems back to national promience. My main gripe with the Dems is that I feel my state has been abandon by them and when I see the austerity Rehm Emanuel has imposed on Chicago I get angry; I feel the same anger at the Dems and Obama for their support for the Bush-era policies. The way I saw the Sanders campaign was that he was our last chance to remake the Democratic party onto a labor party; this was something so many worked for when the Dems created the New Deal and the Great Soceity but the neolibs all but abandoned.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 08:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think it's important to note that the Dems didn't really leave workers as much as workers left them, and it wasn't due to economic policy. Those blue collar factory workers college kids are now shedding retroactive tears for decided decades ago that hating blacks, gays, women, etc. and pushing religion and drug wars was more important than protecting union jobs or widening the social safety net. If it meant making sure there was no more cultural movement on social justice, they swallowed the hook when it came to "small government" so blacks would stay out of their neighborhoods. Marxism and socialism never had a stable movement in the US because of systemic racism. Socialists often point out that economic justice should be put first and everything else will flow from it, this could be true, but the opposite seems more likely to me. When conservatives finally lose the culture war, that is when the idea of economic equality will become more potent. But I'm not sure why this is our "last chance" for anything. There is a growing progressive wing in the party that is detached from the Reagan years enough, and I think it will only grow bigger over time. Hentropy (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well maybe I am being too cynical about the burgeoning progressive wing of the Dems. I know that anything to the left of social liberalism never came close to the levels in other countries but things seem to be changing atm. Not to cite them repeatedly but Jacobin had a good article on why leftists failed to combine the labor movement with the civil rights movement and second wave feminism. Cedric Johnson also wrote a good article on the identity politics and class. Ironically, I think we may agree a lot more than I thought since I also am somewhat a pro-gun lefty. I can't really understand how I can believe in a right to self-defend and not believe in a right to bear arms. I think that the right to bear arms should be defined with as a "narrow liberty" meaning it must be balanced with public safety but outright bans would be problematic. I don't know what your views on state's rights are but I am quite supportive of them. I think they are the best way to enforce small government, radical decentralization, multiculturalism, and direct democracy. With the many ethnic groups across the many diverse regions in this country, I believe it helps them to self-determine their futures. I think the problem with states rights was created by SCOTUS when they ruled that the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 19:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am a little hesitant to admit that I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, partially because of his beliefs when it comes to states rights for most of those social issues. Aspects of minarchism to appeal, I think if the GOP has a point it's that the federal government is often just not competent enough to handle a lot of these large issues. In theory I would love single payer, but between things like the VA fiasco (which Sanders himself was somewhat complicit in) and various problems with Medicare, I'm not sure if the feds are the best to administer it. Newer government programs and agencies like the TSA seem increasingly ineffectual and mismanaged. It's not impossible to be a progressive and advocate for giving more control to cities and states, especially when it comes to economic issues, since economic needs truly do vary. When it comes to guns, it's one of those "I believe in my right to bear arms but YOUR right to bear arms scares the shit out of me." When you have kids shooting themselves and others because their idiot parents leaving loaded guns around them, or spouses/children getting shot because they're sneaking back into their own house at night, there is something wrong. At the same time, I've always thought it foolish of the left to unilaterally disarm. Europe may do it a different way but they always have, guns are part of the American psyche and culture in ways that they simple aren't in other countries. Hentropy (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides experimentation, I believe that states can help the federal government by cutting costs when they implement their own programs. That is how I think single-payer can be best implemented since we already do this with unemployment insurance. I also think that the federal government should motivate states to pass laws by making it costly for them to have cases, such as those involving discrimination, to leave the state. I abhor the unfunded mandates, block grants, and pork. I also see no reason a taxpayer in Connecticut needs to subsidize a farmer in Iowa so all subsidies should be from state governments and not federal governments. When it comes to gun violence I understand that minorities (racial and female) bear the brunt of it but, to me, this is more of a societal reflection on our fear of the other, misogyny, and acceptance of poverty which makes it akin to prostitution, drug use, and abortion. I have to agree with those minorities that say that, historically, they have needed to protect themselves from mob violence or domestic abusers. I could accept gun control to Austalia's level but not to the UK's (though I like that most of their cops are disarmed).--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 06:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Academy awards
Just to say I've nominated Academy awards for deletion. Christopher (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote it because the 2016 Academy Awards scandal was on the To-do list and had a pretty large number of upvotes. I can clean up some of the historical stuff, but I think the controversy section is missional. Hentropy (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realise it was on the to do list. It'll probably stay then. (I still think it isn't notable personally but hey). You realise you can get even though you made the article because I notice you haven't voted yet. Christopher (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)