Dead Dead Demon's Dededededestruction

Wow. What a bunch of nerds.

It's quite rare, but every so often, someone comes along who asks as hard as they can to be told certain things.  You can say "Oh, well, it would be rude not to just let them spout that stuff", or you can say what needs saying.  If you keep quiet, it encourages 'em, and in the end people can talk like Donald Trump and be taken seriously.

I see that you are trying to "tell it as it is". Except all you did was make several clumsy attempts at ridicule and not actually address the points Bana made, rather attacking strawmen that seem rather easier for you to deal with. I suggest that people should avoid calling Bana fascist not because it's "rude", but because it's false and clearly only intended to garner emotional support. Bana never advocated genocide and has not stated any support for the war as it has occurred since 8/31, and as such could not be considered a Nazi.

 

 

An actual attack by an interstellar spaceship the size of a city would be massive and decisive and leave no room for doubt.

Like an magnitude 8 earthquake occurring in Chiba (rare for the area) just before a massive flying saucer appears in the area, which proceeds to settle over Tokyo (the largest metro in the world) resulting in the immediate numbers of 13958 casualties and 5200 missing. By the end of the panic, 81517 would be dead and 14708 would be missing. At the time, there was almost definitely no room for doubt. The simple fact that this earthquake could easily be interpreted as an attack invalidates your odd insistence that the humans struck first. You might note that Bana has held that the humans struck BACK and not FIRST.

The whole weird thing about Bana's support for a war -> Bana is fascist is ridiculous and trivial ad hominem. After all, most of the US supported entering WWII after Pearl Harbor. Does this fact imply that the US population was fascistic? diversionlion's crappy definition of fascism entails "absolutes" and "inevitable war" being an indication of fascism, which you proceed to trip over when categorizing people as either fascists or pacifists, invoking a false dilemma, and then rail against your previous call-sign of fascists as people who being unreasonably committed to attack when you suggest that the French fascists were being reasonable. You really need a consistent definition of fascism before you start calling people fascists, and I would not suggest diversionlion's definition. A negative definition is far too broad, especially considering that fascism is a spectrum of ideas and not an exclusive category.

That cover picture of Ontan is disturbing.

Spoiler

Not allways. In the late thirties in France, fascist were indeed pacifists ^^

There's a distinction between opposing a specific war and "being a pacifist".  I'm sure those people would have been happy with lots of wars--just not ones to the disadvantage of someone they had more loyalty towards than they did towards France.  To put it a different way, they were not so much pacifists as traitors.

Godwin warned me about you...

It's quite rare, but every so often, someone comes along who asks as hard as they can to be told certain things.  You can say "Oh, well, it would be rude not to just let them spout that stuff", or you can say what needs saying.  If you keep quiet, it encourages 'em, and in the end people can talk like Donald Trump and be taken seriously.
 

Fascism entails a myriad of stances comprising political, economical, social and legislative issues. All of which your post demonstrates a scant familiarity with. But by all means, keep using that word to characterize your personal disagreements - it only makes you sound smarter.

You are to a fair extent mistaken. Fascism is unusual among ideologies in its relative lack of explicit programmes--it is generally associated with a certain . . . syndrome of symptoms, but has often been downright aggressive, sometimes even explicitly nihilistic in its refusal to define any specific economic or legislative implications to its worldview.

@Bana. Fascists are suspicious of pacifists, whom they characterize as unpatriotic, and whom they identify with traitors.

Not allways. In the late thirties in France, fascist were indeed pacifists ^^

Who could even shoot things as cute as that. They're the size of toddlers! They can't even fight back in any way (that we know of). Poor babies.

NEXT CHAPTER:

Things are not just fine

Who could even shoot things as cute as that. They're the size of toddlers! They can't even fight back in any way (that we know of). Poor babies. 

SHE'S GONNA FUCK THE ALIEN

So you believe in Chust Followink Orders, even to the point of genocide.  But you're not a fascist.  And even if you were, nobody should be allowed to say it.  Alrighty then.

Godwin warned me about you...

So you believe in Chust Followink Orders, even to the point of genocide.  But you're not a fascist.  And even if you were, nobody should be allowed to say it.  Alrighty then.

Fascism entails a myriad of stances comprising political, economical, social and legislative issues. All of which your post demonstrates a scant familiarity with. But by all means, keep using that word to characterize your personal disagreements - it only makes you sound smarter.

Aren't many of you forgetting that most of the human deaths were caused by the human government itself, and the few caused by the "invaders" are at least mostly accidental?

no one is forgetting this (i hope, at least). but this is an illustration of how it is to fight a truly unknown enemy. without information or experience, the best that you can do is flail around and hope to not hurt yourself. and when you do inevitably mess up, hopefully you learn something about yourself or your enemy.

So you believe in Chust Followink Orders, even to the point of genocide.  But you're not a fascist.  And even if you were, nobody should be allowed to say it.  Alrighty then.

"fascist" there's that word again. you didn't look it up did you? let me spoonfeed you. fascists are characterized as those whose intentions are to drown out opposing ideas and beliefs, often through demonizing their opponents through propaganda and insults rather than through the strength of their ideas and words prevailing in discussion. please learn what words mean before you use them.

Of all my experience reading manga, Asano Inio can portray the best "everyday life". It is vibrant and entertaining, yet maintaining the "just everyday thing" feeling close to reality without making me lose interest. Some might find it dragging though, but i like it.

Aren't many of you forgetting that most of the human deaths were caused by the human government itself, and the few caused by the "invaders" are at least mostly accidental? And as the soldiers said, killing the "invaders" in campus is a show off for the public, the aliens are harmless.

@Purple Library Guy

you're right, your argument is boring. glad we could agree on something. you should spend more time discussing ideas than thinking up insults.

Spoiler

first off, you seem to think duty is somehow influenced by morality. that is not the case. if this was true in reality, guards at any venue would let in anyone who believed that they had a good reason to be let in. soldiers would not detain certain people/vehicles because the seemed harmless. there is no room for good or ill will in the course of duty. the duty i have been talking about is the duty of a government to protect its citizens from an entity that at first contact killed people. the casualties are not up for debate, the threat is there in their actions.

 

secondly, your interpretation of my stance is completely off base. my reasoning was that because the aliens approached in a reckless manner that also created harm to the natives, it gave reason for the humans to perceive the aliens as a threat that required the full breadth of firepower. basically they they struck us, and we struck back with the intent not to be struck again. how does that translate into "if an alien civilization encounters earth, they should just vaporize it, according to Bana"? i am almost certain that though you call me illogical and ranting, that descrption is more fitting of your own reaction to my reasoning.

 

thirdly, please look up the word fascism and use it correctly, or better yet don't use words you don't understand. radical leftists love to use that word, when they are the ones shouting down others and belittling their beliefs, turning discussions into an insult cesspool. don't be like them.

So you believe in Chust Followink Orders, even to the point of genocide.  But you're not a fascist.  And even if you were, nobody should be allowed to say it.  Alrighty then.

Yeah! Blast those damn aliens. That'll teach 'em to invade by the thousands, hopefully. 

@Bana. Fascists are suspicious of pacifists, whom they characterize as unpatriotic, and whom they identify with traitors. Negotiation is anathema to them. For the fascist, war against the hated outsider is inevitable, and it must be pursued to extent of his absolute destruction. In other words, fascists do not believe that force should limited by any principle of proportionality or considerations of morality.

The aliens have not made an unambiguous attack or declaration of war against humanity. Their actions have "recklessly" as you yourself admitted, caused the loss of human life, but they have fallen short of intentional acts of war against our planet.

The solution you propose, that earth should use "the full breadth of our firepower" is out of all proportion to the offense committed against us. The desire to "strike back with the intent of not being struck again" frames the alien's actions - which for all we know could be accidental or benign - as an intentional act of aggression that merits the highest level of response. In the manga, this appears to be the shooting of unresisting civilians.

In your argument with the Library Guy, one of you is consistently mocking peaceful attempts at resolution. One of you is advocating for the unrestricted use of force in the nation's defense. One of you is so suspicious of outside forces, that he advocates for their extermination even when their intentions are unclear. One of you is thinking purely in absolute terms. One of you is thinking like a fascist.

"For ur-fascist there is no struggle for life, but rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world."

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

@Purple Library Guy

you're right, your argument is boring. glad we could agree on something. you should spend more time discussing ideas than thinking up insults.

I can't help for humanity to reap what they sow.

I would be sad for the main cast, but god damn humanity deserve it so damn much.

What do you want them to do? Let them come invade our planet with open arms? I'm not saying killing them on the spot is the right idea, but it's not they know the aliens are peaceful or not, especially when they have done bad things in the past (crashed their spaceships and killed innocent people), and apparently have superior technology over the Earth. It was a rhetorical question by the way, i don't think they should kill the aliens on the spot, but saying "humanity deserve it so much" is not completely right either in my opinion.

I can't help for humanity to reap what they sow.

I would be sad for the main cast, but god damn humanity deserve it so damn much.

The discomfort I had reading the end of this chapter was almost physical. It took a while for us to reach minimum Asano Despair Levels but we're climbing up there...

Boring argument with Bana spoilered

"I only believe in information that suits my purposes."

If that ain't the most human thing.