blah the Prussian

I mean, Valkyria Chronicles kind of does, except really that conflict is more WWI with WWII tech(though the Empire in that game is way more repressive, by a huge margin, than the Kaiserreich or Austria-Hungary ever were).

Agree with everything; I wasn't saying you thought they shouldn't have this, just that as of late I've seen some Liberals arguing that because these people are disproportionately racist, sexist, whatever, that that excuses not caring about them. That's the subtext I've seen in people saying, for example "they're just angry their privilege is gone".

I agree with pretty much all of this. However, I want to emphasize that, no matter how racist one is, that does not mean that one is less deserving of one's due. Economic security, healthcare, etc.-frankly, you could be a neo Nazi and still deserve all of this. She also ran one of the most incompetant campaigns in the history of the country, didn't visit many of the areas she wanted to help(so how to communicate that) and communicated her ideas in general very poorly. This isn't an indicator that her ideas on this matter wouldn't be popular with working class White's, just that Hillary Cointon was an incompetant candidate.

It's important to mention that there is a difference between the poor whites who voted for Trump and the people at Charlottesville, I.E. there isn't much of an overlap. White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, etc. don't tend to be poor; Richard Spencer, for example, was a prep kid. I don't advocate we try to change the minds of poor Conservatives throug debate. We need action; show them we support their interests through advocating public works programs, increased attention to rural areas, etc. Right now liberal activism is focused too much on Trump as a person and not what his election represents.

Really FE4 has so many good ideas, such as the Lopt Sect facing extermination, Travant doing what he does for the good of his people, etc. that it never really follows through on. The plot structure would have to be changed at certain junctures but it could work. Edit: yeah, Brian Jaques would be great for a more kid friendly FE. Hell, an FE style game inspired by Redwall wouldn't be a bad idea either!

Blah, Turtledove is good at plotting but some of his characters were more one note than some FE chars(like that one guy in the Southern Victory series who kept on bitching about getting sunburned). GRRM would be best suited to Medieval politics, I'd say.

In an absolutely perfect world, George R. R. Martin, provided that ASOIAF was finished. He has consistently written excellent characters, and could make a huge cast interesting. His approach to villains especially is what the series could use.

Fine answer. I'm not denying the moral okay ess of punishing a Nazi, but yeah, I'd give someone probation at worst. Now, if he was a member of Antifa that might change a bit, if he had a consistent record, etc. but spur of the moment? Absolutely. And I do think that the government's kowtowing to a White Supremacists is a worse problem than punching said White Supremacists.

Alright, serious question: do you think it should be legal to punch Nazis, and what are the mechanics of this? How Nazi does this have to be? How hard are you allowed to punch them? Look, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I feel like people who advocate political violence like this haven't thought through a lot of the neccesary details.

So okay, Antifa is actually mostly Anarcho-Communist or some form of Marxist, because Antifa, contrary to their name, DO NOT REPRESENT the totality of the anti Fascist movement. They do deserve to be opposed for their ideology, but at Charlottesville there were people much more worthy of being opposed, and their opposition was not entirely Antifa, not by a large margin. That's the fallacy Life is making; you don't need to support Antifa to oppose Fascism.

Really it's more that Tankies are by far the most self righteous, arrogant, smug assholes I've ever met. I mean, my least favorite person in the world that I know personally is a Tankie(well okay, second least favorite, one guy tried to kill me).

I don't know, it depends on where you go. Plenty of Tankies out there, and some are just as cancerous as the Alt Right.

I want to make clear that I do think there is plenty of non violent(unless in self defense, in which case understandable) opposition to the White Nationalists, and a lot of it was present at Charlottesville. If it ever occurs that Antifa is the main opposition to Nazis then the problem will be that not enough people are opposing Nazis non violently, but I don't think that's the case.

I'm not going to fight on the side of radical leftists because I think extralegal action against extremism like this will do more harm than good. What is needed is stricter government opposition to White Supremacy, but until then I fear the general breakdown of rule of law much more than I fear Nazis, and vigilante actions will only worsen that situation.

I'd have to do an in depth survey but off the top of my head I liked Chapter 10.

I have to say, though, it isn't centrists who are saying that the violence is both side's fault. You have center right folks like Romney saying that the fault is clearly with the White Supremacists, for example. Its only the far right that is seriously pushing the far left as equally at fault as the far ight.

Mostly 19th and early 20th Century everything, especially uniforms. Most ideal outfits involve epaulettes in some way.

So such ardent left wing radicals as Mitt Romney and even Paul Ryan have condemned Trump's statements.

What are you trying to say with this? As far as I can tell I never disputed any of this?

Well, I don't know about Jackson, but Lee actually did by and large support slavery(I posted the link to the source earlier in the thread, I think page 2). And, like you said, I won't fault the average Confederate soldier for fighting in the war. However, that doesn't mean we should honor them. This is an important point: there is a middle ground between honoring someone and demonic ing them.

Ah well. Was certainly an interesting experiment, and significantly improved on the story of Conquest.

Annoyadog for short

THE WORLD ENDS WITH YOU INTENSIFIES

The figure does count the slaves, but there were plenty of poor whites who didn't own them. Does this mean that the South didn't fight for slavery? No, it just means that blacks weren't the only victims of the Southern plantation economic system, it also included, as I said before, poor whites who were conned into throwing their lives away for people who didn't give a single shit about them, in a fight they had no stake in whatsoever. So, I'll rebut @SullyMcGully's five points now. 1. So as a general rule of thumb, bad things the North, or indeed any side in a war, does, of which there were a few, does not make the other side better, or even less worse. It doesn't make men like Lee more worthy of praise. Side note, I'd wager there are more statues of Confederate generals than there are of Union generals, probably due to Grant being painted as a dumbass butcher(to be fair I think he was overrated) and Sherman being painted as a monster(if "war isn't a picnic" then what Sherman did should be justified). However, private shipping companies shipping in slaves does not equal the consistent reinforcement of slavery by the government's of Southern states, such as, among other things, the Fugitive Slave Act, laws against slave literacy, and even, in a few states in the Deep South, laws against setting slaves free. This reflects a greater state involvement in slavery, a contrast to the Northern governments which at worst looked the other way with regard to the slavert of the southern states. Which brings me to... 2. This is frankly nonsense. I don't know where you got the idea that the Northern states still had slavery in 1860, but the vast majority of them had abolished slavery before 1800. The border states did have slavery, but Lincoln not banning slavery in them was pretty militarily important to winning the war, without which no slaves would be freed in the foreseeable future. In any case I don't blame Lincoln for prioritizing the preservation of the Union over the abolition of slavery, because it was pretty much inevitable after the Civil War. I can't imagine the Southern states being given a vote in a bill about the abolition of slavery regardless of if the EP had been sent out. 3. Jotari and I both dealt with this. 4. No shit. No one is saying the North wasn't racist(actually people are, and using the racism of the South to distract from their own racism in history is a tactic of northern historians but it doesn't diminish the still worse racism in the South). 5. Ah, I see you're borrowing from Zinn here. This is in particular nonsense. What specific conditions were worse for industrial laborers? Were they whipped? Could their families be separated? Did they have no legal rights? This brings up another, probably the most important distinction: rights for industrial workers got better, while the rights of slaves got worse. This was because industrial workers had the right to protest their conditions in the first place, and the right to vote, and the right to form unions, which resulted in their rights improving. They had some agency, slaves did not; that's the most important difference. So about the idea that the war wasn't about slavery. Aside from the fact that the Confederate declaration of Independance repeatedly mentions slavery as central to Southern life, and the belief that the federal government would abolish slavery as central to their secession, they were also on the wrong side of the fight for States Rights. You shouldn't set the precedent that states have the right to secede over political disagreements because then you'd have states constantly seceding; it rejects the idea of democracy, that the law should be formed according to representative democracy and, crucially, that the law should apply to the people who lost the vote as well. Without that you don't have rule of law, and you don't have democratic rule, taken to its logical conclusion it means each individual lives by their own rules and nothing more.

No it's not. I don't consider Soviet troops who had loyalty to Communism and put down the Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring to be admirable. I don't consider Wehrmacht soldiers admirable. I consider Confederate soldiers to be at best(and this was the case I think for most of them) victims of an oligarchy, sent to the meat grinder so the rich didn't have to give up their slaves. They were pitiable, and individual soldiers might even have done admirable things unrelated to the cause they fought for. But there was nothing admirable about the act of fighting for the Confederacy.