Kwakkelde Kwak

ChinRey wrote: Oh, you get the hang of it fairly soon. But we're splitting hair here really. The important point is to actually know the switch points. Whether you find them by maths or trial and error isn't that important. The important thing is to get the least amount of geometry on screen without letting your objects turn into a mess. I don't care about switch points at all But I fully agree it's splitting hairs. ChinRey wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote More importantly, there are a lot more settings than the RenderVolumeLODFactor (mesh detail in the settings) in the graphic preferences. The Mesh Detail setting is the RenderVolumeLODFactor actually. LL just renamed it when they added it to the viewer prefs. Ehhh... Do I hear an echo? (only difference is the mesh detail slider stops at 2.0)

ChinRey wrote: It amounts to the same really. It's just that spending ten seconds typing three numbers into a spreadsheet saves you half an hour or more of trial and error. But of course, you always have to do a virtual reality check before the work is done. I don't see why you need to know the distance. Having the distance doesn't tell you how big the object is on screen or how it looks. What I consider logical is the following: Build the object you want on the highest LoD. Upload it and determine how it looks just before the LoD switches to the next. Determine what you can change without altering the looks too much. Using that information, build the next LoD. etc. (actually I guesstimate most things, which usually works out just fine, but if I had to do it logically, I'd do it as described above) As for optimizing for different LOD settings, I honestly don't see the point. If it looks good at LOD factor 1 it certainly looks good at 2 and the LI you can save is minute compared to what you can save by other less destructive methods. So your starting point is 1 then? For someone else it might be 0.25 (which is the setting on minimum I think). More importantly, there are a lot more settings than the RenderVolumeLODFactor (mesh detail in the settings) in the graphic preferences.

ChinRey wrote: But if you know how to calculate the switch points and are willing to invest a few minutes manually optimizing your LOD models, you're already miles ahead of the majority of Second Life mesh makers. Calculating switch points is not that hard, but it's something I never do. For a reason. First of all, some people have their graphics settings at minimum, some have it at ultra, some even have it on "ultra+" by changing the debug settings like RenderVolumeLODFactor. You could calculate the switch point for all those settings, but that doesn't really save you time over uploading a test model in its natural surroundings and see how it acts with different settings. More importantly, it strongly depends on the object how much and which features you can reduce to represent the highest LoD convincingly, from any given distance. By all means, if it works for you, calculate the switch points. I rather look inworld.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Whether we have free will or not doesn't make much difference in practical matters. If a mass murderer choses that path, we (whether individually or collectively) are likely to choose a path that removes his threat. If he was destined by biology to take that path, we're destined by the same biology to respond. So, I'm not terribly bothered over free will. If we have it, we have it. If we don't, we'll continue to believe we do because it feels like we do and because it's too depressing to believe we don't. Couldn't agree more. The study you linked doesn't move my needle very much. Yes, racism is learned. My own personal experience suggests that. But I find myself noticing and suppressing impulses that I could describe as racist, even though I hope I'm anti-racist (someone else will have to pass that judgment on me, I'm not competent to do so). The first question I have about that study is - what do they define as racism? ;-). Certainly not the way it's described in the Oxford dictionary As worded in the article, racial sensitivity might be the better description.

Robin Talon wrote: This afternoon I've focussed primarily on baking high-poly to low-poly. Brain officially bleeding. good fun! Don't forget you can also use this for your highest LoD model! In fact in many cases (depending on object size and type) I would consider the highest LoD to be the most important candidate for this treatment.

Believe me I have glanced over that Confucius tag many times during this discussion. I don't know if he ever questioned that statement, nor do I think he takes the superiority as a given. It's a superiority based on choices made by people. I can understand the urge to "sell", but that shouldn't stop people from doing the "right" thing. I don't like people who are making a quick (selfish) decision without considering the consequences. When I adopted that tag, I was fairly active in the creation fora, trying to educate people on how to build responsibly in SL.

Sassy Romano wrote: Are we supposed top discuss this or something? It's a question but you've forced the answer upon anyone that opens it so in doing so, the answer to the question from everyone will now ultimately be YES But since the chart is from 2010 and the reference it gives is updated to 2013, the answer after reading the OP would be NO @Drake Statistics, statistics. Is the percentage of the whole population, of the working population, do "stay at home moms" and people who have given up on finding a job count etc etc.... http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I_R#

irihapeti wrote: ok, we now agree pretty much on this as well I think the "seed" is not a thing (like a vessel, a container) By everything you and I said, I highly doubt so, but I'm more than happy to leave it at that.

irihapeti wrote: about the first under any circumstance all things lead to other things. So I dunno what is your point It's not clear to me what you are responding to with this. But if all things lead to other things, I'd turn it around and say all things have to have an origin. about the "seed" from this is clear that you have determined that there is a "seed" and you are on a hunt for it. A "seed" that is the root of animal instincts what science shows us is that animals dont actual have instincts. No animal does and never has. Not ever what animals have when born are primal reflexes. The higher up the animal scale (the more intelligence they have) the lesser their primal reflexes. A ape is less primally reflexive at birth than a dog. A mammal is less primally reflexive at birth than a reptile , etc science shows us that the primal reflexes of newborn humans are: To breathe. To root and suckle. To startle at loud noises. To move, and to try to walk. To cry when discomforted. To sleep. And thats it. Within a few months these purely primal reflexive actions disappear as the baby learns to control its own body I don't say there is a seed that leads to animal instincts. I say there is animal instinct. The seed is the instinct. I'd like to add that humans are animals. As I said earlier, you are giving the human species far too much credit. Our complex brain steered us into a certain direction in evolution, although it's still a big question if that path is very successful. So far so good I'd say, but the same is the case for every other animal or even every organism alive today. Like Madelaine, I'd like to see how science shows us animal (and therefor human) instinct doesn't exist. There's an entire battery of scientists who will disagree. That last part is beyond me. Within a few months the reflexes you describe disappear? Babies stop breathing, suckling, making noise, stop moving or walking (which babies do not do in the first place), crying, sleeping if they do not decide to keep doing so? is pretty seductive tho the idea that there might be something outside of us that causes us to do bad. Like it wasnt my fault, Satan made me do it is nonsense this idea even more seductive is the idea that all our behaviours are in us. That they are genetic in origin. Be pretty good that for them into bad things. Am sorry your Honour, but I cant be held accountable for murdering all them people. I am genetically-wired to be in fear of my life from them is actual nonsense this as well. Every geneticist who has examined more than just a petri dish in their life, can tell us that it is This isn't the same as human instinct, but the question whether someone can be held responsible for their own actions is a valid one. People aren't all wired the same way. People have urges, beliefs, feelings they cannot control, whether criminal or not. An example: Some (quite a lot even) people are homosexual or have homosexual feelings. You can't be serious if you think people were either raised to be or decided to. Studies also show many criminal's brains are often wired a certain way, which can be seen from a very early age. Luckily people with "a criminal mind" do not always turn out to be criminal. Nonsense as you believe it to be, the question of responsibility is an ongoing debate. Not one between scientists who have and have not surpassed the stage of handling petri dishes btw. No judge will sentence you for believing something, for feeling a certain way. They will sentence you for acting a certain way (could be as little as expressing that belief). The belief does not neccecarily lead to the act, but that doesn't mean the belief isn't there. Even if one couldn't be held responsible for their criminal actions, that wouldn't mean they couldn't be sentenced for them. Incarceration is as much a way to exclude threats from society as it is to punish. I'd like you to consider studies on twins. Identical twins, identical twins separated at an early age and fraternal twins. All studies show that genes play a vital role in how a person turns out in later life. ___ I'll add some confusion by linking this. While the conclusion of the author is that racism might not be innate, I find it striking that the feeling springs to life at the age where there are some large biological changes. Also note that from my first post on, I haven't really made a disctinction between races but between groups. Also note that I do not think racism is innate, it's the instinct of making distinctions between races that can lead to racism that is innate. The fact that people raised among lots of different races do not seem to have the measurable "racist reflex" in the brain, tells me that it's the environment can influence or even override the instinct. The reaction is the biggest when there has been no interaction with other races. Which suggests that the instinct hasn't been influenced at all, giving the "purest" results.

But...tomatoes are poisonous! Anyway, well put. I think you captured how I feel quite nicely. The whole Southern slaver superiority looks like it's used as an excuse for a great part. Why else were most slaves forbidden to learn to read or write, let alone read or own a book for example? Not only did the secessionists (if that's a word) have to believe they were superior, they tried to make sure they actually were.

irihapeti wrote: there are any number of reasons, and ways, for how a person becomes the first teacher hate, envy, lust, avarice, to name some And still I strongly believe there is something far more fundamental, an instinct, not affected by reason or experience. Racism can be triggered by all the examples you gave, but in no way do I think it explains the "seed" I was talking about earlier. about superiority after an act of enslavement this form of superiority comes with hierarchy (is not the same thing as a belief of superiority. Is a real thing) Enslaved or employed. Ill-treated or well-treated. There is a boss in a hierarchy a hierachial boss whos orders we are compelled to follow, or suffer the consequences whatever they may be. Heavy for slaves. Light for employees. Somewhere in between for indentured servants They aren't the same, but under certain circumstances, one will lead to the other. ________ On your other post I come back because I do not agree with how you see racism. I think your view that racism is based on anything else than something that's rooted inside everyone of us simply is not true. You give the human kind far too much credit in my opinion by stripping it from all animal instincts. We're not all that rational, which makes us a lot more fun, but also very dangerous. I'd like to add one final thing to the whole superiority (and (connected) human lack of ratio) discussion, one that most people can relate to: consider the fact that the vast majority of drivers think they are better than average. (Interesting to see that the numbers I found, differ by country btw). I do not have any slaver or slave ancestors. Like you, even if my ancestors were one or the other, I wouldn't have the need to justify their motives to understand myself better, let alone to excuse myself for any feelings I might have. (I'm not saying I have racist feelings, but I certainly could have them.) I do think looking back at history is needed to understand the present as a whole, to understand human nature.

irihapeti wrote: you posit: "if we are taught/raised to be racist then who taught the ancestor". The seeming First Teacher dilemna consider: "I am racist. My father did not teach me this, nor did his father or his father before him" I am the first teacher. I taught myself Exactly. So one can become racist without being taught to be one, there has to be a different basis. Now we're back where we were a couple of pages ago. i didnt mean to imply a love of equality (between two equals). I meant the love that a doyen has which I mentioned. I love my slave. I love my horse. I love my dog, etc If a "doyen" would truely love his slave, he'd ask what he or she would want. (If that same doyen would ask his horse that, he'd have to stop drinking) the grounds that are left when the feeling of superiority is taken out, are things like economic. Which we have discussed earlier. I enslave you for the cheap labour I can obtain, etc That might be the case, but the second the person is enslaved, the superiority situation is back. So following this logic, there can be the act of enslavement without a feeling of superiority, but there can't be slavery.

irihapeti wrote: your question: "How else can it be explained that people embrace others they have thought less of when they actually get to meet, know and understand them?" the answer you have given yourself, it lies in the predicate: "When raised with racist beliefs" This would imply racism is (purely) based on "education", which in turn would mean that it is something one learns from their ancestors. Then the following question remains: who taught the ancestor? I think racism is far more fundamental. turn your question into a statement: "I dont know you or your kind, and bc I dont know you then I fear you, and bc I fear you then I am a racist. Now that I know you and no longer fear you then I am not a racist" You're taking some leaps in that statement, I'd rephrase it in the line of: I don't know you or your kind. You're entering the space I occupy. I like the space I occupy the way it is. You probably have other ideas of how my space should be. The way I made my space to be works for me, so it's good. Since you want it to look otherwise, I'm sure it will be worse. My ideas were good, your ideas are probably worse. Then you could take the next small but important step: Since my ideas are good and yours are not, I'm better than you. To break this line of thought, all one has to do is consider the intentions of the other and evaluate them objectively. if this was to hold for all then every racist who meets and comes to know the target of their racism would stop being a racist. Which is not always the case Even though it might not always be the case, it's often the case. Outspoken racists are so convinced they will not pick up any positives from an encounter, they don't give themselves a chance to. "Common" prejudice and the resulting racism is often broken this way though, together with some self reflection. "These people are lazy!" "These people are dumb!" "These people are filthy!" the connection of racism and slavery consider: "I have got to know and understand you. I love you and all of your race. In no way at all do I consider your people to be inferior to me or mine. I embrace you. You are the perfect slave and I am very happy and blessed that you are mine" from this we can conclude that slavery doesnt come out of racism racism tho can be used as a justification for slavery. Which is how it was used in the Old South and in other parts of the world, as a justification for keeping slaves. There may be other rationales also. A economic rationale for example as you mentioned before. However that there are, racism still was a justification for this I don't think your consideration is one anyone has ever made. People do not enslave people they love (a strong feeling of affection). They might enslave people they feel indifferent to. We can conclude that slavery doesn't neccecarily come out of racism. I'm in total agreement on the latter part. exercise: remove the slave from a slavery equation justified by racism. What can happen? the racism can still remain. The belief in our superiority over them we can just as easily enslave our own kind. And we have at times. And we can justify this by our belief in our superiority over them. On grounds other than racism Agreed next exercise: remove the belief of superiority from a slavery equation what happens? You are still my slave If superiority is taken from the equation, there is no ground left for slavery. There is no logic in the following: You are my equal, now you do what I have to say. it doesnt matter to the slave, how the slaver might feel about it same with the target of racism. How the racist feels isnt what concerns the target. What concerns the target is the impact on them from being targetted. They just want it to stop Obviously. Blurred by time and probably censored by the previous generation of Southern slaves to protect their children emotionally, this page shows a collection of narratives from the 1930's about Southern slavery. It doesn't paint a pretty picture.

irihapeti wrote: on the first. nitpicking. and your view that racism and supremacy are different things you are nitpicking with the contributors to the Oxford dictionary I use the term "racism" in its most theoretical form. "the fact that there are racial differences". (and making choices based on that). Since (I think) I explained that earlier, it's hard to believe you can't see why I don't classify the term equal to supremacy. "Racism" as defined by most dictionaries is the same as (racial) "supremacy", clearly. I'll stop using the term in that way, but still feel there is a difference. about your additions to the "3 guys" proof showing that racism is not a product of fear what your additions show are confirmations of the proof. Your additions also support the statement: "racism is a product of choice". So we are agreed on that also since we started this part of the convo , you have abandoned all of your opening assertions about the origin of racism. Further you refuted these yourself, both philosophically and actually, in the arguments you made "Fear" is a feeling, "choosing" is an action. The action is based on the feeling, it doesn't exclude or replace it in any way. So yes I agree that racism is a choice, although I strongly feel that it's not a choice easily made. When raised with racist beliefs, the choice to not be racist is a lot harder than when you aren't. To see a race as equal, if all the signs tell you that they are inferior (poor, dirty, uneducated, which was the case in the Southern States) is not as obvious as one would like it to be. I am still convinced that racism is based on fear of the unknown. How else can it be explained that people embrace others they have thought less of when they actually get to meet, know and understand them? you nitpicking this one also as well "Is the slave unsure of their own intentions or of the slaver's intentions." you keep avoiding addressing what I asked. To consider your philosophical position on Old South slavery from the slaves pov so far all you have said on this: "The slave never had any intentions on slavery, he was forced into a certain role" a slave statement: "My enslavement is an evil enacted on me by you. That you feel it is unfair to be compared to a genocider doesnt make me not your slave" if you have a philosophical argument for or against this statement then I be interested to hear it I avoid nothing, as I said your question wasn't clear to me... and it still isn't.

irihapeti wrote: this part you wrote: "Making a distinction based on race is by definition racism" no it isnt. If you say to me: "you are Maori", then you have made a distinction. You are not being racist. You are making a factual statement. Is true. I am But yes it certainly is. Racism is the act of acknowledging there's a difference, based on race. It might be nitpicking over a term, that's why I added the motivations for crossing the street in your example. I can add another example. You walk down the street and see 10 people waiting for the bus. Or you walk down the street and see three caucasians, two muslims, three elderly, a Mets fan, and a skater waiting for the bus. Racism is not the same as supremacy, which would be a step further. Supremacy would be where one puts ones race above the other, which is what happened in both the Southern States and in nazi Germany. Probably even more so in the U.S., since the blacks were viewed as inferior, the Jews above all as a threat to society. my point is that when a slaver is unsure of the motivations and rationales of their intentions, it doesnt follow that the slave is also unsure Still not clear to me, in two ways. Is the slave unsure of their own intentions or of the slaver's intentions? The slaver always knew why he did what he did: "blacks are inferior, they need to work for us". The slave never had any intentions on slavery, he was forced into a certain role.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: No, the 32% number was in November 1932 - in March 1933 after the Reichstag fire the Nazis polled 43% - according to the article you quoted, no less. I suspect that public opinion in Germany under Hitler was similar to Russia under Vladimir Putin. He was pretty popular with the general population. Must be the weekend, I got those numbers mixed up indeed. Nevertheless, after wiping out the competition, 43% isn't exactly convincing. (Please don't start another comparison with the Hitler regime, this one is even farther fetched ..not going to comment on that at all) Most of my post was made before I found out about the Madagascar Plan. This would indicate that even during World War II the Nazis weren't always planning on killing all the Jews as part of their underlying philosophy - they just killed six million people because it was, well, the most convenient thing for them to do at the time. Still horrifying, of course. Maybe even moreso. The Madagaskar plan points out how deluded the regime was. The nazis went from removing civil rights, to deportation to extinction. The overall picture is, just as in the way Hitler took power, it quickly went from bad to worse (to unbelievable). It was a matter of pushing and pushing and pushing the boundaries of an initial insane idea. I'll add this quote by the minister of propaganda: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels I get your point about extermination not being the initial way of treating the Jews. I won't deny that, there are far better examples than the plan you mention. But looking back at history it feels like the Final Solution was the only logical outcome of nazi Germany. It certainly was not in their party program.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: The Nazis didn't "force the entire nation to march along," at least before the start of World War II. They were elected and formed a government using legal means, and then due to a [possibly staged] incident the German parliament gave Hitler dictatorial powers. One reason is that the Nazis didn't publically identify themself as being against groups, but by being pro-German. Obviously Hitler was extremely anti-Jew, as were some of the rest of the Nazi power structure, but a lot of the rest of Germany just went along. The more strident anti-Jewish literature like Der Stuermer was looked on as a joke even by many in the Nazi party itself. I'm not sure the Holocaust would have happened the way it did if there hadn't been the war because it would have just been so conspicuous in peacetime no matter how much things were hidden. I could easily see the Jews forcibly removed from the country but the majority of Germans probably woudn't have supported wholesale slaughter if they'd known about it. In the federal elections of 1932 and 1933 the nazis got 38% and 32% of the votes, both a win, but not enough to form a government. Note the decline in votes. Also note that the decline in votes was after the reichstag fire, resulting in the Reichstag Fire Decree, together with the Article 48 in turn resulting in the arrests of many of the political nazi opponents. So one might argue how fair those elections actually were. I found this page which explains it all quite well. In 1934, Von Hindenburg threatened to end Hitler's government if the S.A. wasn't disbanded, in fear of the S.A. taking over the army, which was under Von Hindenburg's direct control. Hitler took this opportunity to arrest and kill 150-200 of the senior members of the S.A., (the Night of the Long Knives) which was also a threat to Hitler's nazi party. Under the dictatorship of Hitler, from 1934 onwards, it was "you're with us or you're against us", the first concentration camps were built in 1933. The Gestapo was formed in 1933. The above has "forcing the entire nation to march along" written all over it if you ask me, long before the start of the war. There is no chance there wouldn't have been a war. The entire nazi nation was built around expansion. Hitler, blaming the "Jew bankers" of capitalism, was not exactly shy of issuing IOU's, ones that could only be paid for by funds and resources not available in Germany. This system was of course the reason Hitler got as much support as he did in the mid 30's. He pretty much ended unemployment completely overnight and got the economy going. However it wasn't a system that was sustainable for more than a handful of years. I already talked about how it was the regime, not the population responsible for the extermination of Jews, although in my mind it's not possible that they were completely ignorant of what was going on.

irihapeti wrote: on the first and so to are the slavers intentions, rationales and motivations, from the victims pov. The victim of the slaver is fully aware of the slavers intentions, motivations and rationales. The victims dont accept these as being valid but it is crystal clear to them what these are You kind of lost me on this one earlier., but you have completely lost me now. your other assertion you made earlier. That racism is borne from fear. That bc we are fearful of those we dont know then from this we can conclude that we are all seeded with racism is trivial provable that this is not the case i am walking down the street, alone after dark. There are 3 rather large guys standing on the footpath drinking beers. I go hmmm! I dunno these guys. I am a bit fearful, so I cross the street and walk down the other side. Bc I am fearful then the assertion follows that I am racist when they are not the same tribe as me. And I am not racist when they are the same tribe as me, yet I am still fearful bc I dont know them I did not say that. I said people make distinctions. I (as did you) mentioned "the other tribe". Whether this "tribe" is of a different race or not is not relevant to me. The fact is, people make distinctions, irrational as they may be. Distinctions between sports teams, between sexes, between ages, between food preference. Making a distinction based on race is by definition racism. Being a bit distressed about "three large guys drinking beer" is rather rational if you ask me, no matter what race they are. If they are white, you were anxious because they were large and were drinking beer. If they were black, you were anxious because they were large and were drinking beer. (If they were your friends, your "tribe", you would have walked over and greeted them) If you would walk right past them because they were white and not if they were black (or the other way around), that would have been a racist action.

irihapeti wrote: given a victimizer first approach, then we can easy enough dissemble the motivations and rationales of the victimzer. Not so easy when we take the victim first approach I think nazi intentions, motivations and rationales are crystal clear. so we agree that racism isnt a product of an unknown property I don't see how you read that in my comment, I did say it is rather irrelevant in this discussion, since one way or the other, it means there's a seed for racism in every human being. The mere fact that we are both talking about the other tribe, means we make a distinction: us and them.

Not sure if it's still an option, but in the past you could download your own creations from SL (in Firestorm and Singularity?) and open them in a 3d editor. If that's (still) the case, you could build over the existing prims with new prims and export that to have a perfect base for your mesh object(s). It's a bit shady concerning copyright laws, so you might want to ask the original creator of the objects if you are allowed to do so.

irihapeti wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: [...] It is a big leap from "we are not equal" to " you are a pest to society and you need to be exterminated" Certainly not the same ideology. i just jump back in here bc you mention me i think that where we at cross purposes is that you are addressing the outcomes of the two situations and I am more addressing the philosophical basis that lead to these outcomes Both slavery and the holocaust have terrible outcomes with a world of grief for the victims, their descendants and society as a whole. I have no way of measuring that grief, nor does anyone else. The basis of both "ideologies", as I see them, are in the quote above. The fact that one can lead to the other doesn't make them equal. if you had a choice: be enslaved until you die, or die now, which would you choose? Or if view this as a 3rd-party which would be the lesser of the two evils? [...] there is no choice for the objects of their intentions. Both these evils begin with the removal of choice Since we're talking about the ideology here, not the outcome, I think you approach the situation completely backwards. It's not about the victim, it's about the aggressor. we fear the other tribe, one we have not previously met, bc of what they might be able to do us We dont fear them bc of what is unknown, we fear them bc of what is known to us based on our past experience with other groups we have encountered we dont fear the unknown, we just go carefully racism doesnt come out of fear of the unknown. It comes out of fear of the known We don't know what the "other tribe" wants to do to us. We don't know their intentions, we don't know their motives. I call that unknown. Of course I can't prove it, but I am pretty sure that a certain group that has never encountered another group, will normally react with at least hesitation when they are faced with an unknown group. Even if it's not the case (and in history we can see some very naive encounters), whether racism is based on the known or unknown, it's still part of society or human nature, originated in self/group preservation.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: In the slaver's mind it is their right to prosper on the loss of others. In the mind of a nazi, it's fine to commit genocide without any valid reason. That is exactly the point people are trying to make. In many minds the people waving the confederate flag would like nothing more than to see blacks wiped off the face of the earth, or removed from the US at the least. Which makes them just as bad if not worse than the Nazis as they are spouting about racial purity when they aren't pure themselves. You aren't making the discussion any clearer by bringing in two new groups, on top of white slavers and post civil war Southern politicians. You bring in people with an opinion about others waving the Confederate battle flag and people waving that flag, saying they want to get rid of African Americans altogether. That last group is rather small and can be charactarised as "hate group", which is not at all the same as white "supremacy groups". (U.S. law doesn't seperate "hate crimes" from other crimes without a reason.) The first is more closely related to the nazis than the latter, which is closer to the 19th century South. I completely fail to understand how you can compare any of those groups to the nazis, let alone conclude they are worse than the nazis. As far as I know, most hate groups have their origins in prison, not in politics. Their wish may be white United States, but I do not see they have any plans or opportunity to actually turn that wish into reality. Nor do they terrorise the entire nation, forcing that nation to march along, on a path to destruction. I have never heard about big plans about genocide on Africans and their descendants. If anything, they seem to deny it ever happened in nazi Germany. Having a certain wish (a white America) is not the same as creating a dictatorship with the main goal being the destruction of an entire race. They would never have succeeded, but with about 1/3rd of the race as they defined it exterminated, they were well on their way.

congrats! EDIT..ah now I see the other thread, well maybe "the land of the free" will have some actual freedom in the future then, a good step into that direction...

Theresa Tennyson wrote: The slaveowners of the Confederate States of America felt what they were doing was right, but they knew significant numbers of people in the United States thought it was wrong. It had been like this for the entire history of the United States as a nation. In the leadup to the American Civil War Northern politicians took steps, not to end slavery in the South, but to prevent its becoming established in the new territories of the West. This was one of the major bones of contention that led to thoughts of secession in the South. This is very relevant in my discussion with Dres. I wouldn't say the Southerners couldn't know they were "wrong". They had the entire North to point out there were other beliefs. The master/slave relationship is based on the concept that the slave is inferior to the master. If whites didn't see blacks as inferior, why were they used as slaves? Granted, the blacks weren't the only group seen as inferior, but they certainly were seen that way. They did see the blacks as inferior, I never stated otherwise. The Nazis weren't the first group to commit genocide - for instance, the Ottoman Turks systematically killed off all the Armenians they could get their hands on in 1915. Does that mean that Nazi Germany wasn't "based" on killing Jews? I don't see what you are trying to say. There have been numerous accounts of genocide in the 20th century alone.(although never as systematic as in nazi Germany). The Jews were held responsible for the Versailles treaty and for the economic situation in the 1920's and '30s. Nazi ideology was based (among other things) on "evacuating" the Jews for this reason, they were supposedly to blame for everything that was wrong with Germany.

Dresden wrote: I see. In other words, the entirety of southern white slave owners are entirely innocent of the atrocities they've committed. Lovely. Again, no.... ...but there are mitigating factors.