Race - A Giant Middle Finger to Nazi Germany

[ExileNZ]

"Hitler didn't snub me. It was our president who snubbed me" he said months after the Games. The president didn't even send me a telegram."

The reason the movie feels bland is that it's based on a myth. Owens maintained until his death (in his autobiography) that he received far better treatment in Berlin than he did in the United States. He died in poverty.

Came here to say exactly this. If the film is a middle finger to Nazi Germany, it's taking a jab at the wrong racist regime.

 

[Lightspeaker]

That's fair. The Treaty of Versailles was a massive, unbelievable mistake (which I believe the US delegation argued against during the proceedings). Punishing Germany so harshly, especially when the war was really kinda Serbia and Hungary's fault more than anything, was ridiculous and it certainly played a part in eventually bringing about World War II. Although you can't put the entire blame on the Treaty of Versailles either.

Oh quite, books can and have been written on the causes of WW2, there's tons more than just blaming one particular thing. It was a perfect storm of things piling up until the entire world just broke, basically. It also wasn't helped by the fact that war had been a totally normal situation between developed European nations for thousands of years, a war breaking out was just another in a long line of them. However the scale of it ended up totally different thanks to advances in technology.

As far as the Treaty of Versailles goes...its been a while since I've done any hobbyist history reading on it but I seem to recall it being France pushing the hardest for it, because they wanted revenge.

 

[rcs619]

That's fair. The Treaty of Versailles was a massive, unbelievable mistake (which I believe the US delegation argued against during the proceedings). Punishing Germany so harshly, especially when the war was really kinda Serbia and Hungary's fault more than anything, was ridiculous and it certainly played a part in eventually bringing about World War II. Although you can't put the entire blame on the Treaty of Versailles either.

Oh quite, books can and have been written on the causes of WW2, there's tons more than just blaming one particular thing. It was a perfect storm of things piling up until the entire world just broke, basically. It also wasn't helped by the fact that war had been a totally normal situation between developed European nations for thousands of years, a war breaking out was just another in a long line of them. However the scale of it ended up totally different thanks to advances in technology.

As far as the Treaty of Versailles goes...its been a while since I've done any hobbyist history reading on it but I seem to recall it being France pushing the hardest for it, because they wanted revenge.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember that about France too. Part of it was revenge, part of it was their desire to prevent Germany from being able to build up a big enough military to threaten them again, hence all the military restrictions put into the deal. In France's defense, Germany had basically been invading them every couple decades or so for most of recent history, and the French did suffer horrible, unbelievable losses during the war. Literal mountains of corpses. But yeah.

I forget the specifics, but the US was against a lot of the harsher aspects of it, to the point where we never even signed the damned thing (a peace treaty we were involved with throughout the whole process).

What ever happened to Austria-Hungary and Serbia anyway? As much as people talk about what the treaty did to Germany, I can't for the life of me remember if/how the two nations who started the whole damned mess were punished.

 

[Darth_Payn]

That's fair. The Treaty of Versailles was a massive, unbelievable mistake (which I believe the US delegation argued against during the proceedings). Punishing Germany so harshly, especially when the war was really kinda Serbia and Hungary's fault more than anything, was ridiculous and it certainly played a part in eventually bringing about World War II. Although you can't put the entire blame on the Treaty of Versailles either.

Oh quite, books can and have been written on the causes of WW2, there's tons more than just blaming one particular thing. It was a perfect storm of things piling up until the entire world just broke, basically. It also wasn't helped by the fact that war had been a totally normal situation between developed European nations for thousands of years, a war breaking out was just another in a long line of them. However the scale of it ended up totally different thanks to advances in technology.

As far as the Treaty of Versailles goes...its been a while since I've done any hobbyist history reading on it but I seem to recall it being France pushing the hardest for it, because they wanted revenge.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember that about France too. Part of it was revenge, part of it was their desire to prevent Germany from being able to build up a big enough military to threaten them again, hence all the military restrictions put into the deal. In France's defense, Germany had basically been invading them every couple decades or so for most of recent history, and the French did suffer horrible, unbelievable losses during the war. Literal mountains of corpses. But yeah.

I forget the specifics, but the US was against a lot of the harsher aspects of it, to the point where we never even signed the damned thing (a peace treaty we were involved with throughout the whole process).

What ever happened to Austria-Hungary and Serbia anyway? As much as people talk about what the treaty did to Germany, I can't for the life of me remember if/how the two nations who started the whole damned mess were punished.

Austria-Hungary was broken up into Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, and I think a few more nation-states whose names I forget now.
OT: RACE is a tad late for this year's Oscar nominations. Better luck next year! And it turned into being about Hitler's propagandist, whose name I can't spell to save my life? Why not just make a movie that was all about her, then?

 

[FirstNameLastName]

It's like telling the story of Alan Turing (a man who helped win freaking WWII by breaking open the nazi's encryption technology) without mentioning that he would later be chemically castrated by the british government because he was a homosexual (which was a *crime* at the time). Oh wait... I'm pretty sure some of the movies they've made about Turing don't actually mention the part where he was forcibly sterilized by his own government.

Difference was Owens was sadly a victim of discrimination in this country. Turing broke the law and had to face the consequences. Breaking a law and getting punished =/= discrimination.

Yep, your heard it here first folks; discrimination ceases to be discrimination once it's codified into law and explicitly carried out by the government.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Difference was Owens was sadly a victim of discrimination in this country. Turing broke the law and had to face the consequences. Breaking a law and getting punished =/= discrimination.

It does when the law is inherently discriminatory. Just because something is the law at one particular point in history doesn't mean that it can't also be discriminatory and morally objectionable.

A law is only discriminatory if what it aims to get rid of is something that can not be helped, or if the law is based on illogical assumptions or is otherwise based on racism or other discriminatory practices.
The law Turing broke was did not fall into any of the above categories.
There are laws in every country for the betterment of all that can be seen as discriminatory to certain people but are not because they stop behavior or actions that are to the detriment of the species. For instance there are laws in every country I assume against rapist behavior and against theft and against murder. Those laws can be seen as discriminatory to rapists, thieves, and murderers however because the laws in question are to stop behavior and actions that are to the detriment of others and to the species they are ok. The law Turing broke was in fact much the same way as it was designed purely from the perspective of stopping behavior that is detrimental to other people, society, and the species. And as already said he could have just chose not to break the law. He did. Ergo what happened to him was justified and was not in any way discriminatory. A law is a law and so long as it is not illogical or based in racism it should be upheld.

How exactly does sterilizing homosexuals help society?

 

[Amaror]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember that about France too. Part of it was revenge, part of it was their desire to prevent Germany from being able to build up a big enough military to threaten them again, hence all the military restrictions put into the deal. In France's defense, Germany had basically been invading them every couple decades or so for most of recent history, and the French did suffer horrible, unbelievable losses during the war. Literal mountains of corpses. But yeah.

Well, France had invaded Germany right back usually. The two countries pretty much hated each other and passed the same few provinces back and forth over and over again.
But this is again just one of the parts that shows how truly messy WW1 and WW2 truly were. The individual behaviour of the different countries was often, if not reasonable, at least somewhat understandable and it was mostly the combination of all those behaviours clashing with each other and happening in rapid sucession that caused things to get as f***ed up as they were. Both with WW1 and Versailes.

Edit: To avoid misunderstanding, I am not saying the actions of nazi germany were reasonable or understandable, I am mainly talking about all the mess before nazi germany.

 

[rcs619]

Difference was Owens was sadly a victim of discrimination in this country. Turing broke the law and had to face the consequences. Breaking a law and getting punished =/= discrimination.

It does when the law is inherently discriminatory. Just because something is the law at one particular point in history doesn't mean that it can't also be discriminatory and morally objectionable.

A law is only discriminatory if what it aims to get rid of is something that can not be helped, or if the law is based on illogical assumptions or is otherwise based on racism or other discriminatory practices.
The law Turing broke was did not fall into any of the above categories.

There are laws in every country for the betterment of all that can be seen as discriminatory to certain people but are not because they stop behavior or actions that are to the detriment of the species. For instance there are laws in every country I assume against rapist behavior and against theft and against murder. Those laws can be seen as discriminatory to rapists, thieves, and murderers however because the laws in question are to stop behavior and actions that are to the detriment of others and to the species they are ok. The law Turing broke was in fact much the same way as it was designed purely from the perspective of stopping behavior that is detrimental to other people, society, and the species. And as already said he could have just chose not to break the law. He did. Ergo what happened to him was justified and was not in any way discriminatory. A law is a law and so long as it is not illogical or based in racism it should be upheld.

How exactly does sterilizing homosexuals help society?

That's what I was going to ask. And not just sterilizing homosexuals, but putting them on a hormone treatment to specifically try and destroy their libido as well (which I'm sure does lovely things to a person's internal chemistry).

A law is only discriminatory if what it aims to get rid of is something that can not be helped

It was a law criminalizing homosexual behavior. Homosexuality isn't actually a choice, no more than heterosexuality. It's all about how stuff is wired in the brain and body-chemistry. Now, bisexuals, that's kindasorta a choice. They can't help that they are attracted to both sexes, but they can choose which one to be with at any given time.

or if the law is based on illogical assumptions or is otherwise based on racism or other discriminatory practices.

Assuming that homosexuals are such a danger to society/so wrong/so indecent that their behavior needs to be criminalized.

For instance there are laws in every country I assume against rapist behavior and against theft and against murder. Those laws can be seen as discriminatory to rapists, thieves, and murderers however because the laws in question are to stop behavior and actions that are to the detriment of others and to the species they are ok.

...Please tell me you aren't comparing homosexuality (and you know what, let's stick up for the bisexuals here too, since so few people do) to rape, murder or theft. That would be an excessively dumb argument to make.

The law Turing broke was in fact much the same way as it was designed purely from the perspective of stopping behavior that is detrimental to other people, society, and the species.

I'd love to hear the explanation for how the hell an intimate relationship (and maybe a bit of sex) between two consenting adults is ever going to detriment any other single person? Much less the species. To the point where it needs to be made a crime, and also to the point where chemical castration and forced hormone therapy is in any way a sane punishment.

And as already said he could have just chose not to break the law

Right. Just don't be gay. Or bisexual. Okay then

 

[rcs619]

Honestly that was an outcome to the case that should not have happened and probably would not have happened had Turing not done a lot during WW2.

Literally helped defeat the nazis, cut years off the war and saveed thousands of lives. Yeah, "a lot."

What should have happened and what would have happened to anyone not famous is a mandatory life in prison sentence or execution. That crime should have been treated the same as that of the most severe sexual crimes as that is essentially what Turing was guilty of.

Wow. Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.

That'll teach people to be born with something that doesn't actually impact anyone else besides them and whoever they decide to share their bed with. I was giving you way, waaaaaaay too much benefit of the doubt. So we've already jumped to state-enforced executions?

Just to tie it all back, you know who else really loved the idea of imprisoning and executing all gay people? The goddamned nazis. Maybe, just maybe you might be on the wrong side of this issue, lol.

As to the original point of how it helps society it gets rid of genetic dead ends and people who will and have had an undesirable effect on the history and future of mankind. And that is not getting into the whole eliminating a large percentage of all rapists, molesters, and std carriers that that group of people just so happens to entail.

Alan Turing, as mentioned before, literally helped defeat the nazis. He is also considered the father of artificial-intelligence research, among a ton of other computer stuff I don't know much about. Such an undesirable effect.

Yes, because most gays and bisexuals are also rapists and child molesters too. I'm surprised you didn't fit bestiality in there somewhere.

As to the original point of how it helps society it gets rid of genetic dead ends

Oh lord. Please. Pleeeeeeease tell me you are also a supporter of eugenics as well. If you're using that kind of logic, you've got to be a support of eugenics in some form or another. Now I gotta know, lol.

I really hope you're trolling. Because if you aren't... man, I worry for ya.

 

[rcs619]

1. There is no proof that you are born gay. There is also no proof it is a choice..

Well, you could ask gay people (or bisexuals, since they would be just as dead under your ideal laws). Most of them sure don't feel like they ever had a choice. No more than you had a choice to (I assume) be attracted to women.

2. State enforced executions are ok depending on who gets executed and for what reasons.

Ehh... debatable. In the most extreme cases where you can be *100% sure* you got the right guy. Maybe. But that's a whole other debate.

3. Meh so the nazis did 1 thing good. Still does not stop the fact they were mass murdering racists. You know another group who are usually insanely wrong yet treat gays how they should be? Most muslim countries. Yet there are few people who would argue those countries are good.

Wow. Wooooooooooooooow.

So not only do you support a key tennant of nazism (the state-sponsored execution/imprisonment of groups you don't like for completely arbitrary reasons), but you also support extreme religious fundamentalism too (the treatment of gays by muslim fundamentalists goes back to the same religious tracts fundamentalist christians and jews use to justify the same).

4. Most generally are or at the least have the urge to be pedophiles, molesters, and rapists.

Major. Maaaaajor citation needed there. That's not the kind of blanket statement you can just claim as fact.

I look forward to hearing how you feel when someone you care about deeply turns out to be gay or bisexual. Statistically speaking, at least someone you know is. I'm sure they'd love to hear about how you think they should be executed

5. Yes I support eugenics.

He shoots, he scores! Man, you're a mess of terrible ideas.

So do you consider blowjobs and heterosexual anal to be worthy of a death-sentence too? Because technically those are also sodomy according to the (I'm assuming, so I could be wrong here) fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts that you probably subscribe to. You don't ever see fundies bring up blowjobs when they try to pass sodomy laws. Funny how that works out.

 

[GundamSentinel]

I look forward to hearing how you feel when someone you care about deeply turns out to be gay or bisexual. Statistically speaking, at least someone you know is. I'm sure they'd love to hear about how you think they should be executed

So do you consider blowjobs and heterosexual anal to be worthy of a death-sentence too? Because technically those are also sodomy according to the (I'm assuming, so I could be wrong here) fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts that you probably subscribe to. You don't ever see fundies bring up blowjobs when they try to pass sodomy laws. Funny how that works out.

1. Disown them. If my kid (assuming I ever have a kid which I wont because I hate children) I will go on either a hunting trip or deep sea fishing trip.

2. I have not brought up religion at all except in pointing out that the extreme muslim nations do something surprisingly right. My view here are not based on religion. As said the actions needed against gays are to help society, preserve, get rid of a lot of known and potential criminals and std carriers, help humanity, and get rid of genetic dead ends. My views espoused so far are from primarily the desire to better humanity no matter the cost no matter the means. In order for humanity to take the next step towards our maximum potential we need to do this for the betterment of all. And of course gays are not the only ones needing to go. Known insane people, drug addicts, rapists, people with debilitating genetic physical deformities all need to be expunged from the gene pool. And I say this as one of those aforementioned insane people. However I for the betterment of all future generations do not spread my inferior genetics around. Sadly though most of humanity does not have that level of self control and must either be killed or at the very least castrated for the betterment of future generations and to allow us a chance to reach our potential as a species.

Soooo, you basically are a nazi? Good to know.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Soooo, you basically are a nazi? Good to know.

Nazis discriminated due to race. I am not a racist. I even said what happened to Owens and African Americans was not justified and what the nazis did to jews was not justified. Ergo I'm not a nazi.

Nazis discriminated based on everything that didn't fit the 'master race', including homosexuals, mentally and physically disabled people, whatever. Racism was only a part of it. Not being racist, but still supporting eugenics in its most disgusting form still makes you a nazi, I'm afraid.

 

[kimiyoribaka]

While I think Jesse Owens' story is worth remembering, this is another movie telling a story that I don't think is best told as a movie. No matter how interesting a moment in history is, there's no guarantee a good movie can be made out of it while sticking to what really happened.

As to the original point of how it helps society it gets rid of genetic dead ends and people who will and have had an undesirable effect on the history and future of mankind.

Putting aside how subjective this point is (and thus how inappropriate it is as a basis for criminal law), have you ever heard of the concept of the "population bomb"? As far as I've been informed by acquaintances educated in biology (not a subject I know well myself), homosexuality tends to occur whenever a species would naturally benefit from it. On top of that, the concept of genetic "dead ends" could apply to the entirety of humanity. Homo Sapiens stopped evolving a long time ago, due to having tools that can evolve for us. In that sense, Turing was a prime example of a person benefiting the history and future of mankind.

 

[rcs619]

Putting aside how subjective this point is (and thus how inappropriate it is as a basis for criminal law), have you ever heard of the concept of the "population bomb"? As far as I've been informed by acquaintances educated in biology (not a subject I know well myself), homosexuality tends to occur whenever a species would naturally benefit from it. On top of that, the concept of genetic "dead ends" could apply to the entirety of humanity. Homo Sapiens stopped evolving a long time ago, due to having tools that can evolve for us. In that sense, Turing was a prime example of a person benefiting the history and future of mankind.

To be fair, anatomically modern humans only appeared about 200,000 years ago. In terms of evolutionary time, that's almost nothing. Nothing ever really stops evolving, it just slows down depending on environmental circumstances and genetics of that specific creatures. Even modern-day 'living fossils' do show some small differences from their ancient cousins. The changes are slight in those cases, but they are there.

As for how the advent of ever-increasing technology will affect human evolution, that's really anyone's guess. We are a unique case in all of Earth's biological history afterall. Considering how rapidly our technology and understanding of science advances, my money is on us inducing some sort of artificial form of evolution (be it transhumanism, crazy future-genetics, or something else) long before nature gets the chance to do it through natural means.

But yeah, while I am all for trying to gradually improve the species through advances in genetics and medicine (gogo Team Science!), eugenics has been nothing but an abominable failure in the past. Things like 'genetic purity' and what is 'best for the species' are entirely subjective (and usually have immense amounts of personal bias behind them).

 

[Lightspeaker]

Well, France had invaded Germany right back usually. The two countries pretty much hated each other and passed the same few provinces back and forth over and over again.
But this is again just one of the parts that shows how truly messy WW1 and WW2 truly were. The individual behaviour of the different countries was often, if not reasonable, at least somewhat understandable and it was mostly the combination of all those behaviours clashing with each other and happening in rapid sucession that caused things to get as f***ed up as they were. Both with WW1 and Versailes.

Edit: To avoid misunderstanding, I am not saying the actions of nazi germany were reasonable or understandable, I am mainly talking about all the mess before nazi germany.

Again though, it wasn't just France and Germany fighting. That was just the normal situation here in Europe for literally thousands of years. Basically every major European power that has ever existed has/had been at each others throats for hundreds upon hundreds of years in some cases. Hell, in one of the most significant examples the only reason the United States of America even EXISTS as a country is because the French decided the best way to annoy the British and undermine their overseas power as revenge for losing a previous war was to support the rebellion in the colonies; which resulted in a more or less global war against Britain by France, Spain and the Netherlands as well as the rebellions going on just a couple of hundred years ago.

I actually have a book (fascinating historical read by the way, and very funny) called "1000 Years of Annoying the French" which is all about Anglo-French relations for the past thousand years. Even in the very late 19th century the French Empire and British Empire were getting thoroughly angry with each other over various colonial issues and nearly came to blows. Of course the unification of Germany changed things a bit, then they started being viewed as the new and upcoming threat as "the new empire on the block" so to speak.

WW1 was truly...I don't want to use the word 'special' but I can't find a better one...something anyway. Because the rapid progress in technology coupled with people trying to adapt to said technology resulted in the most brutal war that anyone had ever experienced to that point. But politically it was handled pretty much the same way every prior war had been handled. Which meant a lot of resentment, etc etc.

Then you get to WW2, which that political handling had a significant influence on starting, and even further developments in technology and...well we all know how that worked out. No country walked out of that one without a lot of shameful, or at the very least questionable, blood on their hands.

Homo Sapiens stopped evolving a long time ago, due to having tools that can evolve for us.

That...isn't how evolution works...

No, we haven't "stopped evolving". In fact we've changed a hell of a lot since the species first evolved and still are.

 

[monkeymangler]

I look forward to hearing how you feel when someone you care about deeply turns out to be gay or bisexual. Statistically speaking, at least someone you know is. I'm sure they'd love to hear about how you think they should be executed

So do you consider blowjobs and heterosexual anal to be worthy of a death-sentence too? Because technically those are also sodomy according to the (I'm assuming, so I could be wrong here) fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts that you probably subscribe to. You don't ever see fundies bring up blowjobs when they try to pass sodomy laws. Funny how that works out.

1. Disown them. If my kid (assuming I ever have a kid which I wont because I hate children) I will go on either a hunting trip or deep sea fishing trip with them.

2. I have not brought up religion at all except in pointing out that the extreme muslim nations do something surprisingly right. My view here are not based on religion. As said the actions needed against gays are to help society, preserve, get rid of a lot of known and potential criminals and std carriers, help humanity, and get rid of genetic dead ends. My views espoused so far are from primarily the desire to better humanity no matter the cost no matter the means. In order for humanity to take the next step towards our maximum potential we need to do this for the betterment of all. And of course gays are not the only ones needing to go. Known insane people, drug addicts, rapists, people with debilitating genetic physical deformities all need to be expunged from the gene pool. And I say this as one of those aforementioned insane people. However I for the betterment of all future generations do not spread my inferior genetics around. Sadly though most of humanity does not have that level of self control and must either be killed or at the very least castrated for the betterment of future generations and to allow us a chance to reach our potential as a species.

1. So you are implying that you would kill someone you are close to in what appears to be an accident if they are gay? WOW... JUST... WOW...

2.

Alright then. You are entitled to your opinion. I entirely disagree with everything you have posted to this point, but you are free to have your opinion.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

1. Disown them. If my kid (assuming I ever have a kid which I wont because I hate children) I will go on either a hunting trip or deep sea fishing trip with them.

2. I have not brought up religion at all except in pointing out that the extreme muslim nations do something surprisingly right. My view here are not based on religion. As said the actions needed against gays are to help society, preserve, get rid of a lot of known and potential criminals and std carriers, help humanity, and get rid of genetic dead ends. My views espoused so far are from primarily the desire to better humanity no matter the cost no matter the means. In order for humanity to take the next step towards our maximum potential we need to do this for the betterment of all. And of course gays are not the only ones needing to go. Known insane people, drug addicts, rapists, people with debilitating genetic physical deformities all need to be expunged from the gene pool. And I say this as one of those aforementioned insane people. However I for the betterment of all future generations do not spread my inferior genetics around. Sadly though most of humanity does not have that level of self control and must either be killed or at the very least castrated for the betterment of future generations and to allow us a chance to reach our potential as a species.

1. So you'd murder your own child for being gay or bisexual? You should never ever have a child then, because that's definitely within the realm of an unfit parent.

2. Your stance would have killed of geniuses like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. One has a debilitating hereditary disease, the other suffered from anxiety and clinical depression. What you're proposing is not helping humanity reach it's potential, or eliminating genetic dead ends. Not to mention the many many recovered drug and alcohol addicts who have contributed hugely to humanity. You're proposing arbitrary criteria for at minimum sterilization based on personal prejudice. It's prejudices like yours that need to be eradicated, not through violence, or castration, but through education and improved social standards. The things that hold humanity back are clinging to backwards ideas that damage the ability of all members of society to reach their full potential, ideas like the ones you've spouted here.

Also generalizing homosexuals pedophiles, I've got news for you, most pedophiles are heterosexual, they generally date women, with female children, so they can molest the female children. About STIs, funny thing every gay or lesbian person I've ever met was far more careful about who they slept with than their straight counterparts. Every gay and lesbian person I ever met is far more fastidious about being screened for STIs themselves, as well as having their potential partners prove medically they're clean. My straight friends on the other hand aren't nearly that careful, hell they often don't even use protection. The gay community only had the issues it's had with STIs because of horrific social rejection, rejection that caused many in older generations to have unprotected anonymous sex in desperation for any intimate contact. It's no coincidence that such a social environment was caused by people who hold opinions like, well, yours. Potential criminality? Straight people commit more crimes than the gay community, as straight people make up the vast majority of society. Straight folk are more likely to abuse children, commit hate crimes, murders...

When it comes right down to it, your eugenics program ideas always lead to ethnic cleansing too.

So whose ideas are the one harming human potential? Whose side is intentionally holding people of color back, mentally ill, addicts, LGBTQI+ folk, the physically disabled, and so on? Well it's certainly not the side fighting for equality, who are trying to uplift everyone to a higher standard. That will one day cure the genetic illness you worry about, instead of just wiping out genetic lines. The future of humanity requires cooperation, not draconian barbarism that damages every person's potential.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

It's a shame they didn't reserve the other giant middle finger for the United States for its own treatment of Owens. Be surprised if the film mentioned it at any length.

In movieland, everything the U.S. did in the Cold War was justified, the UK never persecuted Turing for being gay, and surely our country didn't treat a black man who stuck it to Nazi Germany in their own capital like shit. The U.S., and by extension it's close allies, never did anything bad in the alternate universe most films occupy.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

2. Anxiety and depression are not genetic ergo Einstein would not have been killed. As I said only genetic conditions whether physical or mental need to be expunged.

I could swear earlier in this thread you said ...

1. There is no proof that you are born gay. There is also no proof it is a choice..

So you aren't born that way ... but it is genetic?
Granted, you also mention there's no proof for the opposite either, so it seems you're saying there's no conclusive proof one way or the other, which raises the obvious question of why you'd be okay with government mandated executions and/or sterilization based on something you admit there's no proof for.

5. Read my posts again. Where have I said anything of wanting to hold people of color back or of being a racist? I explicitly stated numerous times laws based solely on race are wrong and what happened to Owens + all African Americans was horrible and wrong.

You can't really talk about eugenics without the obvious racial problems that come with it. There's a long history of people advocating that we "help" to "improve" humanity's gene pool by cleansing all the "inferior" races. Even if you don't advocate for that, there is plenty of risk of it taking on racial aspects by others. Even if it's not explicit, people's biases and prejudices against other races has the potential to mesh horribly with the power to sterilize "harmful elements".

6. Wiping out all genetic diseases is not stifling potential. It helps to create more potential. No one should be forced to live with insanity. No one should be forced to live with a physically crippled body due to a genetic condition. Getting rid of all those who carry those gene's ability to breed. To wipe out those diseases from all future generations will make mankind better in the long run and help to make almost everyone's potential limitless.

Yep, limitless potential to live under a brutal, totalitarian regime. You're pitching forced eugenics in a naively optimistic light; an idea based on science and rationality, untainted by greed, corruption and personal politics.
If you give the government the power to execute or sterilize anyone they deem to be hazardous to society, and get the public on board with completely dehumanizing these people, do you really think the government is going to be a good enough sport to not simply abuse that power by extending it to any political opponents that might threaten their power?

We'd essentially be handing the government a "build your own dictatorship" kit by throwing away any notion of human rights and allowing them to kill off anyone who is deemed "harmful".

Sorry, but I don't care about your vaguely defined idea of "potential", I'd rather live in a society where I can hold political views without being dragged out into the streets and shot "for the good of our glorious society".

Edit: Not to mention how much this would completely fuck our diplomatic relations with the more sensible countries who haven't thrown human rights out the window. Last time people started cleansing their gene pool we had a world war, and with the number of nuclear armaments laying around, we don't need to be tempting another world war.

 

[Amaror]

Again though, it wasn't just France and Germany fighting. That was just the normal situation here in Europe for literally thousands of years. Basically every major European power that has ever existed has/had been at each others throats for hundreds upon hundreds of years in some cases. Hell, in one of the most significant examples the only reason the United States of America even EXISTS as a country is because the French decided the best way to annoy the British and undermine their overseas power as revenge for losing a previous war was to support the rebellion in the colonies; which resulted in a more or less global war against Britain by France, Spain and the Netherlands as well as the rebellions going on just a couple of hundred years ago.

I actually have a book (fascinating historical read by the way, and very funny) called "1000 Years of Annoying the French" which is all about Anglo-French relations for the past thousand years. Even in the very late 19th century the French Empire and British Empire were getting thoroughly angry with each other over various colonial issues and nearly came to blows. Of course only until the unification of Germany, then they started being viewed as the new and upcoming threat as "the new empire on the block" so to speak.

WW1 was truly...I don't want to use the word 'special' but I can't find a better one...something anyway. Because the rapid progress in technology coupled with people trying to adapt to said technology resulted in the most brutal war that anyone had ever experienced to that point. But politically it was handled pretty much the same way every prior war had been handled. Which meant a lot of resentment, etc etc.

Then you get to WW2, which that political handling had a significant influence on starting, and even further developments in technology and...well we all know how that worked out. No country walked out of that one without a lot of shameful, or at the very least questionable, blood on their hands.

Yeah I know. The only reason I said what I said was that the described justification for France's demands in the peace talks sounded very one-sided(Germany had invaded france so often). It made it sound a bit like Germany had bullied poor, defenseless france for several decades and france was just getting it's revenge, when in reality it was both countries continuesly fighting each other to take revenge for something the other did a few years back.