Written by Upper Management, for Upper Management, who will then use their special Upper Management powers to make this the norm in their businesses, including probably yours.
If I were you, I'd keep reading so that I'd make sure to stay one step ahead of my Upper Management, and keep my job.
Or maybe you think I should have been pulling a 30 kW diesel generator with a Prius?
Oh dear divine meatballs of his Noodlyness, YES! YES, you should have! That would be hysterical, trying to haul that generator in a silent gay spaceship on wheels!
Burning out your tires, engine revving until your pistons pop like zits, or even better, towing said generator downhill (at that point, I think it'd be towing YOU). That'd be classic on Youtube. I'd almost even recommend it... if it didn't involve completely trashing a Toyota AND significant risk to life and limb.
It's because everyone's operational default mode is set to "I am right all of the time". As in, there is no cognition of error at all. Every single one of us on Earth at this exact moment operates under the assumption that everything we see, think, and believe in is "right". No one lives in a state of perpetual error, because error is a reversion of thinking, of being. And it's not a pleasant state to be in.
When you prove someone wrong, from your perspective, you are correcting someone's interpretation of the fact in question. From their perspective, you are rebuking their very existence because up until that moment, they thought they were right. Then they realize that their entire life up until that point was in error. And thus reversion of thinking, and cognitive dissonance.
What you are describing is the attempt of a person who may be wrong to protect his/her ego against the actual accusation of being wrong, by removing the question of whether he/she is wrong to begin with. They will not recognize the authority or the basis of the person making the statement, and like you said, will believe whatever contradictory evidence is offered by someone else regardless of qualification, because they can then retain the belief and thus the existence of being "right".
the problem with the entire AGW argument is that you have two sides motivated to extreme ideological opposition with each other over scientifically gathered factual evidence that is so convoluted and complex that it can sustain multiple different interpretations (much like the competing multiverse hypotheses), and adherents to the different interpretations cannot accept the "Other interpretation" because to do so would mean that their entire invested belief structure, and therefore who they perceive themselves to be, is wrong. And the more you beat down on them, the more fiercely they cling to their beliefs--developing a martyr complex.
Much like how the Millerites of the 1850s watched the repeated failures of their apocalyptic predictions of Judgment day, and then decided to cling to their convictions regardless (becoming the Seventh Day Adventists), we will see further retrenchment of pro- and anti-AGW believers. This has progressed well past the point where anyone can admit their wrong. Now it's dogmatic religion, on both sides. And once it's a religion, it's here to stay.
You are right about the U of Phoenix being taken with a grain of salt, as it rightfully should be. I graduated with my MAED from there right when DoL busted Brian Baker's online boilerroom operation that he turned UoP into. Now granted, I earned my degree, I worked fucking hard for it, and I learned a lot. And it's a bitter pill to swallow to know that I'm now going to be forever associated with the taint of greedy fucking bastards who turned the UoP into a boilerroom operation. I cannot blame people for being leery of us Phoenixes because of what happened. Had I known at the time what was going on, I wouldn't have gone with Phoenix. But I did it because I wanted to learn, and I got the most out of my schooling that I could (just like you said). I wanted to improve my job skills, learn something new, and expand my horizons. It's my hope that employers like you who are experienced and familiar with the real world will recognize this, give me a chance, and help me and others like me overcome the stigma we got labeled with.
Ah yes... drool all day, stare at chicks who'd rather throw themselves in front of a bus than talk to me, and masturbate all night. Pimples, voice breaking, and endless rounds of Quake complete with teabagging, cheetos, and trash-talking. Sneaking booze out of Dad's liquor cabinet and getting the hell beaten out of me later. Ripping tunes for the lulz, and staring in envy at those goddamn 18 year old Seniors who have it all. Good times...
There is a certain sub-set of the population that craves things that are, to put it succinctly, FUCKED UP. These are the people that want to see buckets of blood splatter every time they hit an enemy, look up pictures of disemboweled people on the internet, watch snuff-films, and enjoy watching things like bestiality videos. Some people are immature, some desensitized to things most find distasteful, and some just have some sort of mental illness. Either way, there is a market for things that push the boundaries of taste. Where there is a market, there is money to be made.
Thank you for posting this. This explanation was what I needed. I'm well aware of/b/ and all the crap that goes on there. That being said, I suppose I conflated mental awareness with emotional awareness and was very forcefully reminded of the difference between the two last night. I can accept the Fatality being created and protected under the First Amendment, due to the fact that there are people, like you said, who crave gore and horror. They're tax-paying citizens who are in pursuit of happiness, however squick it might be. I don't have to like it, but I can now accept it.
Thank you for taking the time to post a good, insightful rebuttal. I appreciate it.
All good points. Your rebuttals serve as a reminder of why I should support the First Amendment, even in the case of the MK Fatality. Captjc was kind enough to provide the context for why such a Fatality should be made, and that context, combined with your points, is enough for me to calm down, and reconcile in my mind any decision to defend the Fatality using the First Amendment (and the Supreme Court decision). Thank you for taking the time to debate and rebut me. It is very much appreciated:-)
I got what John was doing. I've got no problem with the point he was making or even that he showed that clip. His point is valid: it's an incredibly stupid double-standard. If we're willing to produce media like that, then why do nipples or (god forbid) labias get the OMG-KILL IT treatment? My problem is with the Fatality itself.
Both you and Esc7 bring up very good points that make me question why I'm so mad.
My rebuttal would have to be: How many times are we going to defend something like the Fatality under the First Amendment simply by saying, "hey, police yourself". How long before those words, or however we may phrase them, start ringing hollow? I don't want to go down the road you defined, with censorship boards, etc. But damn it all, I need a damn good reason as to WHY that scene got made in the first place, or else I find myself setting foot on that road to censorship.
Sometimes self-policing has to start with justification.
Thank you for your response, btw. I do appreciate it.
LateArthurDent, thank you for your calm, and insightful post. I appreciate it.
Unfortunately there was no WHOOSH, my post was entirely serious and emotionally-based. You bring up valid, logical points. You are right: after some retrospection, I must conclude that I am not for free speech, I am for free speech with restrictions, based on my emotional outburst. You are also right that that I don't have the right to stop people from engaging in free speech.
In addition, you're right that the proper response is to tell parents and everyone else that doesn't like it that they need to supervise their children, and ensure they don't play the game.
LateArthurDent, your entire response is logical. To me, from a logical, rational viewpoint, it's a pitch-perfect explanation. The problem is that although I recognize and admit your logic is correct and your defense is rationally, emotionally, I don't care and I don't want to be logical about this because my emotional response is too strong. And given time to think about it and consider the logical, rational response you have given, I find that I still do not want to give any recognition to the logical, rational response and defense presented. I am that offended by what MK did. And herein is the problem that I was trying (albeit imperfectly) to point out in my OP.
Please understand, I recognize and appreciate your response. I am telling you that I am so offended by what MK did that even though I recognize the validity of your defense, I'm actively, purposely choosing to ignore it because my beliefs and my emotional well-being were violated by witnessing that. I'm pretty sure there's a couple million more people like me who would say the same thing: agree with your defense, don't care anyway.
To me, the flaw in your argument is that you argue presuming the Constitution and the Free Speech Amendment are sacrosanct. What I believe you are forgetting is that We The People do not serve the Constitution, The Constitution serves us. We, The People, are the ultimate authority in our land. The Constitution is just the rulebook that we all agree to play by, and the Government is the apparatus we create and elect to be our referee. You must therefore understand that if a substantial supermajority or even majority of people get ticked off about something, they have the right to make it Law, and not only that, but Constitutionally-appropriate Law. And if you get enough people ticked off enough to create a social-paradigm change, then suddenly that immutable logically correct Principle which underlays the First Amendment doesn't look so immutable. The First Amendment is only as strong as the social consensus behind it is. Get enough people ticked off, and you'll see some Constitutionally, People-approved limits placed on it.
This is why I'm demanding to know what the hell the MK designers were thinking. That Fatality offended me on a deep, visceral level, to a degree strong enough that I don't give a flying fuck about what Logic and Reason say I should be responding. I want a damn good explanation/justification for why that was created. And if there isn't one, then I will find myself saying "Fuck the First Amendment, Fuck Reason, Fuck Logic, I want that shit canned and those designers fired because that was Blasphemy to me".
How can the designers of Mortal Kombat justify ripping Sonya in half like that? What was the goddamn point? To prove that they could? To take it to the extreme? That disgusted me. That flat-out disgusted me. I see John's point in playing that. Whatever line there was, the designers of MK stepped over it with that Fatality
I'm all for freedom of speech. I don't see what the point of that Fatality was. Who are we appeasing there, sadists? Do we really have that many sadists in the marketing demographic for that age-range? Did someone hold a fucking focus group full of 14-25 year old males and someone said: "I want to see a girl get ripped in half, starting from her vagina upward, lingering with her face still contorting in pain, and then have that come off as well!"
How the fuck can we claim with a straight face that we can defend THAT Fatality by lumping it into the same category as pornography? To answer my own question: by finding people willing to come forward and say that they believe in torture and sadism as expressed rhetorically by a given artistic medium. Someone out there was gratified by that scene. I want to know who. I want to who the fuck was visually gratified by that exact Fatality, and I want them to explain WHY to me. Explain WHY you were gratified, and what point you feel that scene made, and I will be able to defend that game's right to First Amendment protection with a straight face. I want to know what the designers were thinking, and why they designed it. Because if we can't come up with a good reason, then we have to fall back on the whole "Well, if you're going to protect porn, you'll have to protect this" defense. And let me tell you, GENTLEMEN, that defense holds only as long as you can keep society convinced of it. And society isn't just made up of gamers, it's also made up of concerned parents who aren't gamers, women who may not enjoy seeing a virtual woman get split in half, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and a whole lotta people who'll look at that and think "Hmm... maybe I should elect a politician who'll pass a law to ban that".
A real real geek would have done it from an HP 48g emulated on an Android phone emulated (very very slowly) on a Commodore 64. Unless they're British, in which case a BBC Micro or a Spectrum are acceptable substitutes.
A real gawddamn geek would have emulated the whole damn chain above in his mind, talking out loud to himself.
Basically you are correct. However, you're overlooking that companies have to rely on funding from outside sources in order to manage their cash flow. This means creditors, and creditors are all intensely fixated on quarterly financial targets due to the covenants they have in place with their lendees. They don't care about competition leap-frogging, they care about whether or not the company can hit their EBITDA targets, as well as payments on capital, senior, and other kinds of debt. A company has to take this into account, especially if they want to manage their cashflow and be able to pay their employees plus their rent and everything else. It's a lofty goal to focus on strategic long-term objectives, but that has to be balanced by quarterly financial obligations, or else something important is going to be shafted.
Or if he's been locked in his room because humans have been on vacation, he will spend two or three weeks trying to get to my shoes so he can poop in them. Not any shoes, just his owner's shoes.
I wrote a whole book on the idea of animal sentience, and you just encapsulated my entire thesis in a run-on sentence and a fragment, involving targeted pooping. Damn your maniacal genius, sir, DAMN IT!
I'll be sure and do that just as soon as you develop an appreciation for self-depreciating humor in the revelation of one's personal error. Now go be a douche to someone else, your work is done here.
Them's some mighty selective notions of "honor" and "cowardice" you got there, skippy! Care to explain your reasoning further (mostly so I can dissect your straw men, sneer at your ad hominems, Godwin you relentlessly, and generally mock your pathetic attempts at antidisestablishmentarianistic trolling).
Make a proper example once and the problem never recurs.
Funny thing: that specific brand of vengeance-fueled morality never seems to work for long. Russians did that to Chechnya, and all they did was breed a whole new generation of pissed-off Caucasian Muslims swearing blood feud against the Rodina for all eternity. Didn't stop the mujahadeen from scalping the Russians (with our help) for a decade in Afghanistan either.
The only way your proposal DOES work is if you engage in active, wholesale genocide and you do not stop until the entire offending culture is wiped from the face of the Earth. Hardly anyone has the stomach for that these days. Tamerlane did it to the Persians and the other peoples of the steppes (We're lucky we even have Persians these days, he wasn't as thorough as he wanted to be). Genghis Khan did it to the Tibetans (the first recorded instance of complete genocide in recorded history - part of the reason the Chinese don't want to let go of Tibet is because there are no more true ethnic Tibetans, only Tibetans of Chinese ancestry who adopted the Tibetan culture). And of course Rome did it to Carthage (even went so far as to salt the grounds after slaughtering every last man, woman, and child in Carthage to prevent the city from ever rising again).
So, are you ready to start advocating Genocide and the world-wide rule of Might Makes Right, knowing that if you don't do a complete job, that one day someone will come after your descendents claiming the same divine right to wipe your genome, and all those associated with you from the Earth?
People seem to forget that in the 60s and early 70s, the US had a great many liberal political terrorists within its borders, who committed more bombings in the early 70s, in Washington DC alone, than all the "right-wing" terrorists since, combined.
Does that mean that the right-wing terrorists are morally justified then in blowing up civilians as well, just because the liberals did it two generations ago? Huh, I missed that memo. I guess the victims of Atlanta and Oklahoma City, and their families can rest assured now that that their deaths were a necessity in order to balance out the moral inequity between the two ends of the US political spectrum.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not flaming! Well... he IS, but being gay's okay! Nah, he's actually talking about the attitudes young people had back in the 60's and 70's
Written by Upper Management, for Upper Management, who will then use their special Upper Management powers to make this the norm in their businesses, including probably yours.
If I were you, I'd keep reading so that I'd make sure to stay one step ahead of my Upper Management, and keep my job.
Or maybe you think I should have been pulling a 30 kW diesel generator with a Prius?
Oh dear divine meatballs of his Noodlyness, YES! YES, you should have! That would be hysterical, trying to haul that generator in a silent gay spaceship on wheels!
Burning out your tires, engine revving until your pistons pop like zits, or even better, towing said generator downhill (at that point, I think it'd be towing YOU). That'd be classic on Youtube. I'd almost even recommend it... if it didn't involve completely trashing a Toyota AND significant risk to life and limb.
It's because everyone's operational default mode is set to "I am right all of the time". As in, there is no cognition of error at all. Every single one of us on Earth at this exact moment operates under the assumption that everything we see, think, and believe in is "right". No one lives in a state of perpetual error, because error is a reversion of thinking, of being. And it's not a pleasant state to be in.
When you prove someone wrong, from your perspective, you are correcting someone's interpretation of the fact in question. From their perspective, you are rebuking their very existence because up until that moment, they thought they were right. Then they realize that their entire life up until that point was in error. And thus reversion of thinking, and cognitive dissonance.
What you are describing is the attempt of a person who may be wrong to protect his/her ego against the actual accusation of being wrong, by removing the question of whether he/she is wrong to begin with. They will not recognize the authority or the basis of the person making the statement, and like you said, will believe whatever contradictory evidence is offered by someone else regardless of qualification, because they can then retain the belief and thus the existence of being "right".
the problem with the entire AGW argument is that you have two sides motivated to extreme ideological opposition with each other over scientifically gathered factual evidence that is so convoluted and complex that it can sustain multiple different interpretations (much like the competing multiverse hypotheses), and adherents to the different interpretations cannot accept the "Other interpretation" because to do so would mean that their entire invested belief structure, and therefore who they perceive themselves to be, is wrong. And the more you beat down on them, the more fiercely they cling to their beliefs--developing a martyr complex.
Much like how the Millerites of the 1850s watched the repeated failures of their apocalyptic predictions of Judgment day, and then decided to cling to their convictions regardless (becoming the Seventh Day Adventists), we will see further retrenchment of pro- and anti-AGW believers. This has progressed well past the point where anyone can admit their wrong. Now it's dogmatic religion, on both sides. And once it's a religion, it's here to stay.
As long as he buys me dinner afterwards.
You are right about the U of Phoenix being taken with a grain of salt, as it rightfully should be. I graduated with my MAED from there right when DoL busted Brian Baker's online boilerroom operation that he turned UoP into. Now granted, I earned my degree, I worked fucking hard for it, and I learned a lot. And it's a bitter pill to swallow to know that I'm now going to be forever associated with the taint of greedy fucking bastards who turned the UoP into a boilerroom operation. I cannot blame people for being leery of us Phoenixes because of what happened. Had I known at the time what was going on, I wouldn't have gone with Phoenix. But I did it because I wanted to learn, and I got the most out of my schooling that I could (just like you said). I wanted to improve my job skills, learn something new, and expand my horizons. It's my hope that employers like you who are experienced and familiar with the real world will recognize this, give me a chance, and help me and others like me overcome the stigma we got labeled with.
Ah yes... drool all day, stare at chicks who'd rather throw themselves in front of a bus than talk to me, and masturbate all night. Pimples, voice breaking, and endless rounds of Quake complete with teabagging, cheetos, and trash-talking. Sneaking booze out of Dad's liquor cabinet and getting the hell beaten out of me later. Ripping tunes for the lulz, and staring in envy at those goddamn 18 year old Seniors who have it all. Good times...
There is a certain sub-set of the population that craves things that are, to put it succinctly, FUCKED UP. These are the people that want to see buckets of blood splatter every time they hit an enemy, look up pictures of disemboweled people on the internet, watch snuff-films, and enjoy watching things like bestiality videos. Some people are immature, some desensitized to things most find distasteful, and some just have some sort of mental illness. Either way, there is a market for things that push the boundaries of taste. Where there is a market, there is money to be made.
Thank you for posting this. This explanation was what I needed. I'm well aware of /b/ and all the crap that goes on there. That being said, I suppose I conflated mental awareness with emotional awareness and was very forcefully reminded of the difference between the two last night. I can accept the Fatality being created and protected under the First Amendment, due to the fact that there are people, like you said, who crave gore and horror. They're tax-paying citizens who are in pursuit of happiness, however squick it might be. I don't have to like it, but I can now accept it.
Thank you for taking the time to post a good, insightful rebuttal. I appreciate it.
All good points. Your rebuttals serve as a reminder of why I should support the First Amendment, even in the case of the MK Fatality. Captjc was kind enough to provide the context for why such a Fatality should be made, and that context, combined with your points, is enough for me to calm down, and reconcile in my mind any decision to defend the Fatality using the First Amendment (and the Supreme Court decision). Thank you for taking the time to debate and rebut me. It is very much appreciated :-)
I got what John was doing. I've got no problem with the point he was making or even that he showed that clip. His point is valid: it's an incredibly stupid double-standard. If we're willing to produce media like that, then why do nipples or (god forbid) labias get the OMG-KILL IT treatment? My problem is with the Fatality itself.
Good point.
Both you and Esc7 bring up very good points that make me question why I'm so mad.
My rebuttal would have to be: How many times are we going to defend something like the Fatality under the First Amendment simply by saying, "hey, police yourself". How long before those words, or however we may phrase them, start ringing hollow? I don't want to go down the road you defined, with censorship boards, etc. But damn it all, I need a damn good reason as to WHY that scene got made in the first place, or else I find myself setting foot on that road to censorship.
Sometimes self-policing has to start with justification.
Thank you for your response, btw. I do appreciate it.
LateArthurDent, thank you for your calm, and insightful post. I appreciate it.
Unfortunately there was no WHOOSH, my post was entirely serious and emotionally-based. You bring up valid, logical points. You are right: after some retrospection, I must conclude that I am not for free speech, I am for free speech with restrictions, based on my emotional outburst. You are also right that that I don't have the right to stop people from engaging in free speech.
In addition, you're right that the proper response is to tell parents and everyone else that doesn't like it that they need to supervise their children, and ensure they don't play the game.
LateArthurDent, your entire response is logical. To me, from a logical, rational viewpoint, it's a pitch-perfect explanation. The problem is that although I recognize and admit your logic is correct and your defense is rationally, emotionally, I don't care and I don't want to be logical about this because my emotional response is too strong. And given time to think about it and consider the logical, rational response you have given, I find that I still do not want to give any recognition to the logical, rational response and defense presented. I am that offended by what MK did. And herein is the problem that I was trying (albeit imperfectly) to point out in my OP.
Please understand, I recognize and appreciate your response. I am telling you that I am so offended by what MK did that even though I recognize the validity of your defense, I'm actively, purposely choosing to ignore it because my beliefs and my emotional well-being were violated by witnessing that. I'm pretty sure there's a couple million more people like me who would say the same thing: agree with your defense, don't care anyway.
To me, the flaw in your argument is that you argue presuming the Constitution and the Free Speech Amendment are sacrosanct. What I believe you are forgetting is that We The People do not serve the Constitution, The Constitution serves us. We, The People, are the ultimate authority in our land. The Constitution is just the rulebook that we all agree to play by, and the Government is the apparatus we create and elect to be our referee. You must therefore understand that if a substantial supermajority or even majority of people get ticked off about something, they have the right to make it Law, and not only that, but Constitutionally-appropriate Law. And if you get enough people ticked off enough to create a social-paradigm change, then suddenly that immutable logically correct Principle which underlays the First Amendment doesn't look so immutable. The First Amendment is only as strong as the social consensus behind it is. Get enough people ticked off, and you'll see some Constitutionally, People-approved limits placed on it.
This is why I'm demanding to know what the hell the MK designers were thinking. That Fatality offended me on a deep, visceral level, to a degree strong enough that I don't give a flying fuck about what Logic and Reason say I should be responding. I want a damn good explanation/justification for why that was created. And if there isn't one, then I will find myself saying "Fuck the First Amendment, Fuck Reason, Fuck Logic, I want that shit canned and those designers fired because that was Blasphemy to me".
How can the designers of Mortal Kombat justify ripping Sonya in half like that? What was the goddamn point? To prove that they could? To take it to the extreme? That disgusted me. That flat-out disgusted me. I see John's point in playing that. Whatever line there was, the designers of MK stepped over it with that Fatality
I'm all for freedom of speech. I don't see what the point of that Fatality was. Who are we appeasing there, sadists? Do we really have that many sadists in the marketing demographic for that age-range? Did someone hold a fucking focus group full of 14-25 year old males and someone said: "I want to see a girl get ripped in half, starting from her vagina upward, lingering with her face still contorting in pain, and then have that come off as well!"
How the fuck can we claim with a straight face that we can defend THAT Fatality by lumping it into the same category as pornography? To answer my own question: by finding people willing to come forward and say that they believe in torture and sadism as expressed rhetorically by a given artistic medium. Someone out there was gratified by that scene. I want to know who. I want to who the fuck was visually gratified by that exact Fatality, and I want them to explain WHY to me. Explain WHY you were gratified, and what point you feel that scene made, and I will be able to defend that game's right to First Amendment protection with a straight face. I want to know what the designers were thinking, and why they designed it. Because if we can't come up with a good reason, then we have to fall back on the whole "Well, if you're going to protect porn, you'll have to protect this" defense. And let me tell you, GENTLEMEN, that defense holds only as long as you can keep society convinced of it. And society isn't just made up of gamers, it's also made up of concerned parents who aren't gamers, women who may not enjoy seeing a virtual woman get split in half, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and a whole lotta people who'll look at that and think "Hmm... maybe I should elect a politician who'll pass a law to ban that".
A real real geek would have done it from an HP 48g emulated on an Android phone emulated (very very slowly) on a Commodore 64. Unless they're British, in which case a BBC Micro or a Spectrum are acceptable substitutes.
A real gawddamn geek would have emulated the whole damn chain above in his mind, talking out loud to himself.
Wow, that didn't take long at all for you to show up, my good man? Was it a difficult walk across the Verdunne? How 'bout a spot of tea?
Basically you are correct. However, you're overlooking that companies have to rely on funding from outside sources in order to manage their cash flow. This means creditors, and creditors are all intensely fixated on quarterly financial targets due to the covenants they have in place with their lendees. They don't care about competition leap-frogging, they care about whether or not the company can hit their EBITDA targets, as well as payments on capital, senior, and other kinds of debt. A company has to take this into account, especially if they want to manage their cashflow and be able to pay their employees plus their rent and everything else. It's a lofty goal to focus on strategic long-term objectives, but that has to be balanced by quarterly financial obligations, or else something important is going to be shafted.
Or if he's been locked in his room because humans have been on vacation, he will spend two or three weeks trying to get to my shoes so he can poop in them. Not any shoes, just his owner's shoes.
I wrote a whole book on the idea of animal sentience, and you just encapsulated my entire thesis in a run-on sentence and a fragment, involving targeted pooping. Damn your maniacal genius, sir, DAMN IT!
Fancy that, old chap! I didn't think you'd show up so soon. Would you care for a biscuit, and a cuppa?
I'll be sure and do that just as soon as you develop an appreciation for self-depreciating humor in the revelation of one's personal error. Now go be a douche to someone else, your work is done here.
Damn it, wickedskaman! You've undermined my mojo!!!! I must cry now.
Them's some mighty selective notions of "honor" and "cowardice" you got there, skippy! Care to explain your reasoning further (mostly so I can dissect your straw men, sneer at your ad hominems, Godwin you relentlessly, and generally mock your pathetic attempts at antidisestablishmentarianistic trolling).
Make a proper example once and the problem never recurs.
Funny thing: that specific brand of vengeance-fueled morality never seems to work for long. Russians did that to Chechnya, and all they did was breed a whole new generation of pissed-off Caucasian Muslims swearing blood feud against the Rodina for all eternity. Didn't stop the mujahadeen from scalping the Russians (with our help) for a decade in Afghanistan either.
The only way your proposal DOES work is if you engage in active, wholesale genocide and you do not stop until the entire offending culture is wiped from the face of the Earth. Hardly anyone has the stomach for that these days. Tamerlane did it to the Persians and the other peoples of the steppes (We're lucky we even have Persians these days, he wasn't as thorough as he wanted to be). Genghis Khan did it to the Tibetans (the first recorded instance of complete genocide in recorded history - part of the reason the Chinese don't want to let go of Tibet is because there are no more true ethnic Tibetans, only Tibetans of Chinese ancestry who adopted the Tibetan culture). And of course Rome did it to Carthage (even went so far as to salt the grounds after slaughtering every last man, woman, and child in Carthage to prevent the city from ever rising again).
So, are you ready to start advocating Genocide and the world-wide rule of Might Makes Right, knowing that if you don't do a complete job, that one day someone will come after your descendents claiming the same divine right to wipe your genome, and all those associated with you from the Earth?
People seem to forget that in the 60s and early 70s, the US had a great many liberal political terrorists within its borders, who committed more bombings in the early 70s, in Washington DC alone, than all the "right-wing" terrorists since, combined.
Does that mean that the right-wing terrorists are morally justified then in blowing up civilians as well, just because the liberals did it two generations ago? Huh, I missed that memo. I guess the victims of Atlanta and Oklahoma City, and their families can rest assured now that that their deaths were a necessity in order to balance out the moral inequity between the two ends of the US political spectrum.
Cool story, bro. After reading this, I feel like a koala just farted a rainbow in my brain.