People you agree with, but still hate?

[ThreeWords]

So you're saying if he didn't slaughter the jews and didn't pick a fight with Russia and he took all of Europe you would have respected the guy?..."slowly backs away"

Is there anything else that you particularly disagree with? Apart from those morally reprehensible things, he was basically doing the best with what he had, right?

...and yeah, pretty much this too. Hitler had a fantastic opportunity considering he was top dog of Germany and had enormous amounts of power, but he wasted it all on hatred and stupidity.
At least he gave Europe a stable Government system (well, at least France - don't know about elsewhere)

But he only achieved his enormous amounts of power because of his stupidity and hatred, you can't divorce that from his ideology.

It's not like he had the right idea then went bad somewhere along the way. He always wanted to kill the jews, and he always wanted to exterminate a whole load of eastern europeans to get more land for ethnic germans to live on.

Someone saying they agree with Hitler is either a. a troll or b. stupid or c. a nazi.

Your argument is obviously invalid.

No one ever came to power through being a douche-bag. No, he got his position came from realising that people will more easily believe a big lie than a small one, and he gave the whole of Europe a good fight because he realised that a fascist state is by far the most efficient state, and that in a 'fair' fight, if one such could ever exist, it would come about the victor
Of course, he wasn't perfect. His mistake was to pick too many enemies, to make use of his state unwillingly.

Essentially, I support this statement: "I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature."

(However, I think it was Napoleon who gave France the same basic legal system they use today.)

...If you're ok with the invasion of soverign nations and with their native governments being destroyed and their people being oppresed by a foriegn power than...yeah more power to ya buddy...oh God.

State of nature, my friend, state of nature.

 

[ThreeWords]

This person [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view]. Ugh. What a loser. So unlikeable. Can have a point every now and again, though, so I tolerate him/her.

I can understand the hate, but what part do you agree with?

[sup]<3[/sup]

 

[ThreeWords]

I can support his skill without agreeing with his hatred, right?

in the same way, I can agree with you that Hitler was skilled, but not about whether or not hbe is admirable...

I greatly admire your courage. I have to say, you're fighting a hopeless battle here, as peoples' minds instantly shut down whenever they see Hitler's name.

Apparently it is impossible to separate one's effectiveness with one's evil, and therefore, Hitler was not only evil, but completely unremarkable.

Yet another result of people caring a lot more about image than truth.

The truth will out, if I have to burn the stupid out of every last one of them =)

As for image-obsession, I heartily agree. I hate it most when it manifests as an argument based off a feigned discomfort (if you can call them arguments)

Case in point:

So you're saying if he didn't slaughter the jews and didn't pick a fight with Russia and he took all of Europe you would have respected the guy?..."slowly backs away"

[sup]<3[/sup]

 

[ThreeWords]

Capitalist. I agree that you should be able to make as much money as you want with hard work , but not at the expense of other people .

How do you make money without it coming form other people?

 

[2xDouble]

Anyone who plays PvP exclusively in most video games. You might have things to say, dude, but winning a few rounds of Halo does not make you a professional athlete. Speaking of which...

"Pro-sport" athletes, especially college-level. Yes, I agree that basketball is fun, or that you can play harder in the second half to score more points than your opponent and that's how you win, or that you shouldn't have molested those students... now quit being such a jerk, you spoiled, entitled, sheltered, pampered, grade falsifying, free-ride having, "literally stealing grant money away from humanitarian programs like the genetics and physics labs to buy you clothes, fancy cars, and expensive food you don't actually eat" douche.

Children, especially adult children. I'll yield the rest of the argument to my fake friend Darnell [http://www.gamebreaker.tv/blizzard-world-of-warcraft-machinima-blizz-blues-ungrateful-bastards/] (EDIT: NSFW, by the way). I agree that an iPad would be nice to own, but... everything else that's horribly wrong with what they said.

 

[Suicidejim]

The Escapists very own Jim Sterling (Yes I know hes actually from Destructiod)
He makes very good points and is actually rather intelligent its just that he comes off as a douchebag, and an unfunny douchebag as well

Stole the words straight from my mouth. His points are often quite reasonable, and I generally agree with him, but the faux-arrogance routine just doesn't work. Maybe with a bit more polish, or somebody else doing it, it might come across a lot better, but for whatever reason he can't quite get it right.

On a more general level, even if I agree 100% with a person's views, if they bring them across in a way that I find obnoxious or insulting, they will generally end up worse in my estimation than the person who I disagree with, but who is willing to respect and discuss our differences of opinion in an open manner.

 

[krazykidd]

Capitalist. I agree that you should be able to make as much money as you want with hard work , but not at the expense of other people .

How do you make money without it coming form other people?

I mean , taking advantage of the poor, working people to the bone ( without proper compensation) and trying to scam everybody. Like evey cooperation does.

 

[ThreeWords]

Capitalist. I agree that you should be able to make as much money as you want with hard work , but not at the expense of other people .

How do you make money without it coming form other people?

I mean , taking advantage of the poor, working people to the bone ( without proper compensation) and trying to scam everybody. Like evey cooperation does.

How can you get stupidly rich without taking advantage of the poor?

It seems to me that you can play fair and be moderately well off, or be a dickhead, and make billions...

 

[gyroc1]

Anyone mention Jim Sterling? (yes) He sometimes comes off as a troll a lot on Destructoid and his show here. His posts have an air of sensationalism to them and his show "The Jimquisition" makes good points but then he's smug about it, either as some kind of joke or because he really is smug. I can't tell.

EDIT: Yeah someone did mention him...

 

[loadingmikke]

i have a friend that look just like the Amazing Atheist,same opinions same way of talking, but just a different language. I think he was on That guy with the glasses some time ago.

one i really dosent like is sean faust, because his humour feels so forced.

 

[liquidsolid]

Republicans. They believe in smaller government and lower taxes (for everyone not just the rich as some would have you believe) but they have their head up their asses with social issues and generally cannot put a good candidate together. They are mocked as the anti-science party and as a reactionary party wanting to get us back in touch with 'traditional values'

So yeah, I agree with the basis of their party which is it's fiscal policy, but I cannot stand them and their crappy country music.

 

[krazykidd]

Capitalist. I agree that you should be able to make as much money as you want with hard work , but not at the expense of other people .

How do you make money without it coming form other people?

I mean , taking advantage of the poor, working people to the bone ( without proper compensation) and trying to scam everybody. Like evey cooperation does.

How can you get stupidly rich without taking advantage of the poor?

It seems to me that you can play fair and be moderately well off, or be a dickhead, and make billions...

Thats my point .

 

[BreakfastMan]

This person [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view]. Ugh. What a loser. So unlikeable. Can have a point every now and again, though, so I tolerate him/her.

Why are you allowed to get away with this kind of post?

Um... What? It was a joke, brah. About a billion people have done the same type of thing before me. I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[flamingjimmy]

...and yeah, pretty much this too. Hitler had a fantastic opportunity considering he was top dog of Germany and had enormous amounts of power, but he wasted it all on hatred and stupidity.
At least he gave Europe a stable Government system (well, at least France - don't know about elsewhere)

But he only achieved his enormous amounts of power because of his stupidity and hatred, you can't divorce that from his ideology.

It's not like he had the right idea then went bad somewhere along the way. He always wanted to kill the jews, and he always wanted to exterminate a whole load of eastern europeans to get more land for ethnic germans to live on.

Someone saying they agree with Hitler is either a. a troll or b. stupid or c. a nazi.

Your argument is obviously invalid.

No one ever came to power through being a douche-bag.

Sure they have, if at the time and place, douchebaggery is popular. Hitler would not have achieved power without pretty much all aspects of nazi ideology.

the gave the whole of Europe a good fight because he realised that a fascist state is by far the most efficient state,

The most horrific conlfict in all of human history 'a good fight'? Seriously?

Also, fascism as the most efficient political ideology?

I take it back ,there's an extra option: d: crazy.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I agree with a couple of things Bill Mayher (sp?) is saying, despite him being a huge douche.


Wait, someone said they agreed with Hitler?

....Oh boy. I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole.

 

[Something Amyss]

If we are talking about people who are simply on the same side, then Dawkins, Hitchens, Michael Moore and yes, the Amazing Atheist all come to mind immediately.

Honestly, sometimes I wish my "side" of things would shut the hell up and stop damaging the cause.

By the way, I often disagree with the "why" and not the "what." for example, I don't agree with Moore on a lot of the specifics, which I think are often contrived and dishonest. Instead, I say I agree with him because I'm on the same general side of a lot of arguments.

Also, Ralph Nader comes to mind. Not because of his Presidential runs (Gore lost because Gore ran a horrible campaign), but because in recent years he's gone from crusader of public safety to sensationalist douchecanoe. I CERTAINLY agree with the former, but I tend to disagree with sensationalists. Same with the jerks who are making stuff up about the effects of NDAA, SOPA, or even the PATRIOT ACT. All three are bad enough on their own without rampant fiction.

Man, I could go on and on.

 

[Loxes]

I've come across a few fanartists or fanfic writers that write and draw beautifully, and yet are completely ignorant/arrogant/otherwise contemptible. It makes me glad I don't know much about authors of my favourite published works, tbh.