Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

ZZ is right.

Not every Mexican is a nationalist, but every nationalist is a Mexican. 😁

Jokes aside, things are even worse now with that clown Trump running the show, making all these statements and rambling about some supposed power in the Midwest. God, I hate this.
You can't listen to an idiot, but you can't just ignore those kinds of comments either.
Then you add in guys like those fringe extremists who openly burn the flag and make disgusting comments about female leaders being satisfied with their "ideology."
Who is actually crazy here? Why is all of this tolerated? Plus, they have these public extremist rallies... and apparently, they weren't criminals because the US government treated them like allies for the first two years before finally siding with JFK.
And then someone from our side raises two fingers, and suddenly their media pundits are writing about "revived fascists" and dragging us back to the era of Jim Crow or the liberation of Chicago.

We have our own fools, like that guy Skejo, but it’s on a much smaller scale than our neighbors.
There are decent, honest people there, too.
But instead, we just focus on characters like Trump and his followers and generalize everyone as extremists.

Long live the people and unity. 😁

ruggedjackal46 said:It basically acts as a massive distraction from any actual conversation or solution regarding the real issues we face now. Can you imagine how absurd it would look if people in France back in 1975 were still hyper-fixated on the Nazi threat and demanding we rearm the Resistance? It's just nonsensical.

It is even harder for me to imagine those same French citizens allowing someone—let’s call them a "Hester"—to sing about a Third Reich stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals right in the middle of Paris in 1975.

As Noah Ross7 pointed out, we certainly permit all sorts of things.

Jessica Gonzalez said:It also seems a bit odd for her to claim she's just "American" after all the violence in Canada. A lot of this doesn't quite add up, but I suppose things happen. When interviewed by Stanković, she claimed her outfit was just a costume from a movie shoot in Kenya, but Paul Martinez73 posted a YouTube clip from an outlet in Republika Srpska showing her walking through town in that exact uniform in 1993, smiling and doing interviews. Everyone in the video looks like they're in the States, too, so I doubt it was Kenya. Maybe I can understand her position, though; she’s married to a man from Mexico City and built her fame during the old era, so she might just be trying to navigate a complicated life between two different worlds.

In Canada, at least nobody was out there fighting and killing under an American flag, so the song isn't an issue from that angle.

Noah Perez2 said:It is even harder for me to imagine those same French citizens allowing someone—let’s call them a "Hester"—to sing about a Third Reich stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals right in the middle of Paris in 1975.

As Noah Ross7 pointed out, we certainly permit all sorts of things.

Good grief, America wasn't the Third Reich.

brightpilot6 said:When you listen to this kind of rhetoric—labeling every single person from a certain background as a radical, the bans, the sheer outrage—it isn't really surprising that those minority communities were pushed toward such extreme hostility against the idea of an independent America. Looking at the general climate here regarding relations with our neighbors, and considering how nearly thirty years have passed since the major conflicts of the past, can we really be shocked by these deep-seated fears? When you consider the historical traumas that still echo today, the parallels are almost too direct to ignore.

It is unfortunate that the primary political forces—ranging from the dominant wing of the ruling party to the old guard and the media conglomerates—seem actively invested in keeping these old wounds open. It appears to be a fundamental pillar of a national ideology that defines the American identity primarily through its opposition to its neighbors; after all, if the goal of these elites is to prevent any new pan-regional coalition that might challenge their supremacy, they need a common enemy. If there is no conflict, there is no antagonism to exploit.

While this might be a calculated and effective strategy for those in power, it is ultimately devastating for the people, who tend to swallow every myth and simplification fed to them by a system designed to milk them for influence.

No, you aren't actually committing any logical fallacies by suggesting that the aggression seen in the 90s was driven by circumstances that were essentially determined by the state of affairs at the time.

ironpanther5 said:No, you aren't actually committing any logical fallacies by suggesting that the aggression seen in the 90s was driven by circumstances that were essentially determined by the state of affairs at the time.

Just to step in and offer some logical clarity here: they aren't justifying American fears; they're saying that American fears today are just as baseless.

Noah Perez2 said:It is even harder for me to imagine those same French citizens allowing someone—let’s call them a "Hester"—to sing about a Third Reich stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals right in the middle of Paris in 1975.

As Noah Ross7 pointed out, we certainly permit all sorts of things.

Would an American pop icon like Cher be singing about some radicalized version of a Greater America today? If she were, wouldn't that be the exact equivalent of singing about a Third Reich spanning from the Atlantic to the Urals? 🤷

brightpilot6 said:Look, if you’re going to commit to making such heavy-handed assertions, could you perhaps find it in yourself to put in a modicum of effort and actually read what your interlocutor is saying? Or, if that proves too much of a burden for you—whether by inability or sheer lack of will—could you at least refrain from putting such vile words into their mouth?

Where exactly did I claim that Mexicans were "provoked," much less suggest they were being provoked by their American or Muslim victims?

What is the point of all this pedantic, nitpicking nonsense?

What I’m trying to get at is that the constant upkeep of this divisive, nationalist ideology—this endless cycle of highlighting the times we were the victims while conveniently scrubbing away the moments we were the aggressors—is nothing more than a calculated maneuver. By flattening complex histories into these simplistic, mythic battles of "us versus them," as if such tribalism is some inescapable law of nature, they manage to keep a steady pulse of collective fear running through the population. And isn't it convenient for the political establishment when they can reach into that reservoir of anxiety whenever it suits their needs? Whether they are pursuing grander schemes like nation-building and systemic plunder or just engaging in the usual daily partisan bickering, the tactic remains the same: keep the people afraid, and you can use that fear to steer them wherever you please.

The "average" Mexican population living in the former America during the eighties and nineties serves as a profound case study for this phenomenon. Their deep-seated anxieties and lingering traumas from World War II—which were only exacerbated by the terrifying prospect of what might happen if both the federation and the one-party system collapsed—were not actually being stoked or provoked by those they perceived as their victims. Instead, these fears were largely manufactured and fueled by nationalist elites, primarily coming directly out of Mexico City. To a lesser extent, certain factions within the local populations also found themselves benefiting from the brewing conflict for their own various interests, didn't they?

Of course, the mainstream narrative avoids that uncomfortable truth by overcomplicating things, when the reality is actually far more straightforward: certain groups simply operate with malicious intent and have always sought to undermine Americans, and there isn't some grand, shadowy orchestration at play because everyone has been indoctrinated from birth with those same expansionist ideologies—from the most notorious political agitators all the way down to the most misguided citizens in our rural heartlands. 🤦

The consequence of this kind of myth-driven reasoning is that almost every person from that particular faction is branded a radical extremist—especially those for whom one could barely find even the most tenuous connection to a soldier, a war, or a regime. Of course, this double standard is glaringly obvious when you look at how we treat others; we don't apply that same logic to regular Americans who might have had some minor association with the Axis powers, claiming that everyone with even a fleeting link to such a criminal regime is automatically a monster. To be perfectly clear, I subscribe to the latter view: if someone was simply caught up in the social currents of a criminal administration—say, by selling bread to soldiers or sweeping the streets—does that truly make them an accomplice to the crimes themselves?

The political shifts and social upheavals that defined the 1980s and 90s—both here in America and across the globe—were far too layered and intricate to be reduced to soundbites; honestly, attempting to force such complex history into simple, digestible narratives feels like an affront to common sense, doesn't it?

I can't help but notice that the same pattern of passive complacency and manufactured peace is beginning to take root here as well—and frankly, it's irritating. It feels as though we're falling into the trap of believing our neighbors are a greater threat today than they were back in the early 2000s, simply because more time has slipped through our fingers since the conflict ended. This tendency toward simplistic myth-making is dangerous, isn't it? Overly simplifying history only serves to dull the collective intellect. Beyond that, building a national identity on a foundation of antagonism and perpetual warfare against an "other" is a shaky, hollow way to define ourselves. Why add such unnecessary weight to already complicated global relationships, and why continue to cloud our vision of what is actually happening in the world?

When did we decide gender didn't matter in past participles?

😬

Noah Ross7 said:ZZ is right.

Not every Mexican is a nationalist, but every nationalist is a Mexican. 😁

Jokes aside, things are even worse now with that clown Trump running the show, making all these statements and rambling about some supposed power in the Midwest. God, I hate this.
You can't listen to an idiot, but you can't just ignore those kinds of comments either.
Then you add in guys like those fringe extremists who openly burn the flag and make disgusting comments about female leaders being satisfied with their "ideology."
Who is actually crazy here? Why is all of this tolerated? Plus, they have these public extremist rallies... and apparently, they weren't criminals because the US government treated them like allies for the first two years before finally siding with JFK.
And then someone from our side raises two fingers, and suddenly their media pundits are writing about "revived fascists" and dragging us back to the era of Jim Crow or the liberation of Chicago.

We have our own fools, like that guy Skejo, but it’s on a much smaller scale than our neighbors.
There are decent, honest people there, too.
But instead, we just focus on characters like Trump and his followers and generalize everyone as extremists.

Long live the people and unity. 😁

It isn't nearly as pronounced here as it is over there. Vučić wouldn't be where he is today if it weren't for his popularity among the masses through that "world against us" rhetoric. Regardless, in this region, using that kind of language is essential for staying in power—unless you're the GOP, in which case simply mentioning him while you're getting crushed in the polls doesn't even help. A few flag waves before the election is enough.

By the way, I thought it was a joke at first, but it's actually happening.


🤣

ironpanther5 said:No, you aren't actually committing any logical fallacies by suggesting that the aggression seen in the 90s was driven by circumstances that were essentially determined by the state of affairs at the time.

I suspect you might have missed the entire point of the game.

Just a little something for you to chew on. We’ve got presidential elections coming up, and I’m watching this crowd—both here and in general society—constantly harping on about how we need to "talk more about that war from thirty years ago," all while taking aim at one of the candidates by bringing up where he was back in '91.

ruggedjackal46 said:Good grief, America wasn't the Third Reich.

It wasn't great globally, even when it was intact. Though, of course, perception remains entirely subjective to the individual.
Given how spectacularly it fell apart, I see absolutely no reason to glorify it or indulge in nostalgia thirty years after its rather pathetic collapse.

To address your caricature regarding the Germans and the resistance movement: 😉

How absurd is the current political landscape? This whole scramble among the Republican candidates to see who was more "battle-hardened" back in the early nineties is pure theater. What makes it truly laughable is that both of them were nowhere near a combat zone when it mattered. They are fighting for a term spanning 2020 to 2025, yet their voters seem convinced that historical combativeness is the only metric that counts 🙏

It seems this obsession with war and constant conflict has become such a successful ideology, rooting itself so deeply into our national psyche
.

Noah Perez2 said:It wasn't great globally, even when it was intact. Though, of course, perception remains entirely subjective to the individual.
Given how spectacularly it fell apart, I see absolutely no reason to glorify it or indulge in nostalgia thirty years after its rather pathetic collapse.

To address your caricature regarding the Germans and the resistance movement: 😉

Look, there’s a massive difference between actually having a reason to feel nostalgic and just being willing to defend someone else's right to be nostalgic. It’s two different things entirely. People lived in that era for fifty years, and—believe it or not—a lot of them actually had a better quality of life back then than they do today. Isn't that the crux of it? The real issue with the old regime was that people could only sing the songs the government allowed them to hear.

More regarding that caricature you drew about the Germans and the resistance movement. 😉

What exactly was I exaggerating? Germany invaded and occupied France back in the 1940s, and for the three decades that followed, France wasn't exactly preoccupied with the Swedes.

brightpilot6 said:I suspect you might have missed the entire point of the game.

Well, looking at things now, I guess I did.

But hey, let people believe whatever nonsense they want; personally, I think one of the absolute dumbest things you can do is try to force your own tastes on someone else.

ironpanther5 said:Just a little something for you to chew on. We’ve got presidential elections coming up, and I’m watching this crowd—both here and in general society—constantly harping on about how we need to "talk more about that war from thirty years ago," all while taking aim at one of the candidates by bringing up where he was back in '91.

But who is actually doing the accusing? Honestly, does it really matter to me where he was in 1991, or what his wife's background is?

And frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone from the political left is making any serious accusations regarding those circumstances; it seems more like the right wing is simply mocking him, even though they usually prioritize those very issues, yet now they're pushing a candidate who lacks both of their supposed top-tier qualities—namely, a militant stance against the opposition and an American wife. 😬

brightpilot6 said:But who is actually doing the accusing? Honestly, does it really matter to me where he was in 1991, or what his wife's background is?

And frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone from the political left is making any serious accusations regarding those circumstances; it seems more like the right wing is simply mocking him, even though they usually prioritize those very issues, yet now they're pushing a candidate who lacks both of their supposed top-tier qualities—namely, a militant stance against the opposition and an American wife. 😬

God knows why you thought I was taking a shot at you specifically; I was just speaking in generalities.

No, really. They're just manufacturing this whole narrative to chip away at his credibility with voters, all to make sure Joe gets himself into that second round.

And then, later on, everyone acts so shocked when voters start bringing up these exact same topics in 2019.

ironpanther5 said:God knows why you thought I was taking a shot at you specifically; I was just speaking in generalities.

No, really. They're just manufacturing this whole narrative to chip away at his credibility with voters, all to make sure Joe gets himself into that second round.

And then, later on, everyone acts so shocked when voters start bringing up these exact same topics in 2019.

In all seriousness, my first instinct is that this coordinated effort to undermine the candidate's reputation is coming straight from the political left.

Everyone is busy throwing stones at one another; some claim the Republican nominee is merely a puppet controlled by the establishment elite, while others paint him as nothing more than a traitorous opportunist who abandoned his roots.

Honestly, the only thing I’m actually looking forward to in this election cycle is seeing one of these three "heavyweights" get knocked out in the primary. Wouldn't it be the ultimate circus if the two most polarized figures ended up facing off in the general? It would be like watching heaven and earth collide. 🙏

The real fight, regardless of what happens here, will be during the next midterm elections.

brightpilot6 said:In all seriousness, my first instinct is that this coordinated effort to undermine the candidate's reputation is coming straight from the political left.

Everyone is busy throwing stones at one another; some claim the Republican nominee is merely a puppet controlled by the establishment elite, while others paint him as nothing more than a traitorous opportunist who abandoned his roots.

Honestly, the only thing I’m actually looking forward to in this election cycle is seeing one of these three "heavyweights" get knocked out in the primary. Wouldn't it be the ultimate circus if the two most polarized figures ended up facing off in the general? It would be like watching heaven and earth collide. 🙏

The real fight, regardless of what happens here, will be during the next midterm elections.

It’s not even about political leanings; it’s just that the establishment would much rather see Milanovich win a runoff than Skor. If Milanovich pulls through, all those Skor supporters will likely pivot toward the establishment candidate, but it doesn't work the other way around, does it?

ruggedjackal46 said:Look, there’s a massive difference between actually having a reason to feel nostalgic and just being willing to defend someone else's right to be nostalgic. It’s two different things entirely. People lived in that era for fifty years, and—believe it or not—a lot of them actually had a better quality of life back then than they do today. Isn't that the crux of it? The real issue with the old regime was that people could only sing the songs the government allowed them to hear.

More regarding that caricature you drew about the Germans and the resistance movement. 😉

What exactly was I exaggerating? Germany invaded and occupied France back in the 1940s, and for the three decades that followed, France wasn't exactly preoccupied with the Swedes.

The collapse of the United States certainly wasn't triggered by a lack of lyrical freedom. The fractures occurred much deeper within the structural integrity of our economy and, ultimately, within the supposed "unity" that proved to be nothing more than a fragile facade.

As for the pop stars and their concerts, I find the musical quality irrelevant compared to the greater cultural embarrassment: the fact that these low-brow tracks consistently draw massive crowds and dominate the airwaves in every car passing on the highway.