Should Hitler be in the game?

[gianluca790]

Please be quiet, you elitist Technocrat. You judge things according to cold, hard logic - not emotional impact, so you have no right to judge the emotional response people have to Hitler. Negative values are just as important as positive values.

I would love to put part of your second paragraph in my sig. Its just too funny!

Please be quiet, you elitist technocrat! I love it![/QUOTE]

Laugh while you can. The fact you laugh when you should be serious just proves the fact you lack the ability to look at things from an emotional point of view. Blatant disregard for another's opinion can be considered a sign of being out of touch with one's inner humanity and can maybe even be considered proof of sociopathic tendencies. I will pray for you. Please get help.

 

[Atropos]

The pot should not call the kettle black. Stooping to insults is childish and trite, because ultimately everyone is a little bit racist, as the musical Avenue Q so succinctly puts it.

I disagree. I am not a racist and I fail to see what evidence you have for that assertion. By ascribing racism to everyone you are depriving the word of all meaning and thereby allowing the real racists to pass unchecked.

Not every American is a racist,

Then why do you assume that I am one?

but bigotry is a defence mechanism that stems from biology, however crazy that may sound. It can be considered the Aristotelian differentiation principle in action, albiet in a more skewered, negative form. Avoid what brings you pain. If a Black man shoots me, I avoid Black men so that I will not be shot. Black people avoid White people for the same reason, because subconsciously they remember American History and they do not want to get lynched by the Klan. It may be wrongheaded, but it is a behavior that is socially, politically and culturally ingrained,

It stems from biology but it is a social, political and cultural construct?

Your insistence that all whites hate blacks and all blacks hate whites is a grotesque distortion of the truth. No black person has ever harmed me, although some white people have. Nor, if one did, would I attribute the harm to his race, I hope.

I just believe that the fact America built the Atomic Bomb and used it negated any moral superiority they had over Germany because Zyklon B and the Atom Bomb are both weapons of mass destruction, making the actions of Germany and the United States morally equivalent, since innocent civilians died as a result of both inventions.

The purposes for which Zyklon B and the atom bomb were used differed radically. I am not saying that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good thing, but the fact that innocent civilians died does not obviate other differences, such as the fact that the inhabitants of Hiroshima were members of a belligerent nation and the German Jews were not.

Some things are invented for specific reasons and it is those reasons that make those things and the people that invent them evil, stupid and mean. Weapons, war and the proponents of weapons and war are evil, stupid and mean, period.

1. There are justified wars, e.g. self-defense.

2. There are degrees of evil, stupidity and meanness. Hitler occupies the bottom rung.

 

[Atropos]

Laugh while you can. The fact you laugh when you should be serious just proves the fact you lack the ability to look at things from an emotional point of view. Blatant disregard for another's opinion can be considered a sign of being out of touch with one's inner humanity and can maybe even be considered proof of sociopathic tendencies. I will pray for you. Please get help.

He is not laughing because he has emotional problems. He is laughing because someone who believes that Hiroshima and the Holocaust are the same, that everyone is racist and that there is no difference between the Nazis and the US is, frankly, amusing.

 

[gianluca790]

You confuse power with greatness. They are not the same thing. Changing the face of history only shows power, not greatness.

The worship of power for power's sake threatens our moral fabric.

Not a great change but a change nevertheless.

 

[xlilwill5x]

Well, in some retrospects he's as insulting as Stalin would be to me. Mao Zedong also isn't the greatest leader to put in the game...

However, mainly, it's just too personal. When people look at Hitler, they think "OMFG WHAT A ****** WHY IS HE IN THE GAME!!!!?!?!" but when they look at Stalin, they don't view him like this. But in many ways, Stalin was a crueler, harsher leader than Hitler was.

So I'd say keep it as it is. I'd rather not spark alot of controversy.

 

[gianluca790]

Unfortunately "moral fabric" doesn't hold water in logics sense, and theres a reason for it. Most if not all posts that make an argument of "morality" aren't worth responding to for this reason.

Man cannot and does not survive on logic alone. Faith is just as powerful as logic. In order to survive, it is logical that I kill, but the moral imperative says that I should not, therefore I will not, because I know that I will be killed in return by others who are going to be out for bloody revenge, and that my afterlife will be spent in a place of pain, isolation and suffering. This is operant conditioning on a large scale in society, but it makes sense because, if I do not look out for my own welfare, who will? It is this idea that one should strive for something other than one's own self satisfaction and egotism that makes us better than the animals. It is an outgrowth of the idea that, if you scratch my back, I will scratch yours. This is the most pure form of Macchiavellian logic in existence. Morality is logical because, without morality, no one would be safe from anyone else and life would be full of paranoia, an untenable situation where everyone fears and hates everyone else because no one knows who is friend and who is foe. The belief in essential decency and humanity is a deterrent that would prevent such a situation from spontaneously occuring.

 

[gianluca790]

He is not laughing because he has emotional problems. He is laughing because someone who believes that Hiroshima and the Holocaust are the same, that everyone is racist and that there is no difference between the Nazis and the US is, frankly, amusing.

I think that we should just agree to disagree and move on. In case you had not noticed, I was playing the devil's advocate, because I happen to believe that all views, no matter how indefensible, deserve to be aired out into the open. I would die to defend your views, even if I might not believe in them personally. To do or say otherwise would be censorship, regardless of whether it is from the Democratic Socialist Left or the Fascist Right. I find the fact that you are still willing to respond to my taunts amusing. It just goes to show how easily people's buttons can be pushed. The fact is that smart people know better than to be baited by the insults of small-minded, idiotic bigots. A truly smart person would have stopped responding to what I said a long time ago. The fact that you are still here debating with me proves just what kind of person you are, Charlie Brown.

 

[Atropos]

I think that we should just agree to disagree and move on. In case you had not noticed, I was playing the devil's advocate, because I happen to believe that all views, no matter how indefensible, deserve to be aired out into the open. To do or say otherwise would be censorship, regardless of whether it is from the Democratic Socialist Left or the Fascist Right.

I agree that all views, including support of Hitler, deserve the right to free expression.

I find the fact that you are still willing to respond to my taunts amusing. It just goes to show how easily people's buttons can be pushed. The fact is that smart people know better than to be baited by the insults of small-minded, idiotic bigots. A truly smart person would have stopped responding to what I said a long time ago. The fact that you are still here debating with me proves just what kind of person you are, Charlie Brown.

So you view yourself as a small-minded, idiotic bigot? How interesting.

If you're curious as to why I'm still willing to respond to your taunts, by the way, the reason is that I would do anything ANYTHING, rather than do the work I'm currently supposed to be doing...

 

[gianluca790]

I disagree. I am not a racist and I fail to see what evidence you have for that assertion. By ascribing racism to everyone you are depriving the word of all meaning and thereby allowing the real racists to pass unchecked.

Words are social constructs. language is not real, but artificial, just like all means of communication that came about because of civilisation, a social construct itself that provides meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence.

Then why do you assume that I am one?

Your words mark you as one

It stems from biology but it is a social, political and cultural construct?

Social Political and Cultural Constructs are outgrowths of the maturation of human biology, namely due to the advent of civilisation, thanks to increased brain power and intelligence, which marks humans as different and therefore special.

Your insistence that all whites hate blacks and all blacks hate whites is a grotesque distortion of the truth. No black person has ever harmed me, although some white people have. Nor, if one did, would I attribute the harm to his race, I hope.

If White people harm you then you would normally be wary of them, the fact that you are not shows that you have progressed beyond such mental blocks, which many people cannot do, because they are placed in conflict with each other for resources and thus need excuses such as racism to take things from others. This operant cultural conditioning is also a part of civilisation, due to Aristotelian ideas of separating people into categories of us and them.

The purposes for which Zyklon B and the atom bomb were used differed radically. I am not saying that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good thing, but the fact that innocent civilians died does not obviate other differences, such as the fact that the inhabitants of Hiroshima were members of a belligerent nation and the German Jews were not.

Itchy trigger fingers and racist hatred caused the US to get into a war it did not have to get into. Political hawks wanted to expand the sphere of influence against massive isolationist opposition from pacifists tired of the carnage of World War I. Political propaganda that portrayed Japanese as subhuman due to their mistreatment of Chinese and the strategic placing of the Pacific Fleet in the path of the Japanese Air Force was just the icing on the cake.

1. There are justified wars, e.g. self-defense.

Self-Defence is easy, Dying for a Cause is not. Caution is no excuse, because Caution can be mistaken for the epitome of Cowardice. Cowardice is the opposite of epitomised ideal Manliness, at least for those of us who believe that Martial Chivalry still exists and that being a soldier does not automatically make one a murdrous assassin or a trained killer.

2. There are degrees of evil, stupidity and meanness. Hitler occupies the bottom rung.

Correction: Satan occupies the bottom rung, alongside Judas, Brutus and Cassius. Hitler is not Satan. He was not even the Anti-Christ, although he was protrayed as being the Anti-Christ because of what he did and who his victims were, which could be regarded as representative of political bias. At least Hitler was human, albiet barely, regardless of all the nasty rumors of being a demon in disguise. There is a difference between the two individuals and the concepts they represent.

 

[gianluca790]

I agree that all views, including support of Hitler, deserve the right to free expression.

Would you personally support such a point of view? I would not. I was playing the devil's advocate.

So you view yourself as a small-minded, idiotic bigot? How interesting.

I said I was playing at being the devil's advocate by portraying myself as such an individual not that I actually am one.

If you're curious as to why I'm still willing to respond to your taunts, by the way, the reason is that I would do anything ANYTHING, rather than do the work I'm currently supposed to be doing...

Get to work, you procrastinator...

 

[Atropos]

Who says Hitler is the Anti-Christ? t_T I fail to see how religion is relevant to this discussion.

 

[Dubai Vol]

People who think on an emotional level cannot be considered to be fully capable of intelligent thought, since most emotionally derived thoughts tend to be fairly unintelligent, even trite and stupid at times. Most of the time, as a matter of fact.

That may be true, but just because lots of people are stupid doesn't mean you can ignore them. As much as we'd like to live in an ideal world, we have to live in the real world, and in the real world, the emotional reaction to Hitler is a very real thing that can't be ignored. For all I care the Germany in the game can have concentration camps as a unique wonder, but it ain't gonna happen because no vendor would sell the game. Same goes for Hitler as leader.

Wishing that everyone was logical is as unrealistic as making decisions based on emotion.

 

[BearMan]

After reading some of the pages...Hitler should be in the game simply because of this thread alone, and if not that, ALL the other threads about the same topic before this one.... (Civfanatics have spoken )

I think the expansion after warlords should include :
A WW2 scenario, add the missing leaders of the major countries, Done.
(only hitler is really missing, but france and japan wouldn't hurt.)

And ofcourse Babylon, they are also wanted by alot of people.
That would be the second scenario.

 

[Depravo]

But in the case of Hitler, there is an emotional factor that must be considered. Logically and morally, Hitler and Stalin may be equivalent, but, fair or not, emotionally they are different. Emotions are real: people are not computers, and logic is not the only consideration.

This view, which is gaining ground, is highly insidious; if it ever became the foundation for public policy it's something I would fight tooth and nail, literally die to prevent.

Emotions are (on some level) real. So what? Were the emotions of the opponents of Darwinian theory during the Monkey Trials, or of those who rioted when they introduced the Gregorian calendar, any less valid?

I know what you're going to say. But truly, how many people were personally touched by the Holocaust? Very, very few of those who'd express their disgust at the release of a game that included an animated caricature of Hitler in 2006 on that basis. No, your emotions and all emotions, no matter how strong, are essentially spurious - it would never occur to you to react this way but for the German defeat, and decades of propaganda that has brought forth something with the features of a medieval religion against which historical objectivity is blasphemy and Hitler the last taboo.

I fervently believe hurt feelings are a trivial price to pay for free expression.

 

[dimaliok]

CIV is an adult game. I dont think teenagers dare to play such complex and long game. Thus, everything can be added, Hitler, talibans, units as suicide bombers, why not.

We can make the difference between good and bad. And between real life and video game. Hitler would trigger amazing/famous succesion games and scenarios.I voted "yes, because he was great in a way", he can be subject for a good book or video game.

Thia game is ratred E10 not AO

 

[Dubai Vol]

This view, which is gaining ground, is highly insidious; if it ever became the foundation for public policy it's something I would fight tooth and nail, literally die to prevent.

Emotions are (on some level) real. So what? Were the emotions of the opponents of Darwinian theory during the Monkey Trials, or of those who rioted when they introduced the Gregorian calendar, any less valid?

I know what you're going to say. But truly, how many people were personally touched by the Holocaust? Very, very few of those who'd express their disgust at the release of a game that included an animated caricature of Hitler in 2006 on that basis. No, your emotions and all emotions, no matter how strong, are essentially spurious - it would never occur to you to react this way but for the German defeat, and decades of propaganda that has brought forth something with the features of a medieval religion against which historical objectivity is blasphemy and Hitler the last taboo.

I fervently believe hurt feelings are a trivial price to pay for free expression.

Depravo I applaud your moral integrity, and I find little to fault with your logic, but I WOULD point out that we are talking about a GAME. One of the cynical lessons old farts like me learn is that you have to pick your battles. This one ain't worth fightin'.

I fervently believe hurt feelings are a trivial price to pay for free expression.

I've repeated that because I agree so strongly. Political correctness is a cancer on modern society. It's "1984" come to life. Anyone who hasn't read that book should be required by law to go out right now, get a copy, and not eat, drink, or sleep until he has finished it.

 

[Depravo]

Depravo I applaud your moral integrity, and I find little to fault with your logic, but I WOULD point out that we are talking about a GAME. One of the cynical lessons old farts like me learn is that you have to pick your battles. This one ain't worth fightin'.

Cheers DV You're right about choosing one's battles of course - I wasn't threatening to set fire to myself on Whitehall or assassinate the Home Secretary if Hitler didn't appear in Civ 4 It's the wider point I meant and it seems you agree.

 

[ZombiVoziKombi]

Just found this poll, here's a late post... One option is missing:

"No, because he was a spectacular failure as a statesman!"

I assume the poll asked whether Hitler should be included as a leader for Germany... On top of being a mass murderer, he was fantastically destructive to all involved, including his own nation... Decidedly not the kind of a bloke who could lead a civ to stand the test of time, which is more or less the civ4 criterion, no?

He could, however, be programmed in as a calamity -- a kind of a Godzilla that turns your civ into rubble. "National-socialist takeover" happens to you, you immediately switch to Slavery, Nationhood and Police State, and declare war on every Universal Suffrage, Representation and State Property civ. Then, you can produce only military units, barracks and jails, three of your cities automatically draft units every turn as long as they have the pop to support it, and your only legal victory condition is conquest. I'm sure this would be a challenging mod.

 

[armchairknight]

Just found this poll, here's a late post... One option is missing:

"No, because he was a spectacular failure as a statesman!"

I assume the poll asked whether Hitler should be included as a leader for Germany... On top of being a mass murderer, he was fantastically destructive to all involved, including his own nation... Decidedly not the kind of a bloke who could lead a civ to stand the test of time, which is more or less the civ4 criterion, no?

He could, however, be programmed in as a calamity -- a kind of a Godzilla that turns your civ into rubble. "National-socialist takeover" happens to you, you immediately switch to Slavery, Nationhood and Police State, and declare war on every Universal Suffrage, Representation and State Property civ. Then, you can produce only military units, barracks and jails, three of your cities automatically draft units every turn as long as they have the pop to support it, and your only legal victory condition is conquest. I'm sure this would be a challenging mod.

And here I thought he was much more effective as a statesman than a general. He seems to have been remarkably popular in Germany during most of the war and managed to annex other nations without firing a shot. It wasn't until he actually fired that shot that war broke out. I like the calamity option, by the way. Except I think you're joking and you're making it too strong for me. Then again I would like a civil war calamity also if they were rare enough.

 

[ruff_hi]

If you check your history, Hitler was a remarkable leader during the late 20s / early 30s. Yes, he went a bit off track (way off track) later but he did manage to turn around a country that was crippled as a result of the limitations placed on it by the allies after WWI. In some ways (and this is probably a stretch), the WWI restrictions could be blamed for WWII.