Posting mode: Reply
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • ????????? - ??

  • File :1245021972.jpg-(32 KB, 590x320, 1984-movie-bb_a1.jpg)
    32 KB Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:26 No.4880946  
    To counterbalance the monumental failure of the thread about turning Eragon into an RPG, I suggest turning George Orwell's "1984" into an RPG. This would also have the advantage of being more grimdark than anything the 40kfags could come up with while being better in every respect.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:30 No.4880971
    ever heard of Paranoia?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:31 No.4880978

    Yeah. Paranoia is Funnydark. 1984 would be Grimmestdarkest.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:33 No.4880990
    Can't say I have. What's it like?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:39 No.4881033
         File :1245022790.jpg-(102 KB, 750x376, 20090320.jpg)
    102 KB
    Paranoia is the Shadowdark. 1984 is Scarytown.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:39 No.4881034
    In Alpha Complex (THE BEST PLACE EVAR) Friend Computer rules everything. He is your Friend. He only wants the best for you. And he wants all traitor-commie-mutants that want to destroy Alpha Complex dead, dead, dead!

    Problem is, you are a traitor and a mutant, and maybe a commie.

    PCs are Troubleshooters (they find trouble and shoot it) in a dystopian society where everyone is born out of cloning vats, along with five other clones. Clones that you will need, as everyone tries to stab each other in the back in order to curry favor with the omnipresent and batshit fucking loco Friend Computer and the secret societies that actually run the show in Alpha Complex. Even making it out of mission briefing alive is a (short-lived) accomplishment.

    I'm going to put it like this: even knowing the rules of the game is treason. Your character can and will get executed if you demonstrate rules knowledge.

    It's awesome.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:40 No.4881036
    thankyou, you just made me feel really fucking old.

    you fucking mutant traitor commie scum.

    Are you Happy?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:42 No.4881051
    Paranoia can be played for laughs, and it usually is.

    You can also ditch all the parody aspects and play a boot stomping on a human face, forever.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:49 No.4881104
    Ah, I see. And now I want to play that game so much that my balls hurt just thinking about it.

    That said, I still say 1984 would be a good basis for roleplaying.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:55 No.4881157
    I can't see it being a good roleplaying setting. The moment you step out of line, you get your arse handed to you by the Thought Police. It's too grimdark, that's the problem...

    Unless you were playing proles, I suppose.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:57 No.4881168
    If you run a 1984 game and it doesn't end with the party being sent to room 101, you fail as a DM.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)19:58 No.4881175

    If you're a prole then you're fucked as all you do is go to work and play the lotto.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:01 No.4881198
    Don't forget that in the book the thought police knew Winston was a thought-criminal for seven years before they chose to move in and arrest him. Stepping out of line doesn't have instant consequences. Inevitable, but not instant.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:03 No.4881211
    I can't imagine there being any real way to win..or anything. It'd be like...20% normal civvie, 30% becoming a dissenter, 50% torture and then finally becoming "cured"
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:04 No.4881213

    Yeah, they like to let people fight the system so they can latter send them to room 101 to be reformed as an example to the rest of the population.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:04 No.4881214
    It's called Paranoia.


    All you have to do is keep resisting. They won't execute you if you don't love them; that'd give their opponents a martyr.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:05 No.4881223

    That would be the point of running a 1984 game.

    The real question is: can a 1984 game could be made fun?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:06 No.4881225
    They only felt like waiting him to go overboard and have sex, I guess.

    Only hope...maybe proles or people in the Inner Party
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:06 No.4881228

    "You need a 5+ on 2d6."

    "I roll 2 and 2. That's 5."
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:11 No.4881248

    The character, after being tortured and reformed, now loves Big Brother. Then, as the assassin begins to pull the trigger, the "reformed" character screams out "FUCK BIG BROTHER!"

    BLAM! He's dead, killed for dissenting.

    The people around him stare in shock, not that he died, but that he died for speaking against Big Brother.

    Oh holy shit, it's a martyr that the party didn't want.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:12 No.4881258
    They do everything they can to make sure you genuinely love Big Brother. And IIRC, they had some mind reader thingies. That's how they knew Winston was a thought criminal for so long
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:12 No.4881260
    To be honest, I'd probably run 1984 in a heavily-modified Shadowrun system.

    Shadowrun has a lot more in common tone-wise than does Paranoia.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:13 No.4881261
    Now that I think about it, the relationship of individuals to the party in 1984 is kind of like the relationship between players and bad DMs. You don't want to do what the DM wants you to do, but you have no power whatsoever and if you step out of line then the DM will torture you until you crawl back with your tail between your legs. Perhaps this game wasn't such a good idea...
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:13 No.4881262
    Inner party characters get to decide their roll outcomes.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:13 No.4881267

    I think you underestimate just how effective Room 101 is.

    And they don't immediately execute you, they let you live (at least for a little while). Hell, the only people I remember being executed were POWs.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:14 No.4881270
    Either way, though, 1984 is a piss-poor setting. It's about powerlessness and the subjectivity of reality. You may as well play generic cyberpunk and ditch the 1984 label entirely, because on Airstrip One, everyone loves B.B.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:14 No.4881271

    Haha nice one
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:14 No.4881272

    I think it was less mind reading and more spies and cameras.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:14 No.4881273

    FUND IT!
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:15 No.4881284

    Eh, seemed like the only way for a PC to have any power on a setting like 1984 would be through death. I gave it a shot.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:16 No.4881286
    1984 doesn't, as far as I recall, have feral children fighting over the flesh of the dead.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:16 No.4881289
    Whether they were even actual PoWs is open to interpretation. Whether there was a war, other nations, or even an Oceania that extended beyond Britain was unclear. Whether there was human civilization AT ALL outside of Britain (considering there had been an atomic war), is not confirmed.

    This is, of course, part of the story's themes.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:19 No.4881305
    That, and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:23 No.4881327
    Roleplaying demands answers. 1984 gives no answers, and even fundamental assumptions about reality are lies. It is the antithesis of a setting you could hold a game in.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:26 No.4881345
    >PCs are Troubleshooters (they find trouble and get shot by it)

    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:28 No.4881356
    You couldn't do it, unless you changed a lot and made some assumptions about the setting that would make other people who've read the book rage.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:29 No.4881360
    This is one of the settings where you need to be a really good GM.

    Proles who are a bit wise could work. After all, they don't bother monitoring them beyond their being a few agents who take care of the proles who speak out too much
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:29 No.4881363
    I don't see 1984 as being pulled off well as a RPG. Their boot stomping on a human face schtick has been pulled off too well.

    You're better off making a setting with allusions to 1984 (and other dystopias).
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:29 No.4881364

    What if the PCs are *running* Room 101?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:32 No.4881380
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:32 No.4881381
    Proles trying to start a revolution.
    Inner party members working on the inside.
    maybe a REAL underground brotherhood
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:33 No.4881387
    Now there's a thought; have the PCs as mini-tru members who've got to hunt down thought-crime without falling victim to it themselves.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:35 No.4881401

    I could see that working.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:36 No.4881408
    Goldstein was a real thought criminal. But it was okay, because by being a "genuine" thought criminal, he could bait in other dissenters.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:37 No.4881413
    Making the PCs members of Minitru or Miniluv will result in them constantly pestering the GM for the truth.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:38 No.4881419
    Goldstein's existence isn't confirmed.

    The only "fact" 1984 gives for certain is that Oceania fell, considering the appendices.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:38 No.4881420
    ITT We make a version of Paranoia that robs it of everything that made it playable
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:39 No.4881433
    Oh shit. PC controlled thought police? Seems a little more feasible actually.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:40 No.4881439
    wat. goldstein was the room 101 guy who pretended to be Winston's friend, wasn't he?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:40 No.4881440
    No one knows the truth any more. Not even the people who try to suppress it.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:41 No.4881446
    No, that was O'Brian.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:42 No.4881449

    The joke here being that the Inner Party collectively decides what the "real truth" is...
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:42 No.4881452
    Emmanuel Goldstein was the father of the "resistence." The guy who tortured Winston was that Inner Party member who pretended to be a member of said resistence. His name slips my mind.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:43 No.4881456
    And then promptly forget they were ever in the same room as each other when that truth gets changed.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:46 No.4881464
    Err, resistance, even.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:47 No.4881472
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:48 No.4881474
    You're not going to get many players that GET that theme, though.

    As to Goldstein, he seems to be a parallel of the early Russian communist leadership, who were (more) faithful to the communist ideal, and found themselves betrayed and demonized by the later establishment (Stalin and company, who were no more communists than I am a puppy).
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)20:50 No.4881484
    Like Trotsky? But that white piggy from Animal Farm fits him better.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)21:08 No.4881606
    It would suck. Thoughtpolice would just round you up and kill you. Not very fun.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)21:37 No.4881876
    1984: A book that ended up being wrong, but people still act like it could actually happen.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)21:40 No.4881901
    Animal Farm is more directly about the Soviet Union.
    >> Two posts minimum Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)21:51 No.4882005
    I don't think it can be done, but that shouldn't stop us.

    First off, we need to be inventive if we're going to do this. Second, we need to be great- not just good- if we want to do this /right/.

    I'm a bit more of a narrativefag gents, but I'll do my best to make this as much a game as I have this an idea of being an example of the setting and G. Orwell's dream land. Here's my plan gentlemen. Let's see if we can get this thing so perfect it's singing Carmina Burana.

    First thing that's come to my mind- the setting must stay true to the /themes/ and /mood/ of the book. So no matter what your lads do, you're going to keep it running as the world would run. That's your obligation. Everything INGSOC would do, you do.
    Second thing- the GM can lie. More specifically, doublethink.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)21:52 No.4882015
    Next thing- campaigns are played in "episodes". Players get to see the society from multiple viewpoints- most of which should be conflicting, downright contradictory. Here's my example of this setup, and how I'd run this. Proles in one episode, trying to survive. They're eventually rounded up for doing wrong (or being accused of such) and are hit by room 101 and reeducation. They're told, for instance, that the war is still on, and always has been on. Next episode, the players are thought police, interrogators, and reeducators, having just rounded up their previous selves. They all work to stop thoughtcrime. They all know that there's no war on, really, and everything outside is a radioactive wasteland. They catch themselves, and continue on in their new roles. They complete a few missions, and if they haven't died or been rounded up for thoughtcrime yet, I tell my lads we're switching to another episode, but we'll be back to their characters, with new swag and a better life as well or whatever bribe you see fit. Next roles, the people are playing wastelanders, conditions even worse than what they used to play as Proles. It's a survival-group thing, and on their scavenging mission for food once again, Eurasians and Minipax are seen fighting. What they do is up to them from there, but I'd wager my boys investigate. Bad things happen. Switch back to the Outer Party/Inner Party group- Eurasia is invading, time to join up in Minipax. Devotees are expected to join- and they do- and rebels are expected to join because refusal is conscription. Welcome to Minipax, lads. That or they could play on-the-run. It's up to them. Depending on their efforts, you could have Eurasians marching in, or have the Minipax army marching out, or the ThoughtPolice after their renegade rears. Rumours abound- the Eurasians are slaves forced to fight- Eurasians have conquered everywhere else- Eurasians are the alternate army of Minipax that's been building up all these years.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)21:53 No.4882025
    That's just the test run of ideas in my head. I can imagine there's as many ways to run this as there are decisions that haven't been made in all of creation- but the guidelines are: keep it murky. Keep it doubling back on itself. And keep it grim. The players can do whatever they want- but they're going to be fighting the setting as much as other people.

    I haven't played D20 modern, but others have that I know, and it may be a quick sub- in. I think GURPS wouldn't be too hard to roll this in for it.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)21:55 No.4882035
    I never understood the whole newspeak thing

    What's to stop someone from thinking "Big brother double-plus ungood" or something
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:11 No.4882180

    Crimestop. Thought exercises to stop yourself, instinctually, from observing too closely logical fallacies of the Party, why you should ever disagree, the possibility of disagreeing, and generally conditioning yourself to a new league of hypocrisy so hard that you can stand in a room one second hearing you're at war with one country, banners and posters for fighting this country all over the place, and in the middle of a rabble-rousing speech, have the party member speaker change who the evil country is. And have all the listeners stop, do a double take- and rip down all the banners and posters for being wrong, while not wondering why they are wrong or following any train of thought that could lead to questioning the words of the Party.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:20 No.4882239
    This just in:

    1984 was meant as a warning to the British populace that if they didn't do something about government, like convert to communism, they were going to end up just like 1984 talked about.

    This was bullshit.

    Dystopian settings are just as improbable as Utopian ones.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:24 No.4882278
    Ha ha ha, bullshit.

    Though Britain is pretty 1984-ish. There's a camera for every 11 people.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:28 No.4882317

    Breaking news:

    We don't all of us give a fuck if something's realistic. We care if it's relevant to our interests. If some people find it fun to imagine themselves in a world as shit-miserable as 1984, then there's nothing stopping us but ourselves from making that world and god damn playing in it until our wretched ends come for us.

    I see your "STOP HAVING FUN GUYS" and I raise you a "Go fuck yourself troll".
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:29 No.4882343
    It's actually more a knee jerk "Christ you fuckers, this shit isn't real!"

    Sorry, I enjoyed the hell out of the book, and the man's a good writer, but listening to every first year college student rant about how all governments will end up this way has kind of made me pissy about it.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:31 No.4882361
    This just in:

    Brave New World was meant as a warning to the British populace that if they didn't do something to control their own desires, like stopping casual sex and drug use, then they'd end up living hollow lives devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

    This was exactly right, and large parts of our population are suffering as a result.

    Dystopian settings are much more probable than utopian ones.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:35 No.4882408
    >>4882361This just in:

    Humanity has grown no worse in our wasting of lives and general lack of purpose in the modern age.

    You can't expect me to buy that a serf in the Middle Ages had more purpose to his life then a random joe does today.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:37 No.4882431
    Of course he did; he had faith. What do we have?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:38 No.4882437
    If they're more probable, then why has one never really occurred?

    Sure, we've come closer to one end or another, but in the end it always swings back to the middle.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:41 No.4882463

    Oh. My bad man, I can get behind that. Sorry for trying to call you out then, I've dealt with the same thing. I think he was aiming for socialist government instead of communist if I recall correctly. It's been a while since I've given a fuck about a guy I don't really have to study anymore.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:42 No.4882468
    The hell he did. More superstitious, maybe (and that's a big 'maybe'), but faith? Nah.

    He would be wise not to let it show, though, what with churches having more power back in the day.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:42 No.4882469
    It's common sense. A shitty future is possible, because humans are good at shitty. A perfect future is impossible, because no human in history has ever been perfect. Besides, someone living two hundred years ago would probably consider what we have now to be a dystopian future. It just doesn't feel dystopian to us because we're living in it.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:42 No.4882472
    This, right here, makes this thread worthy of archiving.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:45 No.4882505
    Liberalism is a mental disorder
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:45 No.4882508
    And yet, the worst of humanity has never lasted.

    Even total chaos eventually ends, and people begin to rebuild. Sure, some fucked up government or warlord or religious group of people may gain power for a period of time, but it never lasts.

    Humans naturally swing to the middle, not to the low end.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:48 No.4882538
    I think you're confusing faith with piety. Even more dangerous, I think you're mistaking faith with religion. Faith can be anything. You can have faith in your morality, or the future, or other people. You can have faith in your lucky four-leaf clover, or in the healing properties of crystals. The average medieval farmer had faith that living his life according to certain ethical principals was right and would receive a just reward. People these days have no such faith.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:49 No.4882554
    Play real life: work and vote in 1984, then go home and watch the Matrix meets Brave New World on your television.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:49 No.4882556
    >Besides, someone living two hundred years ago would probably consider what we have now to be a dystopian future.

    Orly? Because of all the minorities?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:53 No.4882580
    I'm really not seeing your point. You think the only kind of dystopian future is one that lasts forever?

    Not what I was thinking, but maybe.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:53 No.4882584
    No, I think I've got it right, and there's no real evidence for what you're saying. Joe Serf had no reason to believe anything other than "nothing changes." His father was a serf; his grandfather was a serf; his children would be serfs. He had to work for his lord because that's what serfs did. Ethical principles were beyond his ken: he had to make it through the winter, hopefully in one piece. That's what his life was about: taking his family from one winter to another.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:54 No.4882593
    What then? The fact that women wear pants? I think anyone who wasn't, you know, super racist or who could look beyond that, would be pleased as fuck by today.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:55 No.4882599
    I don't even believe they executed Winston at all. Him loving BB was dying.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:55 No.4882604
    I think you have a very low opinion of serfs if you think their brains couldn't handle anything outside of their occupation.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:57 No.4882631
    I think it more had to do with any serfs trying to do something different got the shit beat out of them/killed.

    Besides, farming was hard work. It's not something that leaves an amazing amount of free time.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:58 No.4882638
    I think the fact that it can never last forever is point enough. If humans really were that terrible, then I can't see them recovering from it.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:58 No.4882639
    Our politicians are scum. Our social ideals are despicable. Our criminals roam the streets unchecked, which makes our law-abiding citizens prisoners in their own homes as soon as the sun goes down. I don't think our ancestors would think much of what we've done with the place.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:58 No.4882640
    Oh god. I'm going to puke.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)22:58 No.4882643

    I think it was supposed to be ambiguous leaning towards grim no matter what- I think he was executed/martyred/assassinated, but someone else I met said they thought they read that the party was overthrown in the end.


    Why thank you kindly!
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:00 No.4882665
    But remember that he was on all TV screens after they released him, 'confessing' his crimes. He would be gone soon, everyone knew that.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:02 No.4882674
    Where the fuck do you live?

    Because I've lived in some fairly bad cities and towns, and even then I never feared the night.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:02 No.4882677
    wait what
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:02 No.4882686
    Politicians have always been scum. Open a history book sometime.

    Our social ideals have always been despicable.

    There have always been criminals, only now those in power are a little less free to express this, and occasionally these criminals are caught.

    The quality of life is better for us than our ancestors, and the life of a soldier is actually worth something. That's an improvement.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:03 No.4882692
    Um... right. I don't see any way we can resolve this argument. I think medieval farmers had brains and knew how to use them, you don't. Let's just agree to disagree.

    Now what were we talking about?
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:03 No.4882694

    speak for yourself my friend. My polititians are decent, I live a fulfilling life in a clean and safe city and i'm surrounded by the social ideals I consider most important in life (tolerance, empathy).

    Just because your life sucks doesn't mean everyone else's life sucks. Hate to break it to you.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:06 No.4882745
    Bradford city centre. Come here for the night life, leave for the hospital.

    Ah yes, tolerance and empathy. Soft, weak words. We need to return to the days when people had some discipline.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:09 No.4882765

    ITT: unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:09 No.4882768

    Making 1984 into a good setting. I tried, but a derailment caused only one response so far to be written about it- it was a good response however, so it may have merit. It's the two big posts with a small one underneath it:

    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:09 No.4882771
    Oh god I can see his tuffy moustache.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:15 No.4882825
    I'm not saying they weren't smart(or at least, were stupid). I'm saying that between the crushing taxes and the 16 hour workdays, every day of the week left them with little time to use those brains.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:15 No.4882826
    No, I'm being serious. Of course tolerance and empathy are important (not that anyone knows what those words really mean anymore) but our society seems to have forgotten the things that make civilisation work. They think that freedom is a virtue in and of itself. In reality freedom has to balanced against justice; that's what the law is for, but it's also what restraint and self-control is for. In the old days people had standards, and if someone acted in a way that was socially unnacceptable then that person was socially excluded. These days if someone acted in a way that was socially unnacceptable we'd put his face on a t-shirt.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:19 No.4882868
    >if someone acted in a way that was socially unnacceptable


    People still hold values like that, man. They're called muslims.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:23 No.4882907
    >>if someone acted in a way that was socially unnacceptable then that person was lynched for being a black man staring at a white woman.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:23 No.4882912
    This just in:

    Someone comment that back in HIS DAY, people were good honest people with solid morals and the willingness to help others, totally unlike the selfish masses of today.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:24 No.4882916
    That's exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about. You think every lifestyle is just as valid is every other, and when people use the social freedom you've given them to beat up their girlfriends or break into people's houses you defend them by pretending that things have always been this way.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:25 No.4882927

    And if their parents hadn't bought into that new age BULLSHIT and raised them like we were raised, they wouldn't turn out to be such hoodlums.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:25 No.4882929
    >>Some people abusing their freedom means we have to take it away for everyone.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:26 No.4882942
    Ah yes, if one aspect of a society was wrong then everything about that society must be evil. Good logic, now have a cookie and sit in the corner.

    Back in my day? Fuck that shit, I'm probably younger than you.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:27 No.4882960
    So, what, are you going to claim that people used to not beat their wives and never stole shit?

    Because, you know, that's fine by me. We totally won't bring up the social norms of even a century ago or all the crime, organized and unorganized, that existed.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:27 No.4882961
    >>if one aspect of a society was wrong then everything about that society must be evil.

    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:34 No.4883036
    Which explains why you're unaware of what I'm talking about.

    Protip: it's proven that people always remember the past as being better than it was today, regardless of the facts. One of the studies actually went through bullfighting magazines and articles and discovered that everyone said the same thing: "The bulls were bigger, meaner, and far harder to ride twenty years ago, and the riders were better then this sloppy lot."
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:46 No.4883149
    If, hypothetically, the past really had been better, your argument would be just as valid as it is now. That is to say, not at all. We're talking about facts here, not feelings. While our society has many, many advantages over all societies that have gone before, it also has a unique problem; people no longer have anything to believe in. God is dead, and the liberal intellectuals who killed him are too busy congratulating each other on a job well done to notice that people have been left without any purpose to their lives.

    The few who have noticed are too cowardly and vain to admit (to themselves or others) that their actions might have had any unintended side-effects, and so they sweep them under the rug by saying that it's better to have no meaning to your life than to have a meaning imposed on you by others, and when anyone points out the soaring levels of every type of crime they hide in a fog of unreliable statistics. It's incredibly unlikely that our records could be so flawed that the surge in crime is just an illusion, but it's just possible enough that the liberals can hide behind that possibility whenever they're called to account for their mistakes.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:46 No.4883151

    Ah, I think I see the problem here.

    Here's some personal statements that I think you'd pick the other side of, considering everything you've said so far.

    I'd rather have killers not go to jail than innocent people live the rest of their lives in prison. I'd rather people have the ability to choose to kill their children before they're born because they don't have the means of supporting them, can't take any sort of leave because their jobs would replace them with people who WILL work instead of asking for maternity leave pay, and would starve if she took time off regardless- I'd rather have that than the destitute woman not even having that option. I'd rather help a criminal than hurt a truly good man. I'd rather we have the choice of committing crime instead of no real choices at all, worried of stepping on someone's toes who could have your head cut off- or do it themselves and be stopped by no one, because might made right.
    >> Anonymous 06/14/09(Sun)23:47 No.4883165
    I believe you would disagree with these statements. And that's okay. Because you have the freedom to say what you believe in. Where I live, it's not a crime to express your opinion. It wasn't always this way- I believe that you're right in how you said there was less crime when thieves got their hands chopped off and anyone who pissed off a noble or a samurai could be executed. That this could happen to someone who was innocent is unacceptable to me and my nation. It still happens, unfortunately. But if it is found to have happened, I and other people who think like me work as hard as we can to right things and help innocent people out. I know the arguments against my decision, arguments about collateral damage, about hundreds dying because a serial killer was freed instead of an innocent man living in jail. I accept this risk. And I accept responsibility if I free someone who does such a thing. And I continue with my work, because I believe what I am doing is right. And if I die by one of the morally reprehensible people who I or others like me have freed accidentally- then I am content that I have done my best to keep innocent people free.

    I don't believe my opinion to be weakness. I believe what my opinion is proves that I'm an empathic human who cares about others. I'll mourn those hypothetical people I have condemned- and I do every time I think this over again- but I'll cherish the real, flesh and blood people I have kept free. They make it worth it to me.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:00 No.4883260
    Well I respect the fact that you the courage of your convictions, but personally I think that empathy is a weakness that people in positions of power can't afford to have. It clouds their judgement. Many of the choices that they have to make are not between good and evil, but between two different evils. Imprisoning an innocent man is a terrible thing for him. Letting a guilty man go free is a terrible thing for his victims. The people in power have to judge which is the lesser evil, coldly and clinically, and then they have to put those judgements into action without hesitation. Let them feel sorry for the poor innocents who they've condemned, but let them do it in their own time.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:03 No.4883278

    this kind of thing creates monsters like kissinger.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:09 No.4883323
    I've heard the name, but I'm not familiar with the man. Care to explain?
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:10 No.4883332

    I believe that when you're in a position of power you can't afford to become cold and clinical. When people become numbers and you're merely trying to get the highest amount of people safe, no matter the cost, I believe that you've lost the ability to sanely lead.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:12 No.4883334
    I believe you are wrong. People like you allowed North Korea to acquire a nuclear weapons program.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:15 No.4883352
    ...and in fact, people like him allowed North Korea to exist in the first place, and communist Vietnam along with all its horrors. Weak-kneed compassion, while nice on the surface, just leads to trouble down the line.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:18 No.4883377

    Once again, I'd rather have too much freedom for everyone than too little freedom for anyone. So what? Almost everyone has nuclear weapons. Someday everyone will have nukes. Maybe it'll all balance out, and no one will attack anyone else for fear of starting nuclear wars. In addition, please explain to me who these people like me were- specifically, so I can know what you mean without a doubt please.


    Henry Kissinger was responsible for the peace talks in Vietnam. Throughout the Vietnam War. He didn't do too good of a job evidently. I'm not the one who mentioned Kissinger, so I don't know too much about him. Feel free to look him up if the poster doesn't elaborate.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:19 No.4883385

    The problem with being lenient when pursuing and punishing criminals is that it creates a tyrannical system of its own. One where the citizens live in fear not of breaking the law, but of attracting the attention of a criminal. Look at the city of Philadelphia, where lawlessness is pretty rampant, thanks to their touchy-feely mayor and judges--not to mention a strong underground "shoot snitches" movement. I've known about how bad the place is for a while now, but it recently hit home; my very good friend is missing school right now to attend the funeral of her cousin, who was shot in the head outside her mother's house last week. The girl didn't have any gang affiliations, she just lived in a bad part of town. But you'd rather we err on the side of the wrongdoers, instead of the victims.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:22 No.4883403
    There are just too many cases where the people in power have got to choose between two options which will both cause pain and suffering. Of course all the pain and suffering they prevent will be hypothetical, whereas all the pain and suffering they cause will be real, and so no matter what they do they'll be left with a nagging doubt at the back of their mind that they could have done things better. There are three possible responses to this. First, go mad. I'm sure plenty of leaders have done so. Second, decide that some people, or some rights, are more worthy of protection than others. This has given rise to the modern belief that a criminal's right to the benefit of the doubt is more important than innocent people's right to not be murdered. Third, become emotionally detached. This may leave them with an outlook on life that normal people find disturbing, and will probably take a heavy toll on them in the long run, but it may be better than the alternatives. Of course all this depends on the leader in question having the good of the people at heart, which is by no means certain, but we can only hope that democracy will continue to keep the worst of the nutjobs out of power.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:25 No.4883428
    People like you are like traitors to your nation. In fact that is what you are even if you don't consider yourself one.You would rather empower our enemies so that we can't easily counter them so that things are "fair". You are a fool, through and through. I frankly don't WANT more more people with their hands on Armageddon buttons because the more regimes acquire this kind of firepower the more danger we are in. The world was safer when only a few countries had that capability. You want everyone to have it and that is lunacy.

    Explanation enough for you?
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:34 No.4883507
    Guy with the empathy: I'm the one you've been arguing with, and please don't confuse this guy with me. His views on nuclear proliferation do not reflect my own. Neither am I in the habit of throwing the word "traitor" around to describe people with different opinions.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:37 No.4883535

    I feel for you and your good friend. I thankfully haven't lost any friends but I have been stabbed before down wolf-street in an attempted mugging. I live in Baltimore.
    I'd rather we don't create anymore victims on our zealous crackdowns on criminals, inevitably swinging towards a more authoritarian legal system, having people just as afraid of police officers as they are of criminals now. I'd /rather/ none of this was happening, but I choose to risk some guilty men and women freedom instead of imprisoning a single innocent, or having my city ruled under martial law. I would rather get stabbed again and go through the whole process instead of someone innocent going mad in prison and getting transferred to, say, Pelican Bay. I can say I'd rather your friend's cousin died again from being shot in the head instead of being brutalized by guards and raped by prisoners in a prison for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I truly feel for you and your friend. But I'd rather be shot in the head than go to most of the jails in our country.

    >>a criminal's right to the benefit of the doubt is more important than innocent people's right to not be murdered.

    I don't give a damn about the rights of criminals. I hope that murderers are executed if they cannot be rehabilitated instead of staying in prison and killing other prisoners who have, for instance, stolen- I don't believe that's worth death in jail, and neither does our country. What I am not willing to risk is that people like you, and your friend, and your cousin, and my family, and I are wrongfully imprisoned. In our current system, criminals are still capable of shocking the desensitized populace and even judges, but people are still being wrongfully imprisoned. Something is obviously not working, even with detached civil leaders in power where I live.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:40 No.4883567

    Noted and thank you. I didn't believe you'd say such a thing, and the writing seemed a bit different. Nevertheless, thank you for the clarification. I don't think I'll respond to him anymore- I don't think I can discuss anything with him unfortunately.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:44 No.4883605
    Hmmm... okay, as I see it there's one of two things going on here. First, the place where you live has something seriously wrong with its legal system and far more innocent people are being put in prison than where I live. Or second, wrongful imprisonment is a cause that you've decided to dedicate a lot of your time too, and you've lost your objectivity. All I know is that wrongful imprisonment isn't a big problem here in the UK. In fact we don't have much imprisonment of any variety, wrongful or otherwise.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:50 No.4883642
    I use the world traitor when I feel it is appropriate, and anyone who would consciously play into the interests of a foreign power is a traitor.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:50 No.4883646

    >I don't give a damn about the rights of criminals. I...

    No, John, you *are* the criminals.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:51 No.4883656

    Like, say, your Founding Fathers? Washington, Jefferson, Adams?

    Traitors to the Crown, all of them.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:51 No.4883660
    To add on to this post; I've known people who've been assaulted in their own homes and have been told by the police that it's not worth their time investigating it. I've known people who've been mugged in the street, and then after they tried to defend themselves the mugger sued them for assault and won the case. I knew an old lady who was beaten to death in the street because she wouldn't give up her purse, and the person who did it was out of jail four years later. If your state (or country, or whatever) has a problem with too many innocent people in jail then I think we have very different problems.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:54 No.4883695
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:54 No.4883697
         File :1245041678.jpg-(11 KB, 265x297, 1245003840415.jpg)
    11 KB
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:56 No.4883708

    I work with the judicial system in America. I take it you were the second poster? My apologies, I confused you as the same person who lives in Philadelphia. I suppose I lost my objectivity, but I work with a lot of people, and I've seen a few things I wish I hadn't. But though I wouldn't say it happens on a one-to-one ratio, innocent people do go to jail in America more than I'd appreciate and more than I'm certain most people believe. Baltimore is rather crime heavy- I believe this year Baltimore, Maryland has the honor of being the city with the highest per-capita murders. Which is a bit grim, seeing as we've been lowering our murder rate over the past twenty years.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:56 No.4883716
    That's the opposite of treason, dawg.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)00:56 No.4883719
    The irony inherent in this statement made me laugh so hard.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)01:00 No.4883751
    Yeah man, didn't you know? Questioning honor killings and executions because you believe there should only be one Imam descended from Ali instead of a bunch of Imams is HATEFUL PREJUDICE.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)01:00 No.4883756
    Thus we see why world government will never work. Countries are different, they have different problems, needs, and collective beliefs. I am NOT a citizen of the world and I'll be damned if I want someone on the other side of the planet having any more power over me than they already do.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)01:03 No.4883783
    Player: "I try to--"
    DM: "YOU LOSE"
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)01:04 No.4883787
    Wow. That is pretty grim. I can completely see why you care about this so much, but... shit, I feel bad arguing with you now. You're out there helping people and I'm just some jackass student, sitting around doing nothing all day.

    I don't think we're talking about the same problem, and from what you've told me maybe your ideas are right for the situation you're facing. More and more I get the impression that America has a very different set of flaws and virtues to the UK and the rest of Europe.

    Ok mate, this was probably the best debate I've ever had on 4chan, but now I've been awake for far too long and I'm going to have to sign off. It's been a pleasure arguing with you. Goodnight.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)01:40 No.4884082

    Take it easy. The thread seems to have devolved again, despite my rather nice three posts earlier on with my idea. And if you're a student, you're not sitting around being a jackass (hopefully, at least not for more than the first quarter- or semester). You're trying to learn to be something more than what you currently are. My job is such that if I didn't believe what I do, then I would need to have another job- because I'd give it a fair bet I couldn't sleep at night if I thought any differently. Working with defense attorneys, I can actually count the number of people I believe are innocent that I've worked with my friends to get out. I can also look in my phone and count the number of my contacts and their information I've got saved that are in jail because we weren't good enough. I don't always help people friend. All of the people I've worked with however have refused to take jobs for people we knew were guilty. We ask other lawyers and teams to take the cases, and we've still got plenty of work out for us. We're still young-ish, so we still think we can make it. But god can it be bad.

    I know that you're offline, but I want you to know that I have no problem with you or anyone arguing with me. This is the only proper way to change people's opinions, exchange, and refine ideas. I would have you and everyone else never stop questioning what you do, what others do, and wondering what is right. That's the best I've come up with for helping others, and what I tell other people.

    Archiving, because of an earlier request, because I would like you to see this, and because I think this thread is good enough for an archive, just for speaking with you. Good night.
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)01:46 No.4884132
    >> Anonymous 06/15/09(Mon)02:45 No.4884723


    Delete Post [File Only]
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]