Yeah under the terms of service I’m also free to be a pain in the ass.

You got terms of service, now. Looks sketchy. The yee old code of conduct was a good way to go. This here is a terms of service. The kind you click on to agree to most of the time. So sketchy it makes me think oh yeah, I haven’t agreed to them yet. Never going to. At least for noe I can say no and continue onward. You really want to enslave me but I’m not going to be your slave. Your terms of service can suck my balls.

Yes. With VPN. And so many lessons learned after about how you didn’t have to do it, but you did it.

Fuck yeah to the hell yes.

This is funny.

So, Roman people are old people. They’ll just bring their folding chairs.

You didnt’t think of engaging with the weekly post. Why? I want to know because why did I bother?

Reminds me of fiction.

It isn’t an insult.

So far you think I’m an idiot. We have nothing more to discuss, apparently. The rest of your comment is what we call a non sequitor. I don’t like your post, personally. What I think personally has nothing to do with this community, but I thought it would be nice to share with this community what I think. Why? I want others to do the same as me. We’re done here. Your post isn’t useful, at least to me. Don’t I wish it was? Now, if you don’t mind, I have other things to do. You’ve proven to me that you’re not interesting to talk to. Prattle on as you wish. Say something that you will get you reported, PALEASE. People working for free don’t need this shit, really. I’m heading off to my kitchen to light myself a nice camel cig and open a bottle of wine. Let me chill and relax and we’re done here.

I’m not taking any mod actions on you. Just speaking to you with what I think in a public forum. You don’t seem to like that. Please tell me why. If I’m wrong about my questioning and all, that’s fine. Just having a casual conversation.

If you read the book, please tell us about the book, with your own thoughts. We’re all here waiting.

I’m sorry, but you’re really trying hard to violate a rule of this community but not quite violating it. Can you tell me which rule you’re trying to break but you just aren’t breaking it, being very careful with your wording? I know which one. I’d just love it if you just came out and said which one. I’d also really love it if you read the book yourself and made a post about the book, according to your own reading of it, instead of following a different track. You seem to think I’m an idiot, I don’t read the world news, or anything. Your problem is that you fear actually posting some opinion of your own. You are not sure how to word it so it isn’t removed. Or you’re not sure how to word it because you fear being banned. All you have to do, right here and right now, is just read the book yourself and talk about it or ask about it. Hell, even ask other people if they would like to read it with you. The rest of what you have to say to me also follows the rules precisely. I really don’t have anything else to say to you than this. I said what I think about the shitty book review you seem to think is gold. You think it’s gold. I think it’s crap. I happen to moderate this place, I didn’t delete your stuff or ban you. I think at this point I am politely requesting that you actually use your intellect more and be less of a coward. If you have something to share, do so from the heart without breaking the rules, something you are trying to do and failing to do because you don’t know quite how to do that. Figure it out on your own and do that. Sorry I was critical of your share. It’s not a good share. It isn’t worthy of removal, either. Waiting for someone to report it so I can remove it, though.

Yeah, I’d actually read the book, but the review, which isn’t very good, sort of tells me reading the book wouldn’t be exactly a good use of my time. It’s funny how second-hand info sort of reaches you in this way. If you cared to ask me personally about it, I’d answer your question. Since you didn’t ask, I’ll just tell you: Read the book and tell us about the book.

It isn’t there in the books you didn’t read. And I am absolutely not defending the USA’s Jim Crow laws. I’m saying the argument of the book, according to this review, is weak because it does not tell me much about the author’s research. That’s all. Read the book yourself, show me where it has solid evidence, then I’ll engage with you more.

Yeah, that doesn’t convince me. Sorry. Plenty of racists in the USA. Absolutely. What this review says is that the Nazis were looking to the USA as a fine racist example. Still not convinced. Racists on this level are not looking at themselves as racists. They’re looking at something else using their racism as an unrecognized motivator to achieve another end. I suppose you don’t want to read the books I recommended because you’re too busy. The review article sucks, in my opinion. And that’s just the way it goes. Nothing you’re saying convinces me that this is actually good content. It’s mediocre content. You’d get my point if you were well read.

It’s just a review that isn’t very good, in my opinion.

Well, he must taste like a cheeseburger. He eats one every day doesn’t he? Imagine eating a person and every bite tastes like a cheeseburger. If people tasted delicious like a cheeseburger, I’d totally hop on board the Hannibal train. I could put up with bringing my jar of pickles, my chopped onions, and other condiments to the love fest.

My only question about this is: Why did the Nazis specifically look to Jim Crow laws? Ease of use and accessibility in a time before the internet or something? They could have looked at any other laws as a model in the world that were similar in scope and effect. Plenty of European neighbors, quite recently (in the 19th century) had established similar racist laws in their colonies. I can’t seem to find an answer to my question. Any colonial law code from a European power invested in colonizing and subjugating people would have sufficed, actually, because the Nazis were trying to achieve world domination through the subjugation of “others” who were not of what they called the “Aryan” race (hence the outbreak of two World Wars). It’s an interesting essay, but it doesn’t answer this question. It would have been much better and more convincing if it had taken colonial and post-colonial theories into question, for the simple fact that the Nazi agenda was an empire building enterprise. If the essay had asked this question and addressed it, perhaps it would have discovered and communicated to us why the Nazi enterprise ultimately failed. The Jim Crow laws were disgusting. So were all the others similar to Jim Crow laws invented by colonizing European powers in the 19th century. I would recommend further reading. Authors that come to mind are Ann Laura Stoler, Rolena Adorno, Homi Bhahba, and Gayatri Spivak (but there are more to consider). I’m just throwing out what I like to call the “Golden Oldies.” There are certainly more. To me, this essay is interesting for a high school project, but needs help if it should be considered actually worthy of attention, specifically because of my question. Why did the Nazis look to American law? It seems inefficient to me. They could have looked at their own laws, or even laws adjacent to them, such as Prussian laws. There are lots of questions to consider here inside my initial question.

deleted by creator