TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes
- Thread starter Úlfheðinn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
bud do you not know where jacob's family is from or are you just not thinking this through?
also, what exactly is remotely edgy about that?
also, what exactly is remotely edgy about that?
Wait a sec, I just read this bit properly. I'm not going to turn this into oppression olympics, because the ČSSR and Jamaica are fundamentally different cases, but come on man.
Czechia privilege
Ah, didn't know that at all. Accept my apologies, please.
I still think cultural background and historical experience (as well as the direct threat after all) may be the explanation. Among other reasons for why the Baltics or V
The overall maneurismalso, what exactly is remotely edgy about that?
You just don't substantiate and instead snipe from afar. Unless it is LOTR, that is. Heck, I would still be very much interested in what you see as a possible counterweight to rising global power of billionares if not the (nation) states.You're obviously a bit biased. Other than that, a (seemingly) Czech video, with sad music, showing (one instance of, followed and preceded no doubt by others, but absolutely not of a period, say, of about 400 years) people deported and admittedly on their way for a slower or quicker "disposal"? Yeah, it's not like anybody (Britain, in our example) moved huge numbers of Native population across huge distances, to use as slaves (figuratively and/or literally). Or kindly exterminated them, in a global, and not national scale. Oh, wait.
Be real. I get you are angry over the Russians, as someone from a country that had experienced their behaviour (although, it must be said, of a different political system and of government; let's not compare Stalin with Putin), and I'll give you reason to, nobody would claim them being angels or even decent in their use of power, ever (much like, surprise-surprise, any nation having global power). But as an outsider (and I don't have a problem saying that no, it doesn't personally affect me, I'm many countries away; I'm saddened for every loss of life, but in the end, don't I continue my day as if nothing happened?), I cannot help but comment and even be a bit frustrated when there's an apparent and huge wave of hate against Russia and for some reason, anything connected to Russia, of any period (there are even Russian literature subjects taken down from Universities, ballets cancelled etc.; yeah, good job on being objective and on the side of righteous, West). The "West" and NATO, especially, have about the same or more on their belt, when war crimes are concerned, in the past ~30 years, alone. But somehow, they get away, or almost, scot-free.
Be real. I get you are angry over the Russians, as someone from a country that had experienced their behaviour (although, it must be said, of a different political system and of government; let's not compare Stalin with Putin), and I'll give you reason to, nobody would claim them being angels or even decent in their use of power, ever (much like, surprise-surprise, any nation having global power). But as an outsider (and I don't have a problem saying that no, it doesn't personally affect me, I'm many countries away; I'm saddened for every loss of life, but in the end, don't I continue my day as if nothing happened?), I cannot help but comment and even be a bit frustrated when there's an apparent and huge wave of hate against Russia and for some reason, anything connected to Russia, of any period (there are even Russian literature subjects taken down from Universities, ballets cancelled etc.; yeah, good job on being objective and on the side of righteous, West). The "West" and NATO, especially, have about the same or more on their belt, when war crimes are concerned, in the past ~30 years, alone. But somehow, they get away, or almost, scot-free.
i don't see (nation-)states doing much of anything in terms of being counterweights. as far as i can tell they've always very much been on the same side of the scale as the billionaires, and i don't see that meaningfully changing in the foreseeable future. the structure of the state is not capable of being a counterweight, though many marxists will yell at me for saying so.
i don't know that there's anything that can be an actual counterweight. there are things you can do within the system to lessen its impact, and there are things you can do beyond it to try to build something else, but that's a different framework entirely.
i am often quite happy to discuss these things in detail given the right circumstances, but also there's plenty of substance behind what i say even when it's snarky. i don't really say things without a reason, generally i expect the people on the other end to have the capacity to think it through. though whether or not they choose to is up to them.
whether or not that's a good way to have a conversation is, shall we say, disputed, but edgy in my opinion is very much the wrong word.
it is my one weakness.
Hey, I think it might maybe have something to do with this recent thing that is happening. You must have heard, you know, how Russia attacked another country with its full military might. For a territorial conquest, I might add. Crazy, I know!
Cough, cough, the EU
is a state.
more sincerely: is something i have complex and conflicting thoughts about that we need not get into. needless to say i don't consider it a solution.
more sincerely: is something i have complex and conflicting thoughts about that we need not get into. needless to say i don't consider it a solution.
The reel shows post-war transports of Germans to Germany. It's a happy footage of people dodging a bullet and getting a free ticket to a freer, wealthier country full of people like them.
Yes, thank you, that is something that escaped my attention completely. You do realize that I ranted exactly about that, right? How this unwarranted invasion was vilified by everyone in the cultured West, in a propaganda war of epic proportions and quite frankly, ridiculous counter-measures, devoid of any significance to the actual people who should be blamed (yes, I'm sure Putin was severely butt-hurt that Russia can't take part in the cringe-fest that is called Eurovision or that the Uni of Athens doesn't give lectures on Tolstoy; that showed the guy).
And at the same time, NATO has escaped "attacks on another country with full military might, for a territorial conquest" with excuses like "but they had WMDs/they were communists/they were terrorists/they threatened liberty and freedom! I swear!". Of course, those were attacks on Afghans, Arabs etc. That might have something to do with Europeans not really giving a ****, I think.
Of course, now the theatre of war is Europe, the "victims" are Europeans, and it is the old "us vs. them" thing.
Still, it's not like we will end the war or solve anything here, in this forum. If anything, this whole thing shows that we don't need valuable targets to bicker and be dicks to each other. We're quite capable of doing it over people not agreeing with us, in silly arguments over events and situations not even remotely controlled by us or affecting us.
EDIT and TL;DR: As I finished that, I realized how asinine it is to argue for such things on the Internet. "We've done it, everybody, we solved the problems of the universe, just because that guy and that guy 4 or 5 nations away *****ed for some time in a game forum."
The Russian troll waits for the appropriate moment to insert a picture he thinks is controversial, but can't really explain.
Also this "read my mind peasants, I don't want to communicate clearly". He's a narcissist *******.
That's about the most precise definition of his very annoying behavior. The worst thing about it he lacks all self-awareness about this.
Also this "read my mind peasants, I don't want to communicate clearly". He's a narcissist *******.
Iraq and Afghanistan weren't wars of conquest, though. The furthest NATO went in attempting conquest/colonization was propping up democratic governments with mixed results. NATO didn't even engage in combat against a state in Afghanistan recognized by more than 3 other countries (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE). According to a PIPA poll 82% of Aghans wanted the previous Taliban government overthrown, and this strong skew held across all ethnic groups in Afghanistan (though I'd bet the Hazaras polled even higher). The government we propped up there also polled very high while Hamid Karzai was president. Most surprisingly, 79% of those polled said they approved of the NATO invasion of their country. The biggest tragedy of the whole situation in Afghanistan is that we just left them to the mercy of the Taliban, so they're right back where they started.
Iraq's a different kettle of fish, where NATO severely ****ed up by tossing the entirety of the previous (functional) government out and barring them from working in any way for the new government. This included all Ba'ath party members who worked for the government but in non-governing roles, such as thousands of teachers. Because the Ba'ath government and previous Iraqi Army had strong Sunni representation (though both were "officially" secular) and history of violent repression of Shia Muslims (not to mention the invasion of Iran, a Shiite-majority country), the new Shiite-majority government is viewed with suspicion and accused of repressing Sunnis in turn. By getting rid of experienced government personnel who were largely Sunni and against the invasion, then supporting those who were opponents of the previous government (predominantly Shiites), NATO ended up inflaming an existing religious schism.
Mildly, aye. But I think that should be about the limit. It's a fine line between arguing and **** flinging, and lately, in these boards, there's more of the latter than the first. And again, we are not doing anything than recycling what each one reads on his medium of choice, ultimately.
My apologies to anyone I offended or could have been offended by anything I said, but yeah. Ultimately, I just got no beef in this fight.
My apologies to anyone I offended or could have been offended by anything I said, but yeah. Ultimately, I just got no beef in this fight.
I think people should be careful not to mix up US and NATO actions.
NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance and initiated a lot less conflicts than people think: invasion of Afghanistan on the basis of defending the US, bombing of Serbia over Kosovo, on a far more spurious ground of humanitarian defense of civilians and bombing Lybia for a similar, but a more justified cause of defending civilians.
NATO missions in countries like Iraq are basically training and peace-keeping, once the damage was done by a not-NATO invasion.
Last edited:
If you aren't foaming at the mouth in opposition to [thing I dislike], then you're actively a secret supporter of [thing I dislike], justifying both ad hominem and strawman attacks.
Pentagathoos
Squire
Really? Where's this going on? That's definitely going full R.
IDK about wherever you're from but actually public opinion has been pretty hard against these invasions in the UK for most of my lifetime, I was too young at the time we first invaded to know how people felt about it when the decision was made.
And of course you could maybe perhaps possibly argue that invading a nation ruled by a dictatorial government which commits actual acts of genocide against it's own people for the purpose of regime change is not quite the same as invading a neighbouring democracy in order to annex it, but then I'm sometimes a pro-war monster so idk.
