In today's news...
- Thread starter Loli Defense Force
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 13,680
- Reputation score
- 247
Re: In today's news...
Prepare for a Tl;Dr wall. Found my soapbox and this time, rather then flailing an opinion around, gonna flail an opinion around and hopefully give everyone something to think on based on My personal understanding of several historical figures and my understanding of military history and warfare.
So now we go back to the beginning. And while there are a lot of cultures we can all look at even older then this one, lets go back to Troy. And only for two little tidbits!
Troy is famous for what exactly? Not the culture, but the city itself. Big fucking walls. REALLY big fucking walls. And a horse, but fuck the horse, I'll bring the horse up later! Shortly after the fall of troy, something very interesting happens. Inpenetrable walls become by popular monarch decision, illegal. And that brings me to my first point, that even the oldest cultures in history understood something. Conflict is inevitable and that drawing it out is detrimental.
While some argue that the walls coming down is an indicator of many things, I turn my eye to just one. After the long seige that was Troy, Helen, Paris, and Achilles, Sieges were universally discouraged because of the suffering that any protracted siege causes. A siege is essentially a way to cause your enemy to submit through attrition, letting nature and the way that human society congregates dishearten, starve, or outright kill your enemy, and it's made possible through the counteruse of large stationary defenses and ultimately plays out thusly. The aggressor either breaks your defenses, or starves you out and wins, Or, the aggressor starves out first and gives up. Turtles. Fucking turtles man. And a society as old as Greece figured out this was bad. Which brings me to my overall point that many will not agree with, but that I urge you to at least think on. Stability is ultimately the result of resolved conflict.
In this I do not mean that this holds purely to warfare, but any conflict, from a simply discussion or argument, straight to a Crusade of Templar levels of stupidity. So here we come to those leaders who seemed not to give a fuck about any individuals levels of freedom or well being, but to their overall functionality to the organism that is a society. And this, while frowned upon individually, when pressed upon an entire culture, is ultimately seen as beneficial. It's the study and art of Ruling, and while others have tried to find a way in which a society exists without the rule of an individual or a group of individuals, that in some way, that group is necessary to make decisions based on their own interpretation of the information presented to them by either A: the masses, or B: the current world situation they currently face, or even in the case of some real monsters in history C: their own prejudices.
A will represent Democracy, Republics, and other corruption sensitive but essentially effective working government models, B represents Monarchy, Feudalism, and any other Archys, and C represents hitler cos fuck hitler. However, if you look closely, you will see the application of A, B, and C in every single functioning government back to the begginning of society as a whole. yes this speech here may be filled with some typos, I haven't had my coffee yet and my fingers are flying. Forgive me.
So we move on from Greece and Troy, seeing the end of Siege walls for a time, and move only slightly forward to Greece and Sparta. Sparta is as everyone knows, a warlike state created on military discipline and influence all religious mumbo jumbo aside, and as a government, functions solely not for the benefit of the individual , but for the state of Sparta as a whole. One Body not caring overmuch for the comfort of any individual piece, but for the survival of the whole. Various rulers of Sparta aside, this view clashes with the Fathers of Democracy harshly.
And again there is conflict between the two until there is a clear victor. Only there are no walls this time, and the conflict enters open warfare rather then war by attrition. This is not a bad thing. Studying the horrors of siege warfare, I'd rather have a fucking series of battles. Again, once more the dust settles, the victors write their best version of history, facts are lost, others are invented, but stability returns to the area as Sparta made short work of invading forces (More or Less) And then the two powers in the region clashed until only one remained.
We jump forward horrifically to Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, And Winston. While the great wars had many prominent heads, these are the ones we remember the most in the USA, not our own, but rather those that spearheaded the entire series of wars in that area. The first conflicts on a global stage. I will not get into Marx overly much himself, but instead into communism. And the Definition thereof as it exists Now, not then. "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
While it's easy to take only a single line from this definition as many do, or to horribly misinterpret it, lets focus on one that is widely ignored by many. "Advocating Class war and leading to a society in which all property is publically owned"
The definition of Communism points to this conflict as being necessary. You cannot have the end result without this conflict of the classes. It's a large reshuffle of the community status until balance is achieved and where stabilization and communal benefit is created only after the dust has settled. here's the thing though. Who decides ultimately who deserves what in this scenario? There is no figurehead or leader pointed out here, which is a stable of any functioning government body that we know of right now. But it is implied that the end of the class war would lead to one class standing over the others as a deadlock only creates more conflict or carries on the conflict itself indefinitely. (Fucking Trojan walls man, I swear). As I pointed out earlier, Siege is bad. And Political Siege is worse. but at some point in communism one thing has to happen, there has to be a clear winner and a group of losers in the conflict to stabilize the location and position of those classes to dictate the distribution of public wealth based on need and situation. stability through resolution of conflict AND the avoidance of further conflict by public ownership and decided contributional ability.
Enter Feudalism. While Feudalism has some serious drawbacks, it has some serious benefits to it as well, and once more we see a conflict of the classes to dictate each groups standing and the distribution of wealth through the end result of that conflict. But the overall message is the same. Conflict eventually creates that stability and there are winners and losers based on the look of the classes at the end. While many believe this conflict to be cyclical and it certainly looks that way in many cases as conflicts arise and are resolved, it's more linear then cyclical. What I mean here is this. As the dust settles and the classes are established, their ability to rule and thrive is dictated by the layers of those classes below it, which all demand one thing, that the leaders of the classes make the best decisions not for the body as a whole in the end, that's already expected, but to hold their championship belt as it currently stands.
In many cases this continues for quite some time, not as a cycle, but more a general testing of the waters as a country grows and pushes not like the tides, but as a rising crest that follows no clear distinct pattern outside a running standard of the health of the country as a whole, and the other classes understanding of the current leaders to do what they're supposed to, lead.
I'm not going to get into the fucking mess that is democracy and republics overmuch =.= And that's because of another force here called corruption that is too opinion heavy for me to properly argue, and in that I recognize my faults as a debater and ask for forgiveness. What I will say is this. I personally believe that the idea of democracy is a poor decision as a whole because the conflict that creates stability is never ultimately decided, and in this case, where Feudalistic conflict is linear, Democracy's is Cyclical. At least in the model used by the current united states of america holding timed elections every year to (Hopefully) bring out the best leader based on popular decision. Chew on that as a mental exercise and draw your own conclusions on it's efficacy.
So we have the above government models, the evidence of siege as a poor option for conflict, and my views on conflict and stability to work on. And we look at the viewpoints and seeming methodology of the above mentioned world leaders of their time in the above posts and their regard for the personal well being of any individual person.
And I come away with this, and wonder if others do as well. Should we expect realistically for a country or society leader to care how well those of the bottom class do for themselves, or instead focus on their efficacy as tools to drive the basics of our society. And I think it's the latter. While it would certainly be nice to realistically accomadate everyone in that eutopian dream where everyone lives comfortably and with stability, I think it's a logical trap and that instead, the ultimate question here should not be judged on an individual level but rather since we're looking at leaders here, judged based on the overall health of their respective cultures.
While many countries certainly have some dark in their history, and ultimately many of the standing ones currently have a shitload, the current world frontrunners are China, Russia, the US, and Western Europe. This was the end result of all their internal conflicts, and several external ones and an unhappy balance has been struck. But those conflicts were resolved by the choices and viewpoints of their leaders through history, many of whom did not, or could not care about an individual's well being over the well being of their civilization. While Russia's history can be taken aside her for a moment while we look entirely at their leaders. We can look at their overall status as a country right now, and that's as a superpower with the others on equal or comparable footing with those others and the lack of aggression on any one groups part for fear of retribution from the others. This is an unhappy balance but I hope you get the idea.
Which is this.
Because those leaders didn't give a flying whoopty fuck about any one person, they focused instead on resolving the conflicts present as best they could with a universal end result. Control. And to a degree, they achieved this and can only be looked at based on the criteria above as successful leaders, not based on the happiness or standard of living of the masses, but based instead on their world standing as the current superpowers of the planet. I never expect a leader to have my best interests personally at heart, but if I work to support one, it's because I believe the overall result in the end will benefit the organism that is society somehow as a whole. And while it seems like my example beforehand concerning troy's walls is unrelated, let me come full circle to my point in bringing it out at the very beginning.
Throughout history, there have been several far longer running conflicts then the world wars, universally agreed on to be the worst ever based on the loss of life involved. But I assure you, had the leaders at the time not all agreed after the fall of troy, that long, drawn out siege like conflicts were a bad fucking idea, then those wars could very well have dragged on for 30-40-50 years. Imagine the horror that was The Great War, or The Great War the Hitler strikes back could have been in such a case.
As conflicts rise, it is accepted that ending it swiftly and decisively is better for every single party involved. Enter Nuclear arms. Where the swift and decisive is turned to 11. And once more every other leader on the planet goes.... "These are a bad idea." But where we had walls and ways to eventually tear them down. Defense against Nuclear threat revolves around controlling the materials necessary to creating that threat. If these were walls? We'd see trade restrictions on big fucking rocks. Instead of little glowing ones.
Enter the cold war and the nuclear arms rise. Once more another conflict where stability is dependent on the resolution of that conflict before we burn the entire planet. And we get siege warfare once more. An arms race, and a lot of cloak and dagger rather then food and water being the primary weapons of choice. Restriction and Control of nuclear material becomes (And stays) paramount until the conflict is finally resolved to a degree, and not perfectly. So we look at the end result. We wind up with several decisions made by world leaders that this cannot continue in the same manner, and that the current World leaders have to somehow enforce the control of nuclear material. We can go straight back to a parallel with troy here, where after walls were outlawed, the countries currently in control who had decided this enforced it religiously. We do the same today, and once more we look at our leaders current goals and level of compassion for the common man.
And in this case? it's nonexistant outside the common mans immediate survival. Because in the end, and I hate to say this, the common man is a tool, a cog, a gear in the machine that countries have become to keep them working and running, not for the benefit of any one person, but for the country itself as a whole. Does it suck to be a cog? You bet your sweet ass it does. But look at that situation you may be in and say. Huh.... I am necessary in a way the upper classes are not, while the upper classes are necessary to keep my usefulness intelligently controlled an peaked.
You see that when that usefulness is not properly controlled, handled, or outright abused, more conflict arises, the dust settles, and stability is found again for a time. I do not want my leaders to care about me in the end. What I want is stability that will allow me to live out my years and those of my family in relative safety and comfort. And if I decide I cannot trust my leaders to do that, then I find a new leader. Currently? If I was entirely honest, I dislike the democratic system because of it's cyclical conflicting nature. But I also find that for my daughter rather then my own comfort, it has benefits. I am not fit to rule, I never will be. I can be headstrong, selfish, and downright stupid at times. So I accept this and instead look ahead at what the situation will be for my daughter by judging the health of the organism as a whole and making a decision. Currently, and in the foreseeable future? I've decided ultimately that my current leaders give my daughter the best shot without ever once caring overly much for her well being. And thus I'm still in the USA.
Some of this is relavent to In Today's News. Some of it is not. But if it made you think, re-evaluate some things, or even just entertained you by providing you with a logical little puzzle to chew on, then I've achieved my ultimate goal in writing all this, and fervently wish everyone here the best of luck in their future endeavors. History can teach us many things. So maybe you can take a tiny lesson from the above writings.
If you're at work, or just in your life, and there is a conflict, maybe an argument, maybe a fight, maybe just a rival for a promotion. If your gut instinct is to wait it out, think back on history and realize that while it may ultimately succeed (More on luck then anything) That a decisive victory should instead be steered for, not only for your benefit, but that of the other party as well. If you want that promotion? Fight for it tooth and nail, if you find yourself in an argument? end it quickly and decisively, even if that decision in the end is simply to bow out, admit defeat, or even crush your opponent logically if it is within your grasp. here's hoping things go your way.
-Courage Wolf.
P.S. That Horse I said I'd come back to? Decisive strategy to bring about the fall of troy. only purpose it served.
Prepare for a Tl;Dr wall. Found my soapbox and this time, rather then flailing an opinion around, gonna flail an opinion around and hopefully give everyone something to think on based on My personal understanding of several historical figures and my understanding of military history and warfare.
So now we go back to the beginning. And while there are a lot of cultures we can all look at even older then this one, lets go back to Troy. And only for two little tidbits!
Troy is famous for what exactly? Not the culture, but the city itself. Big fucking walls. REALLY big fucking walls. And a horse, but fuck the horse, I'll bring the horse up later! Shortly after the fall of troy, something very interesting happens. Inpenetrable walls become by popular monarch decision, illegal. And that brings me to my first point, that even the oldest cultures in history understood something. Conflict is inevitable and that drawing it out is detrimental.
While some argue that the walls coming down is an indicator of many things, I turn my eye to just one. After the long seige that was Troy, Helen, Paris, and Achilles, Sieges were universally discouraged because of the suffering that any protracted siege causes. A siege is essentially a way to cause your enemy to submit through attrition, letting nature and the way that human society congregates dishearten, starve, or outright kill your enemy, and it's made possible through the counteruse of large stationary defenses and ultimately plays out thusly. The aggressor either breaks your defenses, or starves you out and wins, Or, the aggressor starves out first and gives up. Turtles. Fucking turtles man. And a society as old as Greece figured out this was bad. Which brings me to my overall point that many will not agree with, but that I urge you to at least think on. Stability is ultimately the result of resolved conflict.
In this I do not mean that this holds purely to warfare, but any conflict, from a simply discussion or argument, straight to a Crusade of Templar levels of stupidity. So here we come to those leaders who seemed not to give a fuck about any individuals levels of freedom or well being, but to their overall functionality to the organism that is a society. And this, while frowned upon individually, when pressed upon an entire culture, is ultimately seen as beneficial. It's the study and art of Ruling, and while others have tried to find a way in which a society exists without the rule of an individual or a group of individuals, that in some way, that group is necessary to make decisions based on their own interpretation of the information presented to them by either A: the masses, or B: the current world situation they currently face, or even in the case of some real monsters in history C: their own prejudices.
A will represent Democracy, Republics, and other corruption sensitive but essentially effective working government models, B represents Monarchy, Feudalism, and any other Archys, and C represents hitler cos fuck hitler. However, if you look closely, you will see the application of A, B, and C in every single functioning government back to the begginning of society as a whole. yes this speech here may be filled with some typos, I haven't had my coffee yet and my fingers are flying. Forgive me.
So we move on from Greece and Troy, seeing the end of Siege walls for a time, and move only slightly forward to Greece and Sparta. Sparta is as everyone knows, a warlike state created on military discipline and influence all religious mumbo jumbo aside, and as a government, functions solely not for the benefit of the individual , but for the state of Sparta as a whole. One Body not caring overmuch for the comfort of any individual piece, but for the survival of the whole. Various rulers of Sparta aside, this view clashes with the Fathers of Democracy harshly.
And again there is conflict between the two until there is a clear victor. Only there are no walls this time, and the conflict enters open warfare rather then war by attrition. This is not a bad thing. Studying the horrors of siege warfare, I'd rather have a fucking series of battles. Again, once more the dust settles, the victors write their best version of history, facts are lost, others are invented, but stability returns to the area as Sparta made short work of invading forces (More or Less) And then the two powers in the region clashed until only one remained.
We jump forward horrifically to Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, And Winston. While the great wars had many prominent heads, these are the ones we remember the most in the USA, not our own, but rather those that spearheaded the entire series of wars in that area. The first conflicts on a global stage. I will not get into Marx overly much himself, but instead into communism. And the Definition thereof as it exists Now, not then. "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."
While it's easy to take only a single line from this definition as many do, or to horribly misinterpret it, lets focus on one that is widely ignored by many. "Advocating Class war and leading to a society in which all property is publically owned"
The definition of Communism points to this conflict as being necessary. You cannot have the end result without this conflict of the classes. It's a large reshuffle of the community status until balance is achieved and where stabilization and communal benefit is created only after the dust has settled. here's the thing though. Who decides ultimately who deserves what in this scenario? There is no figurehead or leader pointed out here, which is a stable of any functioning government body that we know of right now. But it is implied that the end of the class war would lead to one class standing over the others as a deadlock only creates more conflict or carries on the conflict itself indefinitely. (Fucking Trojan walls man, I swear). As I pointed out earlier, Siege is bad. And Political Siege is worse. but at some point in communism one thing has to happen, there has to be a clear winner and a group of losers in the conflict to stabilize the location and position of those classes to dictate the distribution of public wealth based on need and situation. stability through resolution of conflict AND the avoidance of further conflict by public ownership and decided contributional ability.
Enter Feudalism. While Feudalism has some serious drawbacks, it has some serious benefits to it as well, and once more we see a conflict of the classes to dictate each groups standing and the distribution of wealth through the end result of that conflict. But the overall message is the same. Conflict eventually creates that stability and there are winners and losers based on the look of the classes at the end. While many believe this conflict to be cyclical and it certainly looks that way in many cases as conflicts arise and are resolved, it's more linear then cyclical. What I mean here is this. As the dust settles and the classes are established, their ability to rule and thrive is dictated by the layers of those classes below it, which all demand one thing, that the leaders of the classes make the best decisions not for the body as a whole in the end, that's already expected, but to hold their championship belt as it currently stands.
In many cases this continues for quite some time, not as a cycle, but more a general testing of the waters as a country grows and pushes not like the tides, but as a rising crest that follows no clear distinct pattern outside a running standard of the health of the country as a whole, and the other classes understanding of the current leaders to do what they're supposed to, lead.
I'm not going to get into the fucking mess that is democracy and republics overmuch =.= And that's because of another force here called corruption that is too opinion heavy for me to properly argue, and in that I recognize my faults as a debater and ask for forgiveness. What I will say is this. I personally believe that the idea of democracy is a poor decision as a whole because the conflict that creates stability is never ultimately decided, and in this case, where Feudalistic conflict is linear, Democracy's is Cyclical. At least in the model used by the current united states of america holding timed elections every year to (Hopefully) bring out the best leader based on popular decision. Chew on that as a mental exercise and draw your own conclusions on it's efficacy.
So we have the above government models, the evidence of siege as a poor option for conflict, and my views on conflict and stability to work on. And we look at the viewpoints and seeming methodology of the above mentioned world leaders of their time in the above posts and their regard for the personal well being of any individual person.
And I come away with this, and wonder if others do as well. Should we expect realistically for a country or society leader to care how well those of the bottom class do for themselves, or instead focus on their efficacy as tools to drive the basics of our society. And I think it's the latter. While it would certainly be nice to realistically accomadate everyone in that eutopian dream where everyone lives comfortably and with stability, I think it's a logical trap and that instead, the ultimate question here should not be judged on an individual level but rather since we're looking at leaders here, judged based on the overall health of their respective cultures.
While many countries certainly have some dark in their history, and ultimately many of the standing ones currently have a shitload, the current world frontrunners are China, Russia, the US, and Western Europe. This was the end result of all their internal conflicts, and several external ones and an unhappy balance has been struck. But those conflicts were resolved by the choices and viewpoints of their leaders through history, many of whom did not, or could not care about an individual's well being over the well being of their civilization. While Russia's history can be taken aside her for a moment while we look entirely at their leaders. We can look at their overall status as a country right now, and that's as a superpower with the others on equal or comparable footing with those others and the lack of aggression on any one groups part for fear of retribution from the others. This is an unhappy balance but I hope you get the idea.
Which is this.
Because those leaders didn't give a flying whoopty fuck about any one person, they focused instead on resolving the conflicts present as best they could with a universal end result. Control. And to a degree, they achieved this and can only be looked at based on the criteria above as successful leaders, not based on the happiness or standard of living of the masses, but based instead on their world standing as the current superpowers of the planet. I never expect a leader to have my best interests personally at heart, but if I work to support one, it's because I believe the overall result in the end will benefit the organism that is society somehow as a whole. And while it seems like my example beforehand concerning troy's walls is unrelated, let me come full circle to my point in bringing it out at the very beginning.
Throughout history, there have been several far longer running conflicts then the world wars, universally agreed on to be the worst ever based on the loss of life involved. But I assure you, had the leaders at the time not all agreed after the fall of troy, that long, drawn out siege like conflicts were a bad fucking idea, then those wars could very well have dragged on for 30-40-50 years. Imagine the horror that was The Great War, or The Great War the Hitler strikes back could have been in such a case.
As conflicts rise, it is accepted that ending it swiftly and decisively is better for every single party involved. Enter Nuclear arms. Where the swift and decisive is turned to 11. And once more every other leader on the planet goes.... "These are a bad idea." But where we had walls and ways to eventually tear them down. Defense against Nuclear threat revolves around controlling the materials necessary to creating that threat. If these were walls? We'd see trade restrictions on big fucking rocks. Instead of little glowing ones.
Enter the cold war and the nuclear arms rise. Once more another conflict where stability is dependent on the resolution of that conflict before we burn the entire planet. And we get siege warfare once more. An arms race, and a lot of cloak and dagger rather then food and water being the primary weapons of choice. Restriction and Control of nuclear material becomes (And stays) paramount until the conflict is finally resolved to a degree, and not perfectly. So we look at the end result. We wind up with several decisions made by world leaders that this cannot continue in the same manner, and that the current World leaders have to somehow enforce the control of nuclear material. We can go straight back to a parallel with troy here, where after walls were outlawed, the countries currently in control who had decided this enforced it religiously. We do the same today, and once more we look at our leaders current goals and level of compassion for the common man.
And in this case? it's nonexistant outside the common mans immediate survival. Because in the end, and I hate to say this, the common man is a tool, a cog, a gear in the machine that countries have become to keep them working and running, not for the benefit of any one person, but for the country itself as a whole. Does it suck to be a cog? You bet your sweet ass it does. But look at that situation you may be in and say. Huh.... I am necessary in a way the upper classes are not, while the upper classes are necessary to keep my usefulness intelligently controlled an peaked.
You see that when that usefulness is not properly controlled, handled, or outright abused, more conflict arises, the dust settles, and stability is found again for a time. I do not want my leaders to care about me in the end. What I want is stability that will allow me to live out my years and those of my family in relative safety and comfort. And if I decide I cannot trust my leaders to do that, then I find a new leader. Currently? If I was entirely honest, I dislike the democratic system because of it's cyclical conflicting nature. But I also find that for my daughter rather then my own comfort, it has benefits. I am not fit to rule, I never will be. I can be headstrong, selfish, and downright stupid at times. So I accept this and instead look ahead at what the situation will be for my daughter by judging the health of the organism as a whole and making a decision. Currently, and in the foreseeable future? I've decided ultimately that my current leaders give my daughter the best shot without ever once caring overly much for her well being. And thus I'm still in the USA.
Some of this is relavent to In Today's News. Some of it is not. But if it made you think, re-evaluate some things, or even just entertained you by providing you with a logical little puzzle to chew on, then I've achieved my ultimate goal in writing all this, and fervently wish everyone here the best of luck in their future endeavors. History can teach us many things. So maybe you can take a tiny lesson from the above writings.
If you're at work, or just in your life, and there is a conflict, maybe an argument, maybe a fight, maybe just a rival for a promotion. If your gut instinct is to wait it out, think back on history and realize that while it may ultimately succeed (More on luck then anything) That a decisive victory should instead be steered for, not only for your benefit, but that of the other party as well. If you want that promotion? Fight for it tooth and nail, if you find yourself in an argument? end it quickly and decisively, even if that decision in the end is simply to bow out, admit defeat, or even crush your opponent logically if it is within your grasp. here's hoping things go your way.
-Courage Wolf.
P.S. That Horse I said I'd come back to? Decisive strategy to bring about the fall of troy. only purpose it served.
XSI
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,521
- Reputation score
- 423
Re: In today's news...
Completely unrelated to all that:
Huge ice planet found a bit past Pluto
Scientists had for a long time expected this already since the effects of its gravity was noticeable on planetoids and asteroids out there
But now they found the huge ball of ice, apparently
(Old article)
Ive not been able to find any other news to confirm it though
Completely unrelated to all that:
You must be registered to see the links
Huge ice planet found a bit past Pluto
Scientists had for a long time expected this already since the effects of its gravity was noticeable on planetoids and asteroids out there
But now they found the huge ball of ice, apparently
(Old article)
You must be registered to see the links
Ive not been able to find any other news to confirm it though
OAMP
Turtle Poker
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 3,793
- Reputation score
- 154
Re: In today's news...
It's a fairly reliable scientist that published it. The one who led the charge to "kill" Pluto. The problem at the moment is that we can't see it visibly, which makes sense for a few reasons, but people will be a lot happier once we do for understandable reasons.
I sadly don't have time to ready Courage Wolf's wall of text, but a few cents on Lenin/Stalin: The thing about Marxism is that no matter what you do, all roads lead to the same place. Many roads, but one end result. Therefore action is more about how fast or slow things happen. To someone like Lenin, you can either win outright, or the people can suffer. Suffering people will eventually take the correct action on their own. Granted, by the time he was actively doing things I think that ship had probably sailed. By the time anyone in Russia could do anything, for that matter, we're already past the "you idiots jumped the gun" phase. There's actually a term for this, praxis. Also doubles as a Klingon moon. As for Stalin, he's just as asshole out for himself. If you wanted a good Soviet leader, look at Bukharin, who Stalin was very eager to purge because he was actually competent, knew theory well, and most importantly was popular.
It's a fairly reliable scientist that published it. The one who led the charge to "kill" Pluto. The problem at the moment is that we can't see it visibly, which makes sense for a few reasons, but people will be a lot happier once we do for understandable reasons.
I sadly don't have time to ready Courage Wolf's wall of text, but a few cents on Lenin/Stalin: The thing about Marxism is that no matter what you do, all roads lead to the same place. Many roads, but one end result. Therefore action is more about how fast or slow things happen. To someone like Lenin, you can either win outright, or the people can suffer. Suffering people will eventually take the correct action on their own. Granted, by the time he was actively doing things I think that ship had probably sailed. By the time anyone in Russia could do anything, for that matter, we're already past the "you idiots jumped the gun" phase. There's actually a term for this, praxis. Also doubles as a Klingon moon. As for Stalin, he's just as asshole out for himself. If you wanted a good Soviet leader, look at Bukharin, who Stalin was very eager to purge because he was actually competent, knew theory well, and most importantly was popular.
Byzantine2014
Tentacle God
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,962
- Reputation score
- 5,335
Re: In today's news...
Wow... I was going to post something, but that makes mine look even shittier than usual. Good essay!
Only thing I still want to say, is that Lenin was actually pretty popular. He's reported as having been able to wander about without a security detail, sort of like a recent Prime Minister we have. And really, I'm not sure if he was about advancing global communism so much as his own people.
Crawdaddy: That's more or less what I was thinking, although more perhaps as setting themselves up as the absolute monarchy, with automated/robot soldiers. Nice wit by the way
Wow... I was going to post something, but that makes mine look even shittier than usual. Good essay!
Only thing I still want to say, is that Lenin was actually pretty popular. He's reported as having been able to wander about without a security detail, sort of like a recent Prime Minister we have. And really, I'm not sure if he was about advancing global communism so much as his own people.
Crawdaddy: That's more or less what I was thinking, although more perhaps as setting themselves up as the absolute monarchy, with automated/robot soldiers. Nice wit by the way
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,433
- Reputation score
- 268
Re: In today's news...
Yeah... sorry. Couldn't let this go. Be warned. I get a little snarky. I still love ya.
And there have to be winners and losers in a conflict, eventually, even one to establish Communism--except that true Communism was never actually established. Marx's predictions that the workers of the world would unite and follow the communists to cast down the bourgeoisie NEVER came true. Anywhere. Money and power changed hands. Black markets were established. Bullshit was spoken. But Socialism was as close as any society got to Communism... and they are not the same.
The health of your culture might be important, but you also have to look to your strategic defense, and keep the populace happy enough to avoid the guillotine.
I promised that I'd come back to the idea that "conflict leads to stability." It does not always lead to stability. There are LOTS of places in the world where conflict has simply led to more conflict. If you like, I can write up a short list... but we both have access to Google.
I got snarky. I hope I didn't offend you much, but I can sometimes be an asshole when I write. Please don't interpret my critical tone as any disrespect toward you personally. You DID make me think, and I appreciate that. And I think you're a good person, who deserves to be more than just a cog.
Yeah... sorry. Couldn't let this go. Be warned. I get a little snarky. I still love ya.
Holy crap. Yes. Generally it helps to give a little summary. As I didn't see a clear single argument, I've done my best to break your "wall" into little pieces. Because sieges are bad, right? Hahaha... yeah. So enjoy. And don't get mad.
I think that perhaps they drew the wrong lesson from this. The walls didn't fail Troy. The people who ignored Cassandra failed Troy. Walls were actually a great help in the first accurately-recorded Greek War, the Peloponnesian War. Building a big wall saved the Delian League from being immediately trounced by superior Spartan land forces, permitting Athens to force naval conflicts, for a time--gaining the Delian League a major advantage.
Are you suggesting that the Trojans who blamed the wall for their own stupidity in trusting the Trojan horse were correct in abandoning their defensive structures? Walls continued to play a major role in defense and sieges continued to be a military necessity right up until the failure of the Maginot Line in World War II. The only change was that, eventually, high walls were replaced by different defensive structures. The trenches of World War I. The bunkers of World War II. Guerilla warfare. Ballistic missile defense. I'm happy that "Greece figured out that this was bad," but walls were far from obsolete--and they saw Greek use shortly thereafter.
Essentially, you've gone to the trouble of crudely dividing the incredibly diverse governments of history into three categories. And then immediately said that dividing them is pointless, because they all have the same characteristics, in some mix. I agree with the sentiment that all societies have to deal with the masses, the world situation, and prejudices. I'm not sure what the point of the categorization was, though, as you immediately rejected your own categorization.
Um... yeah. Some major problems here. First, Spartans WERE Greeks (and they obtained other Greek allies as the conflict grew in scope). So you had Greek infighting: Sparta (and friends) versus the Delian League. You also said there were "no walls this time." Please read the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides... OR just look at the Wikipedia article, aptly named, "
You must be registered to see the links
."Again... "siege" is referring to offensive warfare, I think? And I suppose that walls are defensive warfare? And yes, war and conflict and political war are all bad. People who go to war know how bad war is. It is a truism.
And there have to be winners and losers in a conflict, eventually, even one to establish Communism--except that true Communism was never actually established. Marx's predictions that the workers of the world would unite and follow the communists to cast down the bourgeoisie NEVER came true. Anywhere. Money and power changed hands. Black markets were established. Bullshit was spoken. But Socialism was as close as any society got to Communism... and they are not the same.
So Feudalism has good and bad qualities. There's some conflict. And conflict leads to stability. I'll come back to the "conflict to stability" thing later. You also state that the primary goal of a political leader is to remain in power. This is NOT always the case--a notable exception was President George Washington, who never wanted the job and was eager to retire, but was convinced by the other US founding fathers that the fledgling nation would have fallen apart without the power of his reputation. They were probably correct.
Forgive me if I'm misreading this, but I get the impression that you're suggesting that corruption exists only in republics and democracies. If that's your argument, it's completely false. It's actually MUCH worse in most second-world (Warsaw Pact) governments, because the laws were so prohibitive that sometimes the only way to acquire groceries was through the black market.
Essentially, you seem to agree with Machiavelli. The state exists to serve the needs of the state. In a sense, you're correct... but disregarding the well-being of the lower and middle classes (and removing much of the political power in the upper classes) were major contributing factors to the French Revolution.
The health of your culture might be important, but you also have to look to your strategic defense, and keep the populace happy enough to avoid the guillotine.
You seem to be implying that the Middle East, and the failed states in Africa, and North Korea aren't even contestants for having darker histories... let alone states in Latin America that are struggling to deal with drug cartels. This is a broad and unsupported declaration.
Russia has certainly made itself a bigger player on the global stage, though you fail to mention the frozen conflicts that Russia is involved in, with her neighbors. Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Ukraine all come to mind.
Well, yes. If you disregard the rights of the people, you can improve your efficiency. To return to your Russian example, Putin has established excellent control over Russia. Of course, the people who protest his sixteen-year reign (and counting) end up harassed, beaten, jailed, or assassinated. As one example, here's
You must be registered to see the links
for holding a peaceful protest in Sochi in 2014.But there WERE sieges. Lots and lots and lots and lots and LOTS of them. I'm not sure where this idea came from. The short war represent improvements in logistics and offensive weaponry (offensive weaponry advances generally come first, because defensive technology is normally reactive).
We have never been without siege warfare, or a descendant, ever. Nuclear war is certainly related. Yet nuclear arms proliferation has slowed, but not stopped. And, like siege warfare, leaders will do what's best for their country at the time... including obtaining nuclear weaponry.
I disagree with the sentiment that the lower classes should accept their place in the world--unless they are content with their lot in life, of course. I appreciate the fact that I live in a state that has liberal rights, where I can freely insult my government without fear of reprisal. I think Churchill says it nicely: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."
You DID make me think. And I did eventually read this, even though I felt that most of your assertions were flawed. I do respect the thought that you put into this, though I maintain that your arguments might benefit from more research, next time.
I agree with everything in the last paragraph.
I promised that I'd come back to the idea that "conflict leads to stability." It does not always lead to stability. There are LOTS of places in the world where conflict has simply led to more conflict. If you like, I can write up a short list... but we both have access to Google.
I got snarky. I hope I didn't offend you much, but I can sometimes be an asshole when I write. Please don't interpret my critical tone as any disrespect toward you personally. You DID make me think, and I appreciate that. And I think you're a good person, who deserves to be more than just a cog.
XSI
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,521
- Reputation score
- 423
Re: In today's news...
And in other news
Well, not really new since everyone already knew this
Even Wikileaks is saying it now, governments in Europe are engaging in censorship
So at least with that it's really getting obvious that the governments are doing this stuff
Edit: Also, Cologne sexual abuse is now officially at over 1000 women being sexually harassed or robbed.
821 thefts, 359 cases of sexual harassment
And of course, 0 arrests still, just 30 suspects (All of them north africans)
And in other news
Well, not really new since everyone already knew this
You must be registered to see the links
Even Wikileaks is saying it now, governments in Europe are engaging in censorship
So at least with that it's really getting obvious that the governments are doing this stuff
Edit: Also, Cologne sexual abuse is now officially at over 1000 women being sexually harassed or robbed.
You must be registered to see the links
821 thefts, 359 cases of sexual harassment
And of course, 0 arrests still, just 30 suspects (All of them north africans)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,433
- Reputation score
- 268
Re: In today's news...
Britain's inquiry into the 2006 murder of Alexander Litvinenko has come to the conclusion that it was an assassination coordinated by the Russian state, and probably approved by high-level government officials, including President Vladimir Putin.
Russian spokesmen have dismissed the inquiry results as a a "quasi-investigation" and the results as "subtle British humour."
Opinion: I don't think they found any substantial new evidence. The details of the assassination remain the same, and the circumstances of his death make it VERY likely that this was Russia tying up a loose end. I came to the same conclusion as the UK government, years ago.
Britain's inquiry into the 2006 murder of Alexander Litvinenko has come to the conclusion that it was an assassination coordinated by the Russian state, and probably approved by high-level government officials, including President Vladimir Putin.
Russian spokesmen have dismissed the inquiry results as a a "quasi-investigation" and the results as "subtle British humour."
You must be registered to see the links
(UK-based)
You must be registered to see the links
(UK-based)
You must be registered to see the links
(Russia-based)Opinion: I don't think they found any substantial new evidence. The details of the assassination remain the same, and the circumstances of his death make it VERY likely that this was Russia tying up a loose end. I came to the same conclusion as the UK government, years ago.
XSI
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,521
- Reputation score
- 423
Re: In today's news...
I'm pretty sure that on that one, everyone kinda saw what happened and it's mostly just a matter of whether they can officially point fingers
It's easy to see motive, cause, method, and all that stuff
But hard to get any hard evidence that would hold up in courts
And lets not forget Putin is ex-KGB too, so you know he is probably very capable of doing such things
I'm pretty sure that on that one, everyone kinda saw what happened and it's mostly just a matter of whether they can officially point fingers
It's easy to see motive, cause, method, and all that stuff
But hard to get any hard evidence that would hold up in courts
And lets not forget Putin is ex-KGB too, so you know he is probably very capable of doing such things
Last edited:
Changer
Demon Girl Pro
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 127
- Reputation score
- 29
Re: In today's news...
Its amazing how much the rest of the world puts up with from Russia. It feels like a lot of their actions lately have had the express purpose of basically seeing how much they can get away with before the rest of the world actually does something about it.
Its amazing how much the rest of the world puts up with from Russia. It feels like a lot of their actions lately have had the express purpose of basically seeing how much they can get away with before the rest of the world actually does something about it.
Crawdaddy
Tentacle God
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reputation score
- 749
Changer
Demon Girl Pro
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 127
- Reputation score
- 29
Re: In today's news...
It gets worse; apparently they were rejected, not for the fact that they didn't actually make the term "Lets Play", but instead because someone else trademarked a similar term, "Letz Play"
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,554
- Reputation score
- 30,668
Re: In today's news...
About the only thing you said that I can agree with is decisive victory. I'd go a step further though, and say that one should seek complete and utter annihilation of their opponents, without which victory is never truly achieved. Just look at the situation with Russia, if we hadn't left them alone for a couple of decades to rebuild from the charred remains of the soviet union, we wouldn't have to stand by and watch them assfuck the ukraine.
You took most of the words out of my mouth (the arguments, I don't know many specifics about history) so there's no need for me to re-iterate the points you've made, but I do think this in particular bears re-enforcement. No one should be told they have to be okay with being treated as a mindless tool for the use of another. Your opinions and welfare matter, now more than any other time in history. It is not the duty of the masses to "bear aloft" the elite, but instead it is the elite's duty to lead the masses to prosperity.
Crawdaddy
Tentacle God
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,355
- Reputation score
- 749
Re: In today's news...
The fact that the Soviet Union dissolved without all-out war and relatively bloodless as it did, I'd argue was a victory, and not a defeat long-down the road. But perhaps Tolkien said it better:
handofdoz
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 836
- Reputation score
- 40
Re: In today's news...
take medieval times for instance. many remember it for its wars and sieges. some remember it for its art and literature. not many actually care about the mathematics that were needed to build a castle, instead people care how to breach one or tear it down. even fewer care about day to day life, instead they prefer to focus on the "highlights"
There is an obsession with the "ruling class" in societies that i find very unhealthy. the reason that "ruling class" is in highlights is because the few that were truly in charge often are not remembered by history. we remember the kings who caused wars, not the generals that advised, lead and fought them. think to today, where many know which president started the war in Afghanistan, not many remember his advisers, and fewer still know the generals names.
this obsession also focuses on prominent celebrities nowadays, or remember certain figures of the past. this view distorts the perception of either the people or government. for an example lets take the United States of America. Kim Kardashian has little or nothing to do with everyday life, much of what is discussed on capital hill is ignored on the news, and the news focuses on the "highlights", showing us disaster after disaster, with up to date information on celebrities. all the while, historians rewrite history, saying the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were one single war.
considering how even recent history is conveniently distorted, it makes since that far history is convoluted.
on a separate note, your concept of sieges sounds more like mutually assured destruction. the idea that if both sides use a single strategy then the outcome benefits neither has been a good detriment to war. people often don't think about the wars nuclear bombs have stopped, and instead just focus on the pain the may have inflicted. the only downside to this would be if one side is unwilling to take up the challenge, while the other one will.
for instance many people point to the recent violence of Islam in Europe as a terrible tragedy, but people forget that there was no counter to their violence. think back to the cold war example, imagine if Russia had decided that the risk of mutually assured destruction was not worth the armament of nukes, America may have had total dominance due to them being willing to take up the threat. since Russia did build nukes, a war may have been was averted.
if you apply the example to Europe you can see why the situation is so terrible. one civilian populace is willing and ready to resort to violence to attain some goal, the other one seems unwilling to do so. if the native population in Europe had escalated to the immigrant level of violence immediately there may have been much less violence in the long run. but again, since that didn't happen, we can never be sure.
tl,dr: if you want to take a single point out of that whole spiel then take this quote, which unfortunately i cannot quote the original source:
history is written by the murders, psychopaths, serial killers, and rapists that won the wars.
ps: also i found this link to be more interesting than what the history channel would have told me about vikings
there is a lot of speculating on why humans do what they do, but i've always found it more useful to look at what was actually done. take out the reasons for human actions in the past and we see the exact same thing happening all over the world. some humans create and some destroy. for some reason most people find the humans that destroyed more interesting, so we end up with an odd view on history.
take medieval times for instance. many remember it for its wars and sieges. some remember it for its art and literature. not many actually care about the mathematics that were needed to build a castle, instead people care how to breach one or tear it down. even fewer care about day to day life, instead they prefer to focus on the "highlights"
There is an obsession with the "ruling class" in societies that i find very unhealthy. the reason that "ruling class" is in highlights is because the few that were truly in charge often are not remembered by history. we remember the kings who caused wars, not the generals that advised, lead and fought them. think to today, where many know which president started the war in Afghanistan, not many remember his advisers, and fewer still know the generals names.
this obsession also focuses on prominent celebrities nowadays, or remember certain figures of the past. this view distorts the perception of either the people or government. for an example lets take the United States of America. Kim Kardashian has little or nothing to do with everyday life, much of what is discussed on capital hill is ignored on the news, and the news focuses on the "highlights", showing us disaster after disaster, with up to date information on celebrities. all the while, historians rewrite history, saying the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were one single war.
considering how even recent history is conveniently distorted, it makes since that far history is convoluted.
on a separate note, your concept of sieges sounds more like mutually assured destruction. the idea that if both sides use a single strategy then the outcome benefits neither has been a good detriment to war. people often don't think about the wars nuclear bombs have stopped, and instead just focus on the pain the may have inflicted. the only downside to this would be if one side is unwilling to take up the challenge, while the other one will.
for instance many people point to the recent violence of Islam in Europe as a terrible tragedy, but people forget that there was no counter to their violence. think back to the cold war example, imagine if Russia had decided that the risk of mutually assured destruction was not worth the armament of nukes, America may have had total dominance due to them being willing to take up the threat. since Russia did build nukes, a war may have been was averted.
if you apply the example to Europe you can see why the situation is so terrible. one civilian populace is willing and ready to resort to violence to attain some goal, the other one seems unwilling to do so. if the native population in Europe had escalated to the immigrant level of violence immediately there may have been much less violence in the long run. but again, since that didn't happen, we can never be sure.
tl,dr: if you want to take a single point out of that whole spiel then take this quote, which unfortunately i cannot quote the original source:
history is written by the murders, psychopaths, serial killers, and rapists that won the wars.
ps: also i found this link to be more interesting than what the history channel would have told me about vikings
You must be registered to see the links
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,554
- Reputation score
- 30,668
Re: In today's news...
On a smaller scale, such as the given example of a promotion, if you aren't willing to remove all competitors to ensure your rise to the top then you really didn't want to get there that much.
Well, speaking on a global scale such as warfare genocide isn't the only option that a conquering body has over the defeated to erase their culture.The fact that the Soviet Union dissolved without all-out war and relatively bloodless as it did, I'd argue was a victory, and not a defeat long-down the road. But perhaps Tolkien said it better:
On a smaller scale, such as the given example of a promotion, if you aren't willing to remove all competitors to ensure your rise to the top then you really didn't want to get there that much.
Changer
Demon Girl Pro
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2015
- Messages
- 127
- Reputation score
- 29
Re: In today's news...
Remind me not to be in direct competition with you over a promotion.
ZenReningard
Jungle Girl
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2016
- Messages
- 20
- Reputation score
- 14
Re: In today's news...
to...less....time....to....see...what news there is!!!
ugh, my news is. got to work a long-ass day, time for a lot of pain in the ass, no pun intended. got to sit on a wheelchair all day
well, this is not really something for the thread i guess
but why no put it down
my life
all
nothing
and
nothing
yay me
to...less....time....to....see...what news there is!!!
ugh, my news is. got to work a long-ass day, time for a lot of pain in the ass, no pun intended. got to sit on a wheelchair all day
well, this is not really something for the thread i guess
but why no put it down
my life
all
nothing
and
nothing
yay me