NationStates

Hanafuridake wrote:

Luminesa wrote:And in the end, we are all anime.

Maybe the real anime was the friends we made along the way.

The only real friends are the projections created by mental illness in order to feel the warmth of the village we just burnt down.

America swings from having a Messiah complex to wanting to be a Hikikomori nation way too much.

Hanafuridake wrote:

Luminesa wrote:And in the end, we are all anime.

Maybe the real anime was the friends we made along the way.

*Cue dramatic happy revelation music.*

Hanafuridake wrote:America swings from having a Messiah complex to wanting to be a Hikikomori nation way too much.

It is quite easy to have a messiah complex when the only audience is dying or dead.

Luminesa wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Maybe the real anime was the friends we made along the way.

*Cue dramatic happy revelation music.*

What is happiness? Can one find it in the ruins of the cities? Can I find it amongst the throngs in the grocery store? Can it be found in the arcane beauty of a church?

Salus Maior wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:If you want feels.

Is the common theme the failure of the modern state to ensure its own security in the face of a new age of terrorism and a-symmetrical warfare?

Tbf the Russians have put a lid on Chechnya for now. Even if it basically means allowing a psychotic tinpot dictator have immunity for his criminality.

Napkizemlja wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Is the common theme the failure of the modern state to ensure its own security in the face of a new age of terrorism and a-symmetrical warfare?

Tbf the Russians have put a lid on Chechnya for now. Even if it basically means allowing a psychotic tinpot dictator have immunity for his criminality.

A dictator they tolerate so long as he toes the line the Kremlin wants so it isn't like both parties need each other.

Napkizemlja wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Is the common theme the failure of the modern state to ensure its own security in the face of a new age of terrorism and a-symmetrical warfare?

Tbf the Russians have put a lid on Chechnya for now. Even if it basically means allowing a psychotic tinpot dictator have immunity for his criminality.

Tbh, eventually the US is going to have to do something similar to places like Baltimore and Newark.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:Tbf the Russians have put a lid on Chechnya for now. Even if it basically means allowing a psychotic tinpot dictator have immunity for his criminality.

Tbh, eventually the US is going to have to do something similar to places like Baltimore and Newark.

Well, authoritarian mayors in the United States aren't exactly uncommon. The Daley regimes of Chicago are one such example.

Napkizemlja wrote:People really need to stop taking Kaiserreich so seriously.

How about no?

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
Tbh, eventually the US is going to have to do something similar to places like Baltimore and Newark.

Well, authoritarian mayors in the United States aren't exactly uncommon. The Daley regimes of Chicago are one such example.

Sucks when the alternative to a corrupt, ethnic political machine is anarchy. I just want honest, good government. I guess most people are incapable of that. Sometimes though, American cities have had a rather "clean" authoritarianism that allowed them to prosper, such as Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg.


However, places like Baltimore and Newark do not have political machines . They are very anarchic.

Bear Stearns wrote:

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:Well, authoritarian mayors in the United States aren't exactly uncommon. The Daley regimes of Chicago are one such example.

Sucks when the alternative to a corrupt, ethnic political machine is anarchy. I just want honest, good government. I guess most people are incapable of that.


However, places like Baltimore and Newark do not have political machines. They are very anarchic.

I think it's partly from an understanding that people who genuinely do try, and become "good, honest politicians" end up quitting out of disgust or become overtly authoritarian because they see no other choice. That is more a fault with the fact we accept that there is only a black, and white reality, and anything grey is an abnormality. Hell, when the crime rate is regulated because the crime boss is mayor, and keeps all criminals in check...do you really want to question his or her order?

Salus Maior wrote:

Napkizemlja wrote:If you want feels.

Is the common theme the failure of the modern state to ensure its own security in the face of a new age of terrorism and a-symmetrical warfare?

He says, as terrorism’s effectiveness in nations that weren’t already in crappy situations is less than ever.

Luminesa wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:
Maybe the real anime was the friends we made along the way.

*Cue dramatic happy revelation music.*

On a somewhat-related yet somewhat-unrelated note, If I may ask: why was the "W-word" banned from NationStates? Y'know, the term relating to obnoxious Japanophiles? Y'know, the one that Papa Franku made a song about a few years back? That term...

Why was it banned? I'm genuinely confused as to the Mods' reasoning.

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
Sucks when the alternative to a corrupt, ethnic political machine is anarchy. I just want honest, good government. I guess most people are incapable of that.


However, places like Baltimore and Newark do not have political machines. They are very anarchic.

I think it's partly from an understanding that people who genuinely do try, and become "good, honest politicians" end up quitting out of disgust or become overtly authoritarian because they see no other choice. That is more a fault with the fact we accept that there is only a black, and white reality, and anything grey is an abnormality. Hell, when the crime rate is regulated because the crime boss is mayor, and keeps all criminals in check...do you really want to question his or her order?

Right. I'm saying that Baltimore doesn't even an overarching crime boss to keep a lid on things. Direct rule by a literal gang would probably be better to what's going on now.

Kowani wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Is the common theme the failure of the modern state to ensure its own security in the face of a new age of terrorism and a-symmetrical warfare?

He says, as terrorism’s effectiveness in nations that weren’t already in crappy situations is less than ever.

France, America, Britain, and Nordic countries are in crappy situations?

I'm not just talking about Islamic terror.

Salus Maior wrote:

Kowani wrote:He says, as terrorism’s effectiveness in nations that weren’t already in crappy situations is less than ever.

France, America, Britain, and Nordic countries are in crappy situations?

I'm not just talking about Islamic terror.

Will not speak for any others, but at least in the United States, we have seen terrorism of the domestic order come in waves. In the 1970s leftists and others engaged in radical chic, planted car bombs, and lead to the creation of Swat. Right-wing terrorism was in vogue in the 1990s especially in response to the government massacre at Waco. Now it seems the type of terrorism is misanthropic or at the very least people considered trash by society can't take it anymore.

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
France, America, Britain, and Nordic countries are in crappy situations?

I'm not just talking about Islamic terror.

Will not speak for any others, but at least in the United States, we have seen terrorism of the domestic order come in waves. In the 1970s leftists and others engaged in radical chic, planted car bombs, and lead to the creation of Swat. Right-wing terrorism was in vogue in the 1990s especially in response to the government massacre at Waco. Now it seems the type of terrorism is misanthropic or at the very least people considered trash by society can't take it anymore.

when you have people who have shoveled shit their entire lives are you really surprised they suddenly like the idea of dumping it on other people?

Salus Maior wrote:

Kowani wrote:He says, as terrorism’s effectiveness in nations that weren’t already in crappy situations is less than ever.

France, America, Britain, and Nordic countries are in crappy situations?

I'm not just talking about Islamic terror.

And they’ve all achieved their goals of…killing innocent people?
Not great, but not exactly peak effectiveness.

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
France, America, Britain, and Nordic countries are in crappy situations?

I'm not just talking about Islamic terror.

Will not speak for any others, but at least in the United States, we have seen terrorism of the domestic order come in waves. In the 1970s leftists and others engaged in radical chic, planted car bombs, and lead to the creation of Swat. Right-wing terrorism was in vogue in the 1990s especially in response to the government massacre at Waco. Now it seems the type of terrorism is misanthropic or at the very least people considered trash by society can't take it anymore.

One thing I've never understood about mass shooters. If you're going to kill people to vent your rage on society, then why kill random? Why not go after targets that would garner sympathy from the public? Examples include:

-Politicians
-Executives
-Celebrities
-Prisoners/Convicts/Criminals
-People in the welfare line on the 1st of the month

Obviously not condoning this, and these would be heinous things to do, but I bet you more than a few Americans would privately think to themselves "good riddance" if those people were targeted.

Loben The 2nd wrote:

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:Will not speak for any others, but at least in the United States, we have seen terrorism of the domestic order come in waves. In the 1970s leftists and others engaged in radical chic, planted car bombs, and lead to the creation of Swat. Right-wing terrorism was in vogue in the 1990s especially in response to the government massacre at Waco. Now it seems the type of terrorism is misanthropic or at the very least people considered trash by society can't take it anymore.

when you have people who have shoveled shit their entire lives are you really surprised they suddenly like the idea of dumping it on other people?

No, but used to be it at least had a veneer of ideology. In the 1970s it was fashionable to join leftist organizations, and hope for the downfall of society once people realized that the hippy movement was bullshit, and most were in it for the perks. Whether you committed terrorism in the name of anti-capitalism, straight-up communism, or environmentalism it had an ideology. Even the rightist militias who thanks to government stupidity at Waco, and Ruby Ridge went into action had an ideological basis for opposition to the government. Yet in the end, if someone really wanted to make a message they would go on live television, and shoot up the news studio during a broadcast instead of local hangouts or schools.

Bear Stearns wrote:

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:Will not speak for any others, but at least in the United States, we have seen terrorism of the domestic order come in waves. In the 1970s leftists and others engaged in radical chic, planted car bombs, and lead to the creation of Swat. Right-wing terrorism was in vogue in the 1990s especially in response to the government massacre at Waco. Now it seems the type of terrorism is misanthropic or at the very least people considered trash by society can't take it anymore.

One thing I've never understood about mass shooters. If you're going to kill people to vent your rage on society, then why kill random? Why not go after targets that would garner sympathy from the public? Examples include:

-Politicians
-Executives
-Celebrities
-Prisoners/Convicts/Criminals
-People in the welfare line on the 1st of the month

Obviously not condoning this, and these would be heinous things to do, but I bet you more than a few Americans would privately think to themselves "good riddance" if those people were targeted.

Neither am I, but shit if you want people to rage against the system because you believe it fucked you over then go all out.

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
One thing I've never understood about mass shooters. If you're going to kill people to vent your rage on society, then why kill random? Why not go after targets that would garner sympathy from the public? Examples include:

-Politicians
-Executives
-Celebrities
-Prisoners/Convicts/Criminals
-People in the welfare line on the 1st of the month

Obviously not condoning this, and these would be heinous things to do, but I bet you more than a few Americans would privately think to themselves "good riddance" if those people were targeted.

Neither am I, but shit if you want people to rage against the system because you believe it fucked you over then go all out.

But go after people who society already has a low opinion of, you'll be more likely to get some followers. For example, if someone car-bombed the Oscars or opened fire on a crowd of people outside of welfare office, I'll bet at least 25% of the country would be sympathetic.

Bear Stearns wrote:

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:
Neither am I, but shit if you want people to rage against the system because you believe it fucked you over then go all out.

But go after people who society already has a low opinion of, you'll be more likely to get some followers.

An example I can think of is in 1960 when a 17 year ran upstage in Japan like a madman, and gutted a Maoist sympathizer.

You look at the comments on the video, and there isn't really a negative one insight. I suppose the reason people target schools over functions like a political party gala is because of security, and availability. Yet it didn't stop a man from stockpiling weapons in a hotel and going full ham on concern goers in vegas. I am kind of surprised he didn't just run amok in Vegas with all the ammunition he had. Vegas is home to some of the most important casino owners, and company heads in the country.

I can say this the first time we have ever discussed the motivation of modern-day terrorists on RWDT. Yet I will say the media's obsession with bait for clicks is partly if not fully responsible for giving enough reason for people to act on their darkest thoughts.