NationStates

Necroghastia wrote:

Free Ravensburg wrote:How is this a hot take?

How many games nowadays have motion control?

all of vr

State of Imperial Russia wrote:The dead star at the center of the Red Spider Nebula isn't as hot as this take:

All international alliances must cease to exist, or there will be yet another threat of another world war. The Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance had done it in the Great War, and the Axis and Allies did in the Second World War, and now, with the relationship between Commonwealth of Independent States and the European Union, it seems very likely that the war in Ukraine won't be the end of this conflict.

If countries continue to supply the Ukrainians, a larger war will break out, and millions more will die. All because of what? To make yourself seem more righteous? To give your country the little ego boost that it so desperately craves? Let the Ukrainians and Russians fight without foreign aid, and let them settle the conflict themselves. Whoever wins, wins, and that's the end of it.

If the West keeps supplying Ukraine, Russia will run out of troops and weapon and will become militarily destroyed. If Russia is militarily destroyed it will lose the physical ability to commit "a larger war", and the world will be more peaceful, and both Ukraine and Europe will be able to stand on its own feet without the threat of another Russian invasion. China will also become significantly deterred against a Taiwanese invasion, and meanwhile the Chinese model of international politics works best without war. A sane China will not invade Taiwan and will instead continue pursue its project as America's political and economic competitor; an insane China will do the reverse.

Indeed the only way to get world peace is for insane fascist states like Russia to know its place. That place being governed by the fact that the Russian economy is smaller than Italy. The importance of Russia in the world stage should be corrected to the levels of below that of Italy, and not more.

And meanwhile MAD has already prevented a world war between America and the Soviets.

Malaiya Union wrote:Indeed the only way to get world peace is for insane fascist states like Russia to know its place. That place being governed by the fact that the Russian economy is smaller than Italy. The importance of Russia in the world stage should be corrected to the levels of below that of Italy, and not more.

That's not world peace, that's conflict with the "good guys" winning. It's totally fine for that to be your goal, but be honest about what it is.

Malaiya Union wrote:

State of Imperial Russia wrote:The dead star at the center of the Red Spider Nebula isn't as hot as this take:

All international alliances must cease to exist, or there will be yet another threat of another world war. The Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance had done it in the Great War, and the Axis and Allies did in the Second World War, and now, with the relationship between Commonwealth of Independent States and the European Union, it seems very likely that the war in Ukraine won't be the end of this conflict.

If countries continue to supply the Ukrainians, a larger war will break out, and millions more will die. All because of what? To make yourself seem more righteous? To give your country the little ego boost that it so desperately craves? Let the Ukrainians and Russians fight without foreign aid, and let them settle the conflict themselves. Whoever wins, wins, and that's the end of it.

If the West keeps supplying Ukraine, Russia will run out of troops and weapon and will become militarily destroyed. If Russia is militarily destroyed it will lose the physical ability to commit "a larger war", and the world will be more peaceful, and both Ukraine and Europe will be able to stand on its own feet without the threat of another Russian invasion. China will also become significantly deterred against a Taiwanese invasion, and meanwhile the Chinese model of international politics works best without war. A sane China will not invade Taiwan and will instead continue pursue its project as America's political and economic competitor; an insane China will do the reverse.

Indeed the only way to get world peace is for insane fascist states like Russia to know its place. That place being governed by the fact that the Russian economy is smaller than Italy. The importance of Russia in the world stage should be corrected to the levels of below that of Italy, and not more.

And meanwhile MAD has already prevented a world war between America and the Soviets.

Here's the thing though: that drastically shifts the balance of power in the favour of the west which, in MULTIPLE cases, doesn't seem to have an interest in using their power for the "greater good". Russia wouldn't just be "militarily destroyed", chances are a puppet government would be established too. What about "freedom" to decide your own path? Isn't that the whole point of democracy, and what America promotes?

The way I see it, the nation that's strongest on its own deserves the most. If Russia wants to destroy Ukraine, and its strong enough to do so without foreign involvement, so be it. If Germany wants to reform the German Empire and is able to conquer the territories that once used to be a part of said empire, so be it. Hell, if China wanted to spread their ideas worldwide, and were able to do so, so be it.

Ukraine means ABSOLUTELY nothing to ninety percent of the world. It's a corrupt, falsely "democratic" state that depends on foreign supplies. Ukraine's allies are prolonging the inevitable, and costing millions of more lives than what would've been lost if they just ignored this conflict.

Umeria wrote:

Malaiya Union wrote:Indeed the only way to get world peace is for insane fascist states like Russia to know its place. That place being governed by the fact that the Russian economy is smaller than Italy. The importance of Russia in the world stage should be corrected to the levels of below that of Italy, and not more.

That's not world peace, that's conflict with the "good guys" winning. It's totally fine for that to be your goal, but be honest about what it is.

To be fair there exist two choices for the state of the world: a divided world with the risks of a Great War, or a unified world under the heels of a wank superpower. Pick one.

Malaiya Union wrote:

Umeria wrote:That's not world peace, that's conflict with the "good guys" winning. It's totally fine for that to be your goal, but be honest about what it is.

To be fair there exist two choices for the state of the world: a divided world with the risks of a Great War, or a unified world under the heels of a wank superpower. Pick one.

I pick the first one. The Great War is much more likely to happen in the second scenario once the global empire inevitably collapses.

The average man is as intelligent as the average woman. However, the distribution of intelligence in men is more extreme, meaning that there are numerically both more male geniuses and intellectually disableds.

State of Imperial Russia wrote:Ukraine means ABSOLUTELY nothing to ninety percent of the world. It's a corrupt, falsely "democratic" state that depends on foreign supplies. Ukraine's allies are prolonging the inevitable, and costing millions of more lives than what would've been lost if they just ignored this conflict.

Reality however differed: Bucha has shown what will happen to Ukraine if Russia conquers it. The defense of Ukraine is now in the Ukrainian's self interest and they have acted accordingly.

And the Russian war of conquest has violated the one single, most sacred post-war international principle: there can be no more wars of conquest in Europe, forever. The entirety of the EU and European economic and political policies - the European Project - orbits around this principle. One of the main purpose of the EU is for example to restructure the German and French political, economic, and cultural system such that a war between them becomes simply inconceivable.

Malaiya Union wrote:

State of Imperial Russia wrote:Ukraine means ABSOLUTELY nothing to ninety percent of the world. It's a corrupt, falsely "democratic" state that depends on foreign supplies. Ukraine's allies are prolonging the inevitable, and costing millions of more lives than what would've been lost if they just ignored this conflict.

Reality however differed: Bucha has shown what will happen to Ukraine if Russia conquers it. The defense of Ukraine is now in the Ukrainian's self interest and they have acted accordingly.

And the Russian war of conquest has violated the one single, most sacred post-war international principle: there can be no more wars of conquest in Europe, forever. The entirety of the EU and European economic and political policies - the European Project - orbits around this principle. One of the main purpose of the EU is for example to restructure the German and French political, economic, and cultural system such that a war between them becomes simply inconceivable.

Westerners are going insane over it simply because Ukraine is a western ally and Russia was the west's biggest enemy if it weren't for that nobody would give two sh!ts about a poor country at war
Examples of this include Myanmar, Ethiopia, Syria, Yemen and Nigeria (banditry and Boko Haram)

Maraband wrote:

Malaiya Union wrote:Reality however differed: Bucha has shown what will happen to Ukraine if Russia conquers it. The defense of Ukraine is now in the Ukrainian's self interest and they have acted accordingly.

And the Russian war of conquest has violated the one single, most sacred post-war international principle: there can be no more wars of conquest in Europe, forever. The entirety of the EU and European economic and political policies - the European Project - orbits around this principle. One of the main purpose of the EU is for example to restructure the German and French political, economic, and cultural system such that a war between them becomes simply inconceivable.

Westerners are going insane over it simply because Ukraine is a western ally and Russia was the west's biggest enemy if it weren't for that nobody would give two sh!ts about a poor country at war
Examples of this include Myanmar, Ethiopia, Syria, Yemen and Nigeria (banditry and Boko Haram)

Hot take: if a country under attack is actually your ally, its loss will be directly catastrophic to the last 70 years of your political, economic, and cultural development, and its triumph will directly boost both your security interests and your ideological value system, you have the right to pay more attention to said country.

Especially if the invading country has a history of invading, occupying, conquering, subjugating, and massacring the people of like half of your members within the last few centuries, as recently as a few decades ago. Many people still alive there have lived under its oppressive yoke that has retarded their economic prospects, institutions, and demographics.

It's not like the "other powers" will be of benefit either. China is the only lifeline to the insanity of the Tatmadaw junta and both Russia and China voted against war crimes investigations in Yemen.

State of Imperial Russia wrote:The dead star at the center of the Red Spider Nebula isn't as hot as this take:

All international alliances must cease to exist, or there will be yet another threat of another world war. The Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance had done it in the Great War, and the Axis and Allies did in the Second World War, and now, with the relationship between Commonwealth of Independent States and the European Union, it seems very likely that the war in Ukraine won't be the end of this conflict.

If countries continue to supply the Ukrainians, a larger war will break out, and millions more will die. All because of what? To make yourself seem more righteous? To give your country the little ego boost that it so desperately craves? Let the Ukrainians and Russians fight without foreign aid, and let them settle the conflict themselves. Whoever wins, wins, and that's the end of it.

Fine.

Russia first. Ditch Belarus.

Malaiya Union wrote:The average man is as intelligent as the average woman. However, the distribution of intelligence in men is more extreme, meaning that there are numerically both more male geniuses and intellectually disableds.

ah here's a hot take: there's no such thing as "intelligence", or at least not in the way that most pople think of it

Mettaton-EX wrote:

Malaiya Union wrote:The average man is as intelligent as the average woman. However, the distribution of intelligence in men is more extreme, meaning that there are numerically both more male geniuses and intellectually disableds.

ah here's a hot take: there's no such thing as "intelligence", or at least not in the way that most pople think of it

Oh yes there is. Whether an IQ test effectively measures it is a different question.

The story of Noah is "one time god wasn't happy with how earth was working so he turned it off and back on again."

Ethel mermania wrote:

Mettaton-EX wrote:ah here's a hot take: there's no such thing as "intelligence", or at least not in the way that most pople think of it

Oh yes there is. Whether an IQ test effectively measures it is a different question.

The IQ test doesn't measure intelligence, by design. It measures intellectual disability. if you take it seriously, you are intellectually disabled
But seriously. They were designed to help identify people with intellectual disabilities. Scores above 100 just mean "this person doesn't have a intellectual disability,.. probably."

Haganham wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Oh yes there is. Whether an IQ test effectively measures it is a different question.

The IQ test doesn't measure intelligence, by design. It measures intellectual disability. if you take it seriously, you are intellectually disabled
But seriously. They were designed to help identify people with intellectual disabilities. Scores above 100 just mean "this person doesn't have a intellectual disability,.. probably."

The only time I've taken an IQ test (as a child), I was introduced to it as something that measures approximate grade level in school children. For example, a score of one standard deviation above the mean indicates that the child is learning at one grade level higher than is typical for their age, and one standard deviation below the mean indicates that the child is learning at one grade lower, etc.

I later found out this wasn't in fact true (or not exclusively so), but IQ scores are still extremely malleable over the course of a person's life, as what they mostly seem to measure is your ability to take tests. I have no doubt that if I took the test now I'd end up with an IQ of about 80 because my patience for exams of any kind is down to zero.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Juristonia wrote:There's more to a good game than pretty graphics.

Pick up axe.

"You cannot pick up ye axe."

And then you have to sit there and imagine why in earth you cannot get ye axe. Ah, text based adventure games are truly the most exciting.

chick fil a's chicken is good because they found the fountain of youth and use that water in replacement of regular tap water

Umeria wrote:

Malaiya Union wrote:Indeed the only way to get world peace is for insane fascist states like Russia to know its place. That place being governed by the fact that the Russian economy is smaller than Italy. The importance of Russia in the world stage should be corrected to the levels of below that of Italy, and not more.

That's not world peace, that's conflict with the "good guys" winning. It's totally fine for that to be your goal, but be honest about what it is.

Doves don't simp for fascist shitholes challenge (impossible)

Kernen wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Pick up axe.

"You cannot pick up ye axe."

And then you have to sit there and imagine why in earth you cannot get ye axe. Ah, text based adventure games are truly the most exciting.

Drop lamp

Port Caverton wrote:

Umeria wrote:That's not world peace, that's conflict with the "good guys" winning. It's totally fine for that to be your goal, but be honest about what it is.

Doves don't simp for fascist shitholes challenge (impossible)

Hawks don't conflate domination with peace challenge (impossible), paired with hawks don't accuse everyone they disagree with of siding with the enemy challenge (even more impossible)

Umeria wrote:

Port Caverton wrote:Doves don't simp for fascist shitholes challenge (impossible)

Hawks don't conflate domination with peace challenge (impossible),

Peace is literally the lack of war

paired with hawks don't accuse everyone they disagree with of siding with the enemy challenge (even more impossible)

When the conflict is as black and white as this one, it really is.

Port Caverton wrote:

Umeria wrote:Hawks don't conflate domination with peace challenge (impossible),

Peace is literally the lack of war

Peace is the lack of violent conflict. World domination needs to be enforced by violence, therefore it is not peace.

Port Caverton wrote:

paired with hawks don't accuse everyone they disagree with of siding with the enemy challenge (even more impossible)

When the conflict is as black and white as this one, it really is.

I thought we were speaking in general terms.

Umeria wrote:

Port Caverton wrote:Peace is literally the lack of war

Peace is the lack of violent conflict. World domination needs to be enforced by violence, therefore it is not peace.

If we control the whole world there won't be any other countries to start war with, so yes it is peace.

Port Caverton wrote:When the conflict is as black and white as this one, it really is.

I thought we were speaking in general terms.

no.

Port Caverton wrote:

Umeria wrote:Peace is the lack of violent conflict. World domination needs to be enforced by violence, therefore it is not peace.

If we control the whole world there won't be any other countries to start war with, so yes it is peace.

Countries are not the only entities capable of engaging in conflict. If the people in one of the regions you're occupying decide they don't like your regime and start a revolt, that's not peace.

Umeria wrote:

Port Caverton wrote:If we control the whole world there won't be any other countries to start war with, so yes it is peace.

Countries are not the only entities capable of engaging in conflict. If the people in one of the regions you're occupying decide they don't like your regime and start a revolt, that's not peace.

Just put them down and put peace keeepers in the region afterwards. Problem fixed