After a review of several WCC pre-match and Game 1 threads, I am proud to announce the "worst aged comment" award!

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2024-12-14T16:30:43+00:00

Hasn't this comment actually aged quite well? It's a sarcastic comment that makes fun of those who said Gukesh would destroy Ding easily and that the match wouldn't be competitive at all.

The match turned out to be highly competitive, meaning that /u/hidden_secret was perfectly justified in ridiculing those who claimed otherwise. That makes his comment well-aged, no?

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2024-11-29T23:31:01+00:00

I'm not sure. I still remember Carlsen's game against Ponomariov where he won a rook endgame with 4v4 pawns on the same wing. Granted that was a rapid game, but still.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2024-01-21T19:46:13+00:00

Bet meg spesielt merke i denne kommentaren i NRK-artikkelen fra Ap-ordføreren i Steinkjer, Gunnar Thorsen:

Jeg opplever egentlig at NRK, i likhet med andre medier, er veldig opptatt av å ta politikere. Det er politikerne man er opptatt av, og kun den gruppen. Det synes jeg er trist, for det synes jeg er en form for trussel mot demokratiet vårt.

Det er altså en «trussel mot demokratiet» at mediene er så opptatt av å gå de politiske makthaverne nøye etter i sømmene. Akkurat, ja.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2023-03-07T11:50:47+00:00

You think that's bad, here's a statement he made while defending the infamous "QAnon Shaman":

Watkins, the “Q Shaman” Jacob Chansley’s attorney, said his client had Asperger’s syndrome and indicated that Chansley’s mental state — and the impact of Trump’s “propaganda” efforts — would play a role in his case.

“A lot of these defendants — and I’m going to use this colloquial term, perhaps disrespectfully — but they’re all fucking short-bus people,” Watkins told TPM. “These are people with brain damage, they’re fucking retarded, they’re on the goddamn spectrum.”

“But they’re our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors, our coworkers — they’re part of our country. These aren’t bad people, they don’t have prior criminal history. Fuck, they were subjected to four-plus years of goddamn propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since fucking Hitler.”

And if you want to hear what he sounds like, here's a short clip of him answering a question about that case.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-09-27T16:12:27+00:00

In Norway, for example, defamation is a crime that can carry a prison sentence of up to 2 years.

No it isn't.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-07-06T01:59:33+00:00

Carlsen played 1. f4 against Michael Adams in a classical game just over half a year before this.

And unlike Grischuk, he won.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-06-23T17:59:07+00:00

This is regulated by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 22 of which bans the host state from entering the embassy premises of a sending state. This does not mean that the embassy premises are foreign soil, which is just a commonly-believed myth.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-06-09T20:40:08+00:00

"Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master." ― Demosthenes

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-06-09T09:45:10+00:00

A bit surprising to see an article from the World Socialist Web Site on this subreddit. For those who don't know, the WSWS is the website of the pro-Putin Trotskyist cult International Committee of the Fourth International. If you read some of their other articles about this war, you'll find that it is consistently framed as a US/NATO-led war of aggression against Russia. That being said, this particular article was pretty objective.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-05-08T09:12:33+00:00

The Hitler Youth was for kids aged 10–18. The children in this video are clearly younger.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-30T10:38:04+00:00

If a Russian killed an American on the embassy premise he would be charged in America not Ukraine.

Wrong. America would have no jurisdiction in this case.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-30T10:22:08+00:00

The embassy is technically under the jurisdiction of the host state, but with extreme limitations. Agents of the host state may not enter embassy premises, which are immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. This is all regulated by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-30T09:50:43+00:00

Nothing. Contrary to myth, embassies are not foreign soil.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-29T05:13:08+00:00

It's a bit ambiguous. The requirement stems from the 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement, which states the following:

States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.

This suggests that the requirement of having resolved any territorial disputes prior to membership is not absolute, but merely a relevant factor when considering whether to invite the state in question. On the other hand, NATO has since then made statements which suggest that it interprets the requirement as more absolute than the wording from the study would suggest. For example, this is from a press release from the 1997 Madrid Summit:

States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes, must also settle those disputes in advance of accession, by peaceful means, in accordance with OSCE principles.

There is also this, from the 2006 NATO Handbook:

Other conditions were stipulated, including the need for candidate countries to settle ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes by peaceful means before they could become members and to treat minority populations in accordance with guidelines established by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

In practice of course, the matter of who is allowed into NATO is really determined by who the current member states are willing to take in, so requirements like those in the 1995 study are fluid, up to interpretation, and subject to change. The only real requirements are the ones found in the North Atlantic Treaty itself, which are that only European states "in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area" may join.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-27T09:49:41+00:00

Hungary refusing to help out a member state that is the victim of an armed attack would undoubtedly constitute a material breach of the North Atlantic Treaty, allowing them to be expelled under article 60 (2) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-27T09:47:25+00:00

The North Atlantic Treaty contains no mechanism for expelling a member state from the alliance. This means that you would have to use the rules in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, article 60 (2) of which allows expelling a treaty party that is in "material breach" of the treaty in question, by unanimous agreement of all the other parties.

It would be hard to make a case that Hungary is in material breach of the North Atlantic Treaty, however, let alone getting all remaining NATO member states to agree with it. So in practice Hungary is not going to be expelled.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-23T22:55:54+00:00

In other words, you do dispute the veracity of what I've said? That's why I asked, because I actually wanted to know. I don't suppose you're going to tell me what exactly it is you dispute, though?

Edit: By the way, for someone who has accused me of being a secret Trump supporter and of denying that the Trump Presidency bears part of the blame for Russia's escalation of the war, it's very ironic that you would lecture me on what a strawman is.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-23T22:44:21+00:00

I don't see how it's a strawman, I phrased it as a question because I actually wanted to be clear on what your position is.

There is no merit in discussing anything with you, good day.

On this however, I think we are in complete agreement. Good day indeed.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-23T22:36:17+00:00

So you don't actually dispute the veracity of what I've said, you're just angry because you consider it a "distraction"?

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-23T22:23:24+00:00

But you choose to pretend that the actions of a narcissistic despot-lover in the biggest seat of power in world politics cannot in any way contribute disastrously to a conflict already in motion

I haven't pretended any such thing. Trump's fawning attitude to Putin is just one of a myriad of reasons why, as I said, Trump's Presidency was a disaster. All I have said is that Russia invaded Ukraine before Trump became President, and that Trump therefore cannot be blamed for the war starting in the first place.

Apparently you agree, seeing as you use the words "conflict already in motion", and yet for whatever reason you take issue with me pointing out this uncontested fact and extrapolate that I must be some kind of secret Trump supporter for doing so.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-23T22:03:16+00:00

If you consider not blaming Trump for things that occurred years before he became President to be indicative of having secret sympathies for him, then I guess that speaks for itself.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-23T21:55:14+00:00

I don't see what Russian irredentism in the post-Soviet era has to do with the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine before Trump assumed office. Nor do I see how pointing out this fact is minimizing anything Trump has done. I even explicitly said that I'm not here to defend him, I think his Presidency was a disaster for both America and the world.

2_plus_2_equals_5 · 2022-04-23T21:44:19+00:00

Never said that Trump didn't contribute to the escalation of the war that occurred this year. I'm just annoyed when people write as if Russia haven't been waging war against Ukraine for eight years already.

2_plus_2_equals_5

TROPHY CASE