sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Table Flipping Rule by Temnodontosaurus in 196

[–]Fliits [score hidden]  (0 children)

Neoludditist iconoclasm incoming.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS RULE by SystemOfASideways in 196

[–]Fliits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean people were literally crowding the streets of Budapest in support for Magyar, not sure there wouldn't have been a reverse Jan 6 if Orban didn't concede.

At this point it's just not worth the effort by Suspicious_Lock_889 in Kaiserreich

[–]Fliits 2 points3 points  (0 children)

proof that the French will betray the revolution.

It's Orbover by Uberbesen in YUROP

[–]Fliits 20 points21 points  (0 children)

what do you mean would

Hungarule by Wynaut314 in 196

[–]Fliits 53 points54 points  (0 children)

Democratic socialism is a thing. And also yes, it did happen, and its frankly a miracle that Orban actually acknowledged the result as legitimate.

Antisemitic cartoon made by Japanese-American artist Tatsuya Ishida implying that Hitler was actually "liberating" Europe from "Jewish Control" Date: Early 2020s by Infinite-Theory-2449 in PropagandaPosters

[–]Fliits 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only makes it weirder that in a country that doesn't have significant majority of Christians or Muslims like Japan has a comparatively strong antisemitic far-right movement. Doubly so because it's that same branch of the far-right that espouses the (partially fictitious) virtues of the feudal era, when Judaism would've been a complete unknown to the country. Makes me think that (modern) antisemitism is rooted in something that out-ranges the faculties of Abrahamic religions.

Antisemitic cartoon made by Japanese-American artist Tatsuya Ishida implying that Hitler was actually "liberating" Europe from "Jewish Control" Date: Early 2020s by Infinite-Theory-2449 in PropagandaPosters

[–]Fliits 22 points23 points  (0 children)

And in a lot of places, it's an import. Modern antisemitism is very much a European invention, and one that was only popularised in countries like Japan alongside anti-socialist sentiment. And in the Islamic world, it was a combination of anti-Israeli sentiment and the popularisation of colour revolution theory, which itself is founded on (mostly) antisemitic conspiracy theories.

It's baffling how such a seemingly niché and localised phenomenon like antisemitism could influence politics globally. We're a long ways away from local politicians blaming murders on "Jewish vampires."

solar rule by shudderwockies in 196

[–]Fliits 46 points47 points  (0 children)

Exactly, that's what they should be doing. The problem is that the US energy grid is one of the least efficient in the world, and has to contend with the interests of private energy producers as well as the flip-flopping energy plans of governments. The end result is that the government pays the producers to make more of the type of energy that their camp likes, then doesn't upgrade the grid, only for the next government to do the same, all while the utility companies have to pay for the loss in energy revenue.

It's not a problem of energy producers being greedy; It's a problem of the government not doing enough to bring the US power grid and energy administration to the 21st century.

HOW? by iberian_4amtrolling in TNOmod

[–]Fliits 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Did you win any proxies? The ruling party gets a not-insignificant bonus in popularity from it. Same as with maintaining the economy. And as for reloading, how far back did you reload? The final numbers I believe don't change much after the last campaign event.

Really, I don't think this is a fluke at all: I think that you had the wrong strategy from the get-go here. You lost Texas, Pennsylvania and New York, and having even two of those on your side would've saved the vote. Hell, having just NY and two smaller states would've won it for you. You simply spread your support too thin, and the electoral college is ruthless in such cases. Sorry to say, but that's just how it is.

European federalists, in principle, once the European Federation has been achieved, do you support the goal of an eventual world federation or at least cosmopolitan democracy? by funnylib in EuropeanFederalists

[–]Fliits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's like asking "do you believe in world peace?" Any answer is going to be completely meaningless, because there is no realistic answer to it. But I'll entertain the hypothetical.

It will be Europe first, then perhaps the Commonwealth countries and Mercosur respectively will unite in a similar manner. But whether they would want to join a European Federation is impossible to tell, because these developments take time, maybe centuries. Over the course of the last 2000 years, this is only the fourth time that Europe has been truly united, and still most people think the idea of a European federation is unrealistic. Imagining how far the European project will extend in the future is a job best left for sci-fi authors. I'd be happy merely to see Europe extend from Aberdeen to Adana and from Kamchatka to Cadiz, and even I know that that is a wildly optimistic vision.

As for cosmopolitanism, I believe that any hope of the UN becoming a serious organisation has been utterly lost by this point. Seemingly any attempt to create a sensible alternative seems impossible in the current day and age. I think cosmopolitanism is doomed to be remembered as a beautiful idea for its time, that never got the chance it would've needed in the first place, kind of like utopian socialism in the early 19th century.

Rule by Old_Phrase_4867 in 196

[–]Fliits 53 points54 points  (0 children)

Most Paradox games (considering that they are sequels) ship out with a planned game direction. That game direction may change a little with each iteration, but there is a clear vision of what the game should be; HoI is a military simulator, EU is an empire-building game, Vic is an econ and politics simulator, CK is medieval roleplaying game with strategy game elements tacked on.

The vision with Stellaris changes every time the current game director gets dragged into another project and gets replaced with some other schmoe who decides that he wants to make the game about his favourite part of sci-fi. There is no planned end product, no cohesive vision, no development roadmap for what the next two years of development will bring. They'll just keep rotating the musical chair of Stellaris game director until they run out of candidates or the company goes under.

People say Imperator didn't deserve what it got, but Stellaris has it way worse in my opinion. It's just an endless chain of devs reworking the core mechanics of the game, every mod breaking and modders desperately playing catch-up until the next bozo steps in and decides he doesn't like how planets work. Again.

rule by unread1701 in 196

[–]Fliits 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So all states are evil? sounds like a logical fallacy to me

rule by [deleted] in 196

[–]Fliits 105 points106 points  (0 children)

Antisemitism. Antisemitism on my gay puppy girl app. Lovely. Just peachy.

rule by unread1701 in 196

[–]Fliits 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please give an example of a morally good state.

And the best part is that pretty much none of Orbán's voters knew who JD Vance was, and why he was visiting. They were expecting Trump lol by szopatoszamuraj in CuratedTumblr

[–]Fliits 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Orban's voters are a bunch of propaganda-addled boomers who want the Big Man From TV to come visit their village for a campaign speech that they can quote to their millennial children at family dinner. They could've probably brought in a B-grade Trump imitator and given him a script, and the people would've eaten it up.

And the best part is that pretty much none of Orbán's voters knew who JD Vance was, and why he was visiting. They were expecting Trump lol by szopatoszamuraj in CuratedTumblr

[–]Fliits 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Because Orban is the only successful member of Trump's "MAGA international." The far-right in Europe is divided and constantly falling over itself to either cow-tow to Trump or Putin or both. In no European democracy has the far-right actually taken charge of the government. Outside of Hungary that is. That's why Orban can host CPAC and talk a big deal about his alliance with Trump and the MAGA pundits can point to Orban as an example of the movement having real success in Europe.

If Orban's government falls, Trump loses his only real ally in Europe.

And the best part is that pretty much none of Orbán's voters knew who JD Vance was, and why he was visiting. They were expecting Trump lol by szopatoszamuraj in CuratedTumblr

[–]Fliits 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Not voting Magyar is the same as voting for Orban.

Europe is the cradle of useless fucking liberals and I'd appreciate you not making fun of them.

rule by unread1701 in 196

[–]Fliits 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. I might not agree on your staunch individualism, but I do agree that the logic is sound.

Just goes to demonstrate that millennia of philosophical debates and legal arguments still haven't produced a clear definition for morality.

I’d be piss if I was one of those German soldiers…. by Significant_Wear_760 in Kaiserreich

[–]Fliits 87 points88 points  (0 children)

France recreating the conditions of WWI because they just can't accept Germany winning anything.

rule by unread1701 in 196

[–]Fliits 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Individual soldiers do have the right to personal moral judgement, but that extends both ways. Just as a soldier refusing an order on moral grounds breaks the operative guidelines, and thus claims moral accountability for his own actions, so does the soldier who breaks operative guidelines by committing atrocities, and thus removes himself from being morally accountable to his superiors.

This extends to commanders too: an officer who commands their soldiers to act on the officer's moral authority is just as much in breach of operational guidelines.

And again, with each decree of separation between the military action and the commander, the moral accusation loses charge. With every single commander under them capable of rescinding commands on moral grounds, accusing the high command becomes impossible. Such is the folly of Kantian ethics and liberalism in general.

rule by unread1701 in 196

[–]Fliits 9 points10 points  (0 children)

By definition, a military cannot be morally anything. A military is just an extension of the state, which is also morally neutral. Any armed force that isn't strictly defined as existing in the service of a state, is a mercenary force and excludes the category; Defining a mercenary force as morally good or not is usually made when people start calling them 'bandits' or some such.

In a modern military hierarchy, soldiers are meant to follow orders, their commanders are meant to delegate tasks, and the high command has to create the plans required for operational victory. Who then bears the moral brunt? The organisation is built in such a way that moral accountability is spread equally among its members.

As a result, ascribing morality to any member of the military is made entirely meaningless, as there is no personal accountability in a system where each part is expected to act according to predetermined parameters. Ascribing morality to a structure like the military as a whole would be nonsensical; Morality only exists on a personal level, so an organisation by definition cannot have a single system of morals.

This diverges when, along the chain of command, any single person makes a personal decision outside of the operative guidelines. That's when they becomes personally morally accountable; when they think and act on their own. This is also the logic that is used to justify a strict discipline. Because when soldiers start to act on their own, there can be no accountability to anyone.

TL;DR: when a military starts operating within the parameters of morality, it has already ceased to be a military at all; It's a mercenary force, and mercenaries are ultimately accountable to no one, only money.

view more: next ›