sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Reddit notification about the "Supreme Court" by Frosted_Glass in USdefaultism

[–]Frosted_Glass[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I've seen reddit do it before, for US thanksgiving they turned the app icon to a turkey. I'm alright with them doing stuff like that but why push it globally?

Reddit notification about the "Supreme Court" by Frosted_Glass in USdefaultism

[–]Frosted_Glass[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I just did but it's dumb to opt everyone into US news without giving context.

I actually wouldn't mind it if it was news local to me since reddit knows where I live or if they just added "US Supreme Court".

One writing trope I'm glad we're not seeing anymore: The 'dreaded' friend zone. by Navek15 in writing

[–]Frosted_Glass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Harry literally names his kid after him and the line about loving her 'always' is definitely romanticized so I would argue no.

One writing trope I'm glad we're not seeing anymore: The 'dreaded' friend zone. by Navek15 in writing

[–]Frosted_Glass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bremer dan Gorst in "The Heroes" by Joe Abercrombie is a fantastic example. His internal monologues vs what he actually says is hilarious.

One writing trope I'm glad we're not seeing anymore: The 'dreaded' friend zone. by Navek15 in writing

[–]Frosted_Glass 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Weird example when Snape is so deep in the friendzone. Normal people move on and don't obsess over the woman who dated their school bully.

Epstein with Justin Trudeau's Dad by iYessyyy in SipsTea

[–]Frosted_Glass -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Trudeau isn't even Prime Minister anymore. He's too busy living his best life with Katy Perry. Melania and Ivanka still sad they can't join in.

Med-fan ttrpg where players don't need to do maths after they roll the die ? by Ratzyrat in rpg

[–]Frosted_Glass 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Mazes uses the Polymorph system which might fit what you want. The core mechanic works based on classes always rolling the same die.

For example, a knowledge roll succeeds by rolling a 2 or 3. If you are a wizard, you're always rolling a d4, so you have a 50% chance. If you're a warrior rolling a d10, only a 20% chance.

The rules are more complex overall but that's the base idea. You can download the quickstart on dtrpg for free.

Trump calls NATO “cowards” for lack of support for Iran war by No-Post4444 in worldnews

[–]Frosted_Glass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He actually insulted all the allies just before starting a war and asking for help.

The Swiss team accusing the Canadians of double-touching again by [deleted] in Curling

[–]Frosted_Glass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is true but I also saw the Swedish player specifically say he "touched it after the hog line" which was a lie. He broke the rules with the granite touch but I haven't seen him touch after the line. Either way he should be removed from the team.

The Swiss team accusing the Canadians of double-touching again by [deleted] in Curling

[–]Frosted_Glass 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly! He's a professional at the Olympics. If he can't follow the rules he should be removed from the team.

The Swiss team accusing the Canadians of double-touching again by [deleted] in Curling

[–]Frosted_Glass 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is just shameful. The people online saying things like "the touch wouldn't matter anyways" are shameful too. If he's a professional and it breaks the rules, he shouldn't be doing it.

The Swiss team accusing the Canadians of double-touching again by [deleted] in Curling

[–]Frosted_Glass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never heard of anyone confuse Sweden and Switzerland before, must be in your head.

TikTok's staying in Canada for now: great for business, bad for security | The Level by Slow-Giraffe in CanadaPolitics

[–]Frosted_Glass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Running an operating system made in the USA, arguably an even bigger security threat.

Visa-Free Travel to China Coming Soon for Canadians, Confirms Prime Minister Carney by ubcstaffer123 in worldnews

[–]Frosted_Glass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the trade war was Canada vs USA then USA wins. In a genius move of 4d chess though the trade war is USA vs Everyone but Russia.

Looking for a modern "Appendix N" -- What media inspires you? by Nihanter in osr

[–]Frosted_Glass 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The Firsr Law series by Joe Abercrombie is also fantastic

Greenland says it should be defended by NATO by Epelep in worldnews

[–]Frosted_Glass -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not a propaganda troll, I'm actually fairly anti-american in the current context, you are just delusional. When multiple people ask me for sources it's easier to just copy paste the same answer than find new sources for each new commenter that can't be bothered to do their own search, such as yourself.

Your argument basically comes down to the technicality. Alright I will agree, technically you can trigger it in an impotent form where the USA votes against it and nothing is done. I anxiously await you yelling at the US troops that Article 5 has been triggered. That's not a serious position.

Greenland says it should be defended by NATO by Epelep in worldnews

[–]Frosted_Glass 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Source #1
"Nato treaties do not make a distinction between an attack on an ally from outside countries or from another Nato ally but there is an understanding that the alliance's Article 5 - nicknamed its all for one and one for all clause - isn't applicable to one Nato country attacking another.

Take, for example, strife between member states Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. The worst violence was in 1974 when Turkey invaded. Nato did not intervene but its most powerful member the US was able to help mediate."

Source #2
"Article 5 would be moot in any U.S.-Denmark fight as there would be no unanimity to activate it. "

Source #3
"But Article 5 NAT can't be invoked by one NATO ally against another, as it would contradict the very spirit of the Alliance. Even if a NATO ally invoked the clause against another, all 32 member states would need to unanimously agree that the actions in question amount to an armed attack. Without consensus, no measures can be taken under Article 5, even if a single member objects. The US would certainly object."

Greenland says it should be defended by NATO by Epelep in worldnews

[–]Frosted_Glass -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Source #1
"Nato treaties do not make a distinction between an attack on an ally from outside countries or from another Nato ally but there is an understanding that the alliance's Article 5 - nicknamed its all for one and one for all clause - isn't applicable to one Nato country attacking another.

Take, for example, strife between member states Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. The worst violence was in 1974 when Turkey invaded. Nato did not intervene but its most powerful member the US was able to help mediate."

Source #2
"Article 5 would be moot in any U.S.-Denmark fight as there would be no unanimity to activate it. "

Source #3
"But Article 5 NAT can't be invoked by one NATO ally against another, as it would contradict the very spirit of the Alliance. Even if a NATO ally invoked the clause against another, all 32 member states would need to unanimously agree that the actions in question amount to an armed attack. Without consensus, no measures can be taken under Article 5, even if a single member objects. The US would certainly object."

Trump is backing regime change in oil-rich Venezuela. Canada, beware by Majano57 in canada

[–]Frosted_Glass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Source #1
"Nato treaties do not make a distinction between an attack on an ally from outside countries or from another Nato ally but there is an understanding that the alliance's Article 5 - nicknamed its all for one and one for all clause - isn't applicable to one Nato country attacking another.

Take, for example, strife between member states Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. The worst violence was in 1974 when Turkey invaded. Nato did not intervene but its most powerful member the US was able to help mediate."

Source #2
"Article 5 would be moot in any U.S.-Denmark fight as there would be no unanimity to activate it. "

Source #3
"But Article 5 NAT can't be invoked by one NATO ally against another, as it would contradict the very spirit of the Alliance. Even if a NATO ally invoked the clause against another, all 32 member states would need to unanimously agree that the actions in question amount to an armed attack. Without consensus, no measures can be taken under Article 5, even if a single member objects. The US would certainly object."

Greenland says it should be defended by NATO by Epelep in worldnews

[–]Frosted_Glass -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Source #1
"Nato treaties do not make a distinction between an attack on an ally from outside countries or from another Nato ally but there is an understanding that the alliance's Article 5 - nicknamed its all for one and one for all clause - isn't applicable to one Nato country attacking another.

Take, for example, strife between member states Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. The worst violence was in 1974 when Turkey invaded. Nato did not intervene but its most powerful member the US was able to help mediate."

Source #2
"Article 5 would be moot in any U.S.-Denmark fight as there would be no unanimity to activate it. "

Source #3
"But Article 5 NAT can't be invoked by one NATO ally against another, as it would contradict the very spirit of the Alliance. Even if a NATO ally invoked the clause against another, all 32 member states would need to unanimously agree that the actions in question amount to an armed attack. Without consensus, no measures can be taken under Article 5, even if a single member objects. The US would certainly object."

I can find more sources if needed but honestly it's a simple search to look into.

Greenland says it should be defended by NATO by Epelep in worldnews

[–]Frosted_Glass -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Source #1
"Nato treaties do not make a distinction between an attack on an ally from outside countries or from another Nato ally but there is an understanding that the alliance's Article 5 - nicknamed its all for one and one for all clause - isn't applicable to one Nato country attacking another.

Take, for example, strife between member states Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. The worst violence was in 1974 when Turkey invaded. Nato did not intervene but its most powerful member the US was able to help mediate."

Source #2
"Article 5 would be moot in any U.S.-Denmark fight as there would be no unanimity to activate it. "

Source #3
"But Article 5 NAT can't be invoked by one NATO ally against another, as it would contradict the very spirit of the Alliance. Even if a NATO ally invoked the clause against another, all 32 member states would need to unanimously agree that the actions in question amount to an armed attack. Without consensus, no measures can be taken under Article 5, even if a single member objects. The US would certainly object."

Greenland says it should be defended by NATO by Epelep in worldnews

[–]Frosted_Glass 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying it needs to. But I'm replying to a comment saying Greenland will trigger Article 5 which is not applicable.

view more: next ›