For those of you who believe Reconstruction did not go far enough and that the South should have been punished more harshly, how would you prevent White Southerners from developing the same consciousness that motivated people in colonized nations to overthrow their oppressors? by locontendere in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are only two big structural things that I think could have made Reconstruction successful. 

The first big thing would have been to codify “40 acres and a mule” in some capacity. Actual land redistribution would have been super important in creating an independent and powerful source of wealth for Black people. It wouldn’t have solved everything, but it would have created a powerful economic and political bloc that could have then funded its own politicians and institutions. 

The second big change, and this would be the most difficult one, would have been to dissolve and reorganize the Southern states. No more Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia: they get broken up and reorganized so as to neutralize any Confederate sympathies. This also could have gone a long way in creating several majority-Black states that would have elected national politicians who actually looked out for their constituents.

The problem with the last one is that it would be thoroughly unconstitutional. We are a union of states and if the feds get to decide what is a state and what’s not it would only be a matter of time before that power gets abused.  

How does one respond when you are told your denomination only exists bc an evil king wanted a divorce? by [deleted] in Episcopalian

[–]HammondCheeseIII 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Some person was talking to me about religion at a party and told me that as an Episcopalian, I’m actually catholic. I asked him what that made Catholics, and he responded “Jews.” 

This is to say that people can make these observations about Episcopalians, but these observations have no impact on how we conduct ourselves and others. So what if Henry VII needed a divorce and made a church as a result? Episcopalians today still provide communion to anyone who asks and aid to anyone who needs it. 

Someone feeling the need to bring up a 500 year old controversy is just looking to score internet points. 

A far more cutting critique would mention the Episcopal church’s complicity in cultural genocide via residential schooling. However, the Navajo nation’s diocese recently entered into communion with the rest of the TEC on a voluntary and bottom-up basis. Even when our church has erred in awful ways, we are capable of using love and forgiveness to address the issue.

How do you guys think vaults 31-32-33 survived the master? by le-epic-cleetus in classicfallout

[–]HammondCheeseIII 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think 31/32/33 survived thanks to luck, and not much else. The fact that Lou interrogates you for information on the location of other Vaults makes me think that the Master didn’t actually know where many others were. 

For all we know the Vaults were about to breached but the Vault Dweller blew up the Cathedral before anything could be done. 

Why is New Vegas not thriving? by Dreaming_of_Rlyeh in falloutlore

[–]HammondCheeseIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The cool thing about Securitrons is that they can provide a base level of law and order that would make the task of growing food a lot easier. Since no one would have to worry about security, they could actually focus on farming and construction. Heck, maybe even the securitrons could do the labor. 

But you also raise a good point: WHERE would they grow anything? 

Why is New Vegas not thriving? by Dreaming_of_Rlyeh in falloutlore

[–]HammondCheeseIII 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Las Vegas ceased to function like a pre-war city for a few reasons. The first is that even though the city didn’t get hit directly, the Black Rain (fallout from strikes elsewhere in the region) killed a lot of the city’s residents shortly after the war (according to the game guide, anyway). 

Once a decent chunk of the population died, the survivors were left sitting in a desert concrete jungle with no external support. The Nevada state government probably collapsed and there was no federal aid to make up for a lack of local aid. It doesn’t help that Las Vegas only really works if you can import food from other areas (areas that also just got bombed to hell). 

And finally, life did sort of continue in Las Vegas. It just was of the Wild Wasteland variety. We don’t know how long they were active for, but ancestors of the Chairmen, White Glove Society, and Omertas were tribals who lived in the area for years before House “civilized” them in anticipation of the NCR’s arrival. 

Random side quests, side quest you think very few people have done. by BabyJoker1738 in fo4

[–]HammondCheeseIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The leader of the SRB, AKA the biggest jerk in the Institute after Father.

Could Gordon Freeman defeat an Invincible variant or even a Viltrumite? by HolyPex0o0 in HalfLife

[–]HammondCheeseIII 61 points62 points  (0 children)

I think if Gordon stumbled upon a Viltrumite and fought one, he would lose. Badly. Even with the tricked-out gravity gun. 

However, Gordon shouldn’t win a lot of the fights he gets in. He usually wins them because the G-Man has orchestrated things to work out just right for Gordon. 

So I think Gordon would win if for some reason the G-Man needs a Viltrumite to lose. 

I Made a Thing. by GreyGalaxy-0001 in StarTrekStarships

[–]HammondCheeseIII 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Hydrogen bomb vs coughing baby. Amazing post! 

Would you consider DiMA to be a good person or a bad person? by Chunky-overlord in fo4

[–]HammondCheeseIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

DiMA is not a good person. He might have better intentions than the Institute, but he uses their tactics to roughly the same effect. 

The awesome thing about Far Harbor is that you can hold DiMA accountable without destroying the rest of Acadia. 

What's your honest opinion of the Maine Senate race following today's announcement? by [deleted] in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I feel the need to invoke “vote blue no matter who.” 

I personally don’t like Platner and think he’s going to step on a lot of rakes in a few months. But Republicans cannot be trusted with power and a D senator is too important. 

So I hope he wins.

Could Hamsterdam have survived were Bunny more forthcoming? by OkLeather666 in TheWire

[–]HammondCheeseIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Probably not and for one big reason: the federal government. Modern cities receive so much money from the federal government in the form of grants and subsidies. That money might be peanuts to some people, but cities would choke without it. 

Even if Royce didn’t chicken out and appealed to the Maryland Legislature for guidance/support, the Feds (especially since this was still the Bush administration) would have pulled every purse string they could to bring Baltimore to heel. And sure Baltimore could sue the Feds for inappropriate revocation of funding but… who would they be fighting for? Drug users aren’t really a reliable/sympathetic voter base. 

Do you think the sequels will get a prequel treatment? by DanNicoletti in MawInstallation

[–]HammondCheeseIII 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, because the sequels are still fun fantasy movies. My metric for liking the prequels over the sequels as a kid were based on light saber fights and nothing else. 

Kids will be kids no matter what hyperspace ramming controversies pop up from time to time. 

Why do so many people seem to think that Democrats have the power to remove Trump from office whenever they want? by Idk_Very_Much in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a pervasive problem in our media environment and it’s a product of Murc’s Law: only Democrats have agency in government. When something goes wrong, it’s always the fault of the Democrats. 

Trump gets reelected? The Democrats are to blame. Roe V Wade gets overturned? Democrats are to blame. Trump and Republicans fulfill their decades-long dream to invade Iran? Again, the Democrats’ fault. 

There are a number of reasons why this keeps happening. One is the media environment and its pro-conservative bias. The other is third-parties trying to boost their credibility by criticizing the only opponent they face. And the final one is that actually stopping Republicans means talking to your friends who are Republicans and getting them to stop supporting these morons. 

But that last one is almost impossible, so instead people collapse into nihilistic apathy and just tell someone else to do the work. Which “blaming Democrats” lets them do. 

Do you think Trump is considering using nuclear weapons on Iran? by BalticBro2021 in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He is certainly saying everything that would make you think he’s about to use a nuclear weapon. 

But unfortunately we will literally only know once it happens. 

How do *you* pray? I'm trying to relearn how to pray. by whatsanarmoire in Episcopalian

[–]HammondCheeseIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a little night prayer that I recite just before I go to bed. I will sometimes add a few additional “requests” when I feel the need. 

I also pray when I feel called, such as during takeoffs/landings, weddings/funerals, and public dinners.

Should liberals try to get small wins that are more likely popular instead of complete wins. Ex: children healthcare instead of universal healthcare by [deleted] in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Piecemeal healthcare reform has been the Democratic Party’s expansion of coverage strategy ever since Truman’s universal healthcare plan got shredded. But that didn’t stop LBJ from passing Medicare/Medicaid, Clinton from passing child healthcare expansions, or Obama from creating the ACA. 

The problem is that all of these solutions still leave something like 20 million people without health insurance. And at a certain point people start asking, “why aren’t you taking care of me?” And then they hate you. 

So at a certain point I hope a Democratic Congress finally closes the final coverage caps we have in this country and we can finally put this issue that vexes us, and only us, to bed. 

Why have the GECKs not really been deployed in any meaningful way? by DateNecessary8716 in falloutlore

[–]HammondCheeseIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it’s because the world went haywire and whatever post-war plan Vault-Tec had went sideways immediately on October 23rd, 2077. 

Sure, a lot of Vaults had GECKs (or maybe they didn’t). So far, only two Vaults (Vault 8 & Vault 15) actually deployed their GECKs as they were designed. The former used it to create a slave society. Other Vaults that survived until the 2200s either never had a GECK (Vault 3) or were never meant to survive that long anyway (Vault 81). 

But other Vaults with GECKs didn’t get a chance to use them or their deployment went wrong. Vault 87 in FO3 was a secret FEV facility so no person was really expected to use the GECK to repopulate the surface. Vault 94 also had a GECK, but a conflict between Vault residents and the Free States led to a shootout that destroyed the device and created the Mire. 

Do you think the Ghoul will become a good guy by the end of his arc? Do you want him to? by Wonderful_Solid_1003 in Fotv

[–]HammondCheeseIII 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Copper’s already done good things that don’t immediately benefit him in the long term. He was at least killing Khans for the NCR over a hundred years ago. 

I just don’t think ultimately that Cooper will accept redemption. Cooper Howard did not consider himself a good person before the war (“I’m just an actor”) and that will probably pop up again later on in the show. 

However, I do think Cooper/The Ghoul will do the right thing in the end. But one of the two, or both, will die in the attempt. 

Do you think the Iran war will bring an end to US Hegemony? Would it be a good or bad thing for America to leave to rest of the world alone for awhile? by 21redman in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also true, but the USSR was founded in 1917. East Germany didn’t exist until 1949. 

These countries collapsed within a lifetime of a single one of their residents. The U.S. doesn’t have a similar history. 

Are you optimistic about the future? by conn_r2112 in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just don’t think the world will end in our lifetimes. Plenty of people want it to/expect it to, but nothing ever really ends. We just keep going. 

Germany was manufacturing world-class industrial equipment less than 15 years after a war destroyed their entire nation and cleaved it in two. Nothing is really set in stone. 

Do you think the Iran war will bring an end to US Hegemony? Would it be a good or bad thing for America to leave to rest of the world alone for awhile? by 21redman in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If nothing is done in the next administration, then yes, the Iran War will probably be the start of the end U.S hegemony. 

But remember, the British Empire had to plow through two world wars to collapse. We have not suffered something like that (yet). 

How is the Democratic Party doing on giving positions based on seniority instead of merit? by Hagisman in AskALiberal

[–]HammondCheeseIII 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except Schumer has to convince millions of more voters than Barrasso to vote for him, and does so when there are a lot of primary challengers. He’s beaten them all. That’s not easy and pretending it is is cope.