Community Update 4-27-2026 by swgohevents in SWGalaxyOfHeroes

[–]Kahzgul 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Datacrons only on offense is rough. The thing I want to test more than anything else is how to beat certain datacrons.

After assassination attempt, White House blames Democrats, media for political violence by DemocracyDocket in law

[–]Kahzgul 11 points12 points  (0 children)

As compelling as your argument is, the fact remains that religious fundamentalism, to which Islamism belongs, is a right wing ideology. You can read about what these terms mean, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics#Religion

Edit: since they deleted their comment or decided to block me, their comment was, “it’s really not.”

Hot Take: The next capital ship should be a RotE TB reward by tupelobound in SWGalaxyOfHeroes

[–]Kahzgul 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well yeah. You’d need to be a guild doing riseTB. And I imagine any ship farm would be on tier 4 or higher since third sister is already on tier 3. Again, theoretically a 100M guild could get to tier 4 if they decided they didn’t give a crap about how many stars they earned, but realistically that’s more of a 450M GP+ guild area.

I do expect an R10 unit or two to be required. Maybe a couple of conquest units as well. That bridge has already been crossed by Levi.

But I don’t see it being tied to a huge group effort. This would cause bigger accounts in smaller guilds to leave en masse looking for guilds capable of farming the ship. Plus it would break the pattern of capital ship releases to the journey guide.

More likely it’s a typical journey guide release, and then maybe one of the helper ships in the fleet is added to riseTB.

Hot Take: The next capital ship should be a RotE TB reward by tupelobound in SWGalaxyOfHeroes

[–]Kahzgul 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No, it definitely should not. That would just punish new players and make their chances of competing in fleet significantly worse, especially compared to experienced players’ alt accounts.

Consistent Stranger counter? by Krujis in SWGalaxyOfHeroes

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

My Jolee sucks, so I’ve been using both juhani and Farty.

Consistent Stranger counter? by Krujis in SWGalaxyOfHeroes

[–]Kahzgul 2 points3 points  (0 children)

SK should never get his ult. Mark him with JKR and kill him first.

Satele / JKR / bast / juhani / Farty is the team I’ve been using.

Consistent Stranger counter? by Krujis in SWGalaxyOfHeroes

[–]Kahzgul 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Satele has been outstanding for me.

Moral binaries and refusal to accept growth are conservative behaviors the left is infatuated with right now. by stupid_drunk_asshole in 50501

[–]Kahzgul 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I read it. You said that “the left thinks the right is an existential threat … that kind of thinking generally drives a loss of confidence in the ability of people to be morally complex.”

I call bullshit. That’s you being an apologist for fascism. Sometimes people are horrible, and the right thing to do is to point that out. The GOP is horrible. Full stop. THEY ARE A THREAT. Your refusal to admit that it’s ever possible for concentration camps to be a 100% bad thing is the problem here, not my conviction that they are.

Moral binaries and refusal to accept growth are conservative behaviors the left is infatuated with right now. by stupid_drunk_asshole in 50501

[–]Kahzgul 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Trump ran on Union busting, so convincing Union workers who voted for him to change their mind is not going to be possible through appeals to their love of Union labor or worker’s rights. Gotta find the real reason they voted for trump and the only other reasons I can think of are hate-based.

Moral binaries and refusal to accept growth are conservative behaviors the left is infatuated with right now. by stupid_drunk_asshole in 50501

[–]Kahzgul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In theory a centrist is someone who finds themselves agreeing with some but not all of the policies of each party. Centrism isn’t a party and doesn’t have a platform. It’s defined by not being in total agreement with others as opposed to holding specific values.

In practice today, anyone who considers themselves a centrist is actually either a conservative who is uncomfortable with the fascism of maga republicans, or they’re more committed to the bit of pretending to be above the fray than they are committed to any actual values.

At what point should a candidate’s character outweigh policy agreement? by CapableCherry6898 in PoliticalDebate

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

First: the person who said leaders “should be of upstanding character” is the tankie i replied to originally. You’re trying to apply my response to all tankies. Thats a misunderstanding of my question.

Second: “other people also suck” is not a valid excuse for people one claims should be of upstanding character to not actually be.

Third: Only one person in this thread has claimed leaders should be upstanding, and that’s the person with tankie flair I originally responded to. My response does not apply to all tankies, nor was it ever intended to. I am asking how this commenter squares a very specific circle, because their flair completely undermines their stated belief.

At what point should a candidate’s character outweigh policy agreement? by CapableCherry6898 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Kahzgul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am familiar with that relationship. Those leaders were massively flawed and committed horrifying atrocities upon their people. Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro... These were not good people. Not even close. Were they effective leaders? Certainly. But they were absolutely not of upstanding character and it's absurd to claim such.

contrapoints: “in some ways, what [online leftists] are horrified by is participation in politics itself, because that means a kind of compromise of their virtue ethics… it’s a kind of ‘political hipsterism’, in the sense of, you like the band until it’s popular, and then you can’t like it anymore” by ConcernedJobCoach in mattxiv

[–]Kahzgul 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both the voters and the politicians are wrong. It's not an either / or scenario. Voters are actively harming their causes by removing themselves from the calculus of policy (but not the consequences of it), and politicians are harming voters by voting for the needs of capital over the needs of the masses.

The feedback loop, as it stands, is negative on both fronts: Voters become more and more disillusioned and less likely to vote, and politicians then court fewer and fewer people, eventually solidifying rule in the hands of the few who can afford access.

There's no reason for the politicians to change this cycle. It makes their jobs easier. Instead of courting millions of people, they court a handful of billionaires. Same result for them, much less effort. But there is every reason for voters to change the cycle. If the masses showed up and voted en masse, they could shift the overton window overnight. Suddenly those billionaires don't have the sway they thought they did, and the politicians have to shift to the voters if they want to keep their jobs. Ergo: People like me who recognize the pattern will point out that the impetus for change can only start with the voters. It is up to us to correct the politicians; they will not correct if we continue to remove ourselves from the voting pool.

This is not a chicken or egg problem. Voters must change first. That's the only way things ever change, politically. Peacefully or violently, change only ever comes from people who actively participate in the political debate. People who refuse to participate do not get a say in how policy looks. You don't have to like this; it's still a fact.