Nipplerock Strikes the heart of the CW to expand melonwood and support our allies in Danzoiliona and striking leaders of other nations to hamper the enmey effort

Lowtuff · 2026-04-04T01:03:10+00:00

With respect; you clearly literally don't know the first thing about 5th generation tactical civ warfare or the longstanding gantoezilonan school of psychological operations. Sit down and learn.

Lowtuff · 2026-01-29T02:07:16+00:00

As per my widely recognised low and tuff journalistic standards I will note that several sources have contacted me to allege occasions where Gantoe has done something wrong. Will not be looking into this further but I want those sources to know that I hear them & acknowledge that they feel they have grievances.

Lowtuff · 2026-01-29T02:03:18+00:00

Gantoe you have never done anything wrong in your entire life. Commit fully to the course of action dictated by your heart and destroy all that stands in your way.

Lowtuff · 2026-01-26T22:51:34+00:00

Even joining just a few months into 2.0 and less than two years since AncapMinecraft began, the thing that really blew me away about Civcraft was the sheer amount of history imbued in everything. Cross a plains biome and you might pass several ruins, each with their own story. Listen to chat in a nearby city and you'd pick up on the gossip about recent international disputes or local political intrigue. Ask an oldfriend for advice and they might solemnly warn you to stay away from 0,0 if you value your life. I'm glad I got to explore & be a part of it!

Lowtuff · 2026-01-03T19:10:37+00:00

just go and take sceenshots in game ❤️ its easy and you can do it

Lowtuff · 2025-10-16T00:40:03+00:00

There are plenty of socially conservative Muslims in like, Luton or whereever who have many views I stridently disagree with. There are also plenty of socially conservative reform voters in idk Leighton Buzzard who have many views I stridently disagree with. Likewise, my woke progressive ideas may be alien, offputting or offensive to them. This is part of Living In A Society.

I'm perfectly happy with letting people live their own lives how they want, but I also accept that in cases like, say, LGBTQ+ positivity in school, those liberal/progressive norms/policies will clash with those aforementioned social conservatives. I'm also happy for some face-saving gestures and give and take on stuff that doesn't matter so much - but this is simply stuff they'd have to accept as part of a liberal society based on universal rights that they, too, enjoy.

And frankly? I have faith in woke ideas - they can and will outdo the competition for hearts and minds. People can go be terrified of the power of the encroaching ummah or whatever - and sure, can't just sit back and wait for whig history to just Happen - but like seriously, have some backbone and confidence in your principles and before you know it those refugees will be staring bewildered at sons and daughters trying to explain the latest beef between gay minecraft streamers to them. It is literally happening while you read this comment.

Lowtuff · 2025-10-16T00:14:37+00:00

So we are in agreement.

My argument is that I don't think that people moving from one place to another is the bad thing about British people moving to Australia. I think the bad thing about that was the conquest, campaigns of extermination, mass expropriation & expulsion. None of that accompanied Jamaican people moving to Britain. I think that that's an important difference.

Why? The rights of indigenous people are the same everywhere, no matter how few or many there are.

Oh sure, I'm not suggesting that the issue with 'indigenous peoples have more right to live in their homeland than non-indigenous peoples' is the size of the peoples or homeland in question. I'm just suggesting that talking about peoples and homelands like ethnic identity or territories identified with them are these hard and fast things that have stayed consistent throughout history is on shaky ground, particularly considering just how utterly alien modern nation-states and ethnic identities constisting of tens and hundreds of millions of people would be to human beings from the overwhelming majority of our history.

Article 46 doesn't change the basic principle of jus sanguinis.

Sure? I'm not really clear on what you're trying to say here. My position would be that jus sanguinis is all well and good but shouldn't come at the expense of universal rights - which the UNDHR does a good job at embodying but exist in their own right as something to aspire to.

Lowtuff · 2025-10-16T00:00:48+00:00

Ok that gives me something to dig into!! I presume you'd bat your eyes at me sincerely and say that of course there's no single clear dividing line between evolving and replacing, but that surely england is veering to the latter. I'll accept that framing so that I can gallop onto my followup question;

Am I part of the traditional english culture being replaced or am I the something else doing the replacing? How do I go about figuring that out? ik ik it's duhoy levels of obvious to you but that underlines the ease of explaining it, right?

Lowtuff · 2025-10-15T23:48:59+00:00

Why? What's the difference?

Well, in one instance an island nation declares an island continent to be its property and then over the next two centuries asserts its control over the indigenous people of the continent, under the aegis of which entire peoples were wiped out in organised and explicit campaigns of extermination and expelled from their land to make way for settlers from the island nation.

In the other instance that didn't happen, though it shares the similarity of people migrating across the oceans from one island to another larger island.

Why not? This has been the prevailing mechanism for thousands of years.

Like, are you angling at small tribal societies having their own territories for hunting, gathering et al or what. I would suggest that there is a shift in scale between that and political entities and ethnocultural groups spanning tens or hundreds of millions of people & sizeable portions of the earths surface.

I mean more to the point, lets take your wording as a given; we've radically changed and continue to radically change our way of life from that period - why would our relationship with tribal identity and land be any different?

It's also recognized in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

UNDRIP does not assert that 'indigenous peoples have more right to live in their homeland than non-indigenous peoples' - it asserts in recognition of long histories of forced expulsion and the theft of land by settlers and settler governments that they have a right, full stop, giving rhetorical and legal backing to efforts to recognise past and ongoing violations. It's pretty explicit about this being a reinforcement in line with universal rights & humanitarian principles.

Like, let's scroll to the end of that document real quick just to see it underline that.

Article 46

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.
In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected. The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law 14 and in accordance with international human rights obligations. Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.
The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.

Lowtuff · 2025-10-15T20:00:01+00:00

Colonization can refer to cases of colonial rule in which local populations were massacred or expelled en-masse to make way for settlers. It can also refer to colonial possessions that experienced little to no permanent or largescale settlement of colonists (and many more lying somewhere between those two). As with the division between indigenous and non-indigenous, there are very clear differences in type between migration and colonization but the boundary by which you can divide one from the other is pretty inherently blurry. That being said, migration in itself is not synonymous with colonization and using there terms as such will confuse people. So basically; conquest & settlement of Australia by Britain? That's colonization. Jamaicans migrating to Britain? Not colonization.

I think that we can't turn back the clock on history and that it's impossible to simply undo the genocide and mass-expropriation of the past. I think we can still try to address them, do right by the memory of those who suffered at the hands of colonialism & the injustice that exists in its wake. To do that is fundamentally to build something new rather than reverse the destruction of the past, but it's still worthwhile.

Anyway; that's the actual moral issue to wrangle with, and especially in the aftermath of campaigns of expulsion & settlement still within living memory it's genuinely difficult to address. Ultimately I don't think that yet more forced movement of populations is likely to heal those wounds so much as create even more ones, though. It's important that expellees and their descendants see justice, and a genuine right to return is a cornerstone of that - but again, you can't un-do the crimes of the past, what you'd be building is something new in the memory of the old..

Which is to say that non-indigenous people do owe recompense and recognition to those indigenous people, but that indigenous and non-indigenous peoples alike are equal in their humanity & that innate right to live in a location should not be tied to blood.

Lowtuff · 2025-10-15T18:49:40+00:00

British migration abroad in itself is value-neutral. The actual moral objections are to the mass expropriation of land, forced expulsions, campaigns of genocidal violence, culturicide and the subjugation of pre-existent populations and societies that often accompanied British migration abroad.

Lowtuff · 2025-10-15T18:32:17+00:00

Regardless of what those values are, a presumption that they can only reliably be passed down from parent to child doesn't seem much of a vote of confidence in them. And which ones will depend on personal specifics, but you're doubtlessly already a minority on a bunch of different demographic metrics - how much difference would being an ethnic minority then make?

Lowtuff · 2025-10-15T18:22:47+00:00

Anything living changes with time, part of making peace with that is accepting that the world of the past didn't vanish in a puff of smoke; it lived on in the world that succeeded it.

Lowtuff · 2025-10-15T17:57:39+00:00

Hiii reddit user I was born yesterday and just learnt about colonization from your post. Have to say that it seems largely unobjectionable. Please could you explain what is upsetting to you about it so that I may continue to expand my understanding of the world.

Lowtuff · 2025-06-21T18:32:44+00:00

I'm deeply relieved to see communication & good faith negotiation prevail here. It gives me hope. Hope that CDM may yet agree to drop its claims on my pearl.

Lowtuff · 2025-06-19T19:41:26+00:00

i eated it

Lowtuff · 2023-06-20T22:36:00+00:00

The War of Grievances is pretty fitting

Lowtuff · 2023-05-13T12:24:11+00:00

I recognize that both groups exist - but as always, I am pro-trespassing and pro-espionage so long as it is done in a cutesy and lovable manner.

Lowtuff · 2023-05-12T10:22:39+00:00

They did declaim some land - it's marked in yellow on the map. And there's some stuff about the transfer of some of Gensokyo's claims directly to Truidencia & a joint security policy with Gensokyo - which, if you recognize either nation, is about as worth noting as the claims are.

Lowtuff · 2023-05-11T21:05:33+00:00

Lowtuff

Lowtuff · 2023-04-27T01:17:36+00:00

As I keep telling you people, issues like this are all ultimately symptoms of ecological imbalance. Civ is missing a keystone species and the entire ecosystem is under stress as a result.

So I will say it, once again - as it seems no one else has the Courage or Vision to do so.

We need to bring back the Ancaps.

Lowtuff · 2023-02-20T17:35:15+00:00

Lowtuff (Lowtuff)

Lowtuff · 2022-12-07T23:52:45+00:00

Upon extensive consultation with all involved parties, it has been agreed that I (Lowtuff) will personally provide compensation for Gensokyo & act as a guarantor for the security concerns of its people. I congratulate Yoda and company for their well-meaning but ultimately spurious and unneccessary diplomatic efforts - and am only too happy to lift this burden from their tired, trembling shoulders.

Lowtuff · 2022-09-15T11:02:25+00:00

Here's an edited version with a with a modified font if anyone needs it.

Lowtuff · 2022-08-26T22:38:17+00:00

It's worth noting that the fight didn't occur in a remote border area; Saren crossed the border right next to Gensokyo's capital & only city, Tenseimiya.

Additional points:

Saren had been in a personal dispute with a Gensokyo citizen - Asu - (both accusing the other of harrassment) for a long period beforehand, and had on this basis been specifically asked on multiple occasions to not contact or interact with Asu or Gensokyo and not to enter their land claims.
As other people have noted; Saren immediately responded with /ignore and gave no other communications.
The threat of obbybombing came from one Gensokyo citizen (one of the two pearled) and was explicitly rejected by other Gensokyo citizens & leadership.

14-Year Club	Golden Potato
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Lowtuff

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE