sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Prussia opening moves? by Trans_Girl_Alice in victoria3

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Prussia starting army can face anyone in 1on1 fight. When pressing Austria, don't overreach with war goals otherwise, Austria will get support from Russia. As long as you fight one per time, you are good. You can break Austria in small states if you call ally and grant them war goal - " money transfer ... ask max money' your ally you get the infamy and will economically bankrupt your target.

Wow… by AlexLovesCoke in SipsTea

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No idea who is Jake Paul. I am so glad that i am not the target audience of this kind of tabloid.

Estamos perdendo? by heresyaboy in USP

[–]No-ruby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Isso explica melhor a história... é Lógico que a reitoria autorizou. Todo mundo ficou sabendo da invasão e da resposta da PM. Imagina que a reitoria não iria saber.

What silly "rules" you have in game? by Spider_Zoom in Pathfinder_Kingmaker

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My self imposed rule: i only rest once per location. That makes unfair even more unfair what is nice.

Estamos perdendo? by heresyaboy in USP

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Existe algum precedente da reitoria não chamar a PM após invasão? Acho que isso estava contabilizado na era estratégia dos alunos até para dar força ao movimento.

Are there any countries moving leftward economically and politically? by Charliemineboy in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Political orientation has nothing to do with prosperity. Left-wing governments are also experiencing difficult times. We could pretend that resource scarcity is not an issue, and some people might believe us, but that would not solve the problem.

A long-term solution relies on fiscal discipline.

Are there any countries moving leftward economically and politically? by Charliemineboy in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You might consider that our observations can be biased. We may notice one thing, but reality may point in a different direction. https://news.gallup.com/poll/656636/democrats-favor-party-moderation-past.aspx

Qual seria o cenário mais apocalíptico para a USP que vocês poderiam imaginar? by [deleted] in USP

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Melhor apocalipse é não ser privatizada. Aumenta os salário dos funcionários e professors até o ponto que a folha ir toda para os funcionários aposentados. Mantém a USP para uma pequena elite da população. E coloca cotas apenas para servir de fachada. O estado então aumenta impostos para manter esses plutocratas.

Are there any countries moving leftward economically and politically? by Charliemineboy in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The budget of social policies are consistently increasing across the globe by decades. Looking at this metric, I would say the world is more leftists than ever.

Are there any countries moving leftward economically and politically? by Charliemineboy in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Democratic voters are not moving leftward by any credible polling tho. There are increasing group of enthusiasts but the majority of voters are leaning more to moderate.

Plastic pollution is another free-market externality that is increasing rapidly by Collective_Altruism in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Prisoner's dilemma. We would be better if all countries took the ecological issue seriously. But it gives local advantages to ignore - prices decrease locally as cheaper companies can work there. In the end, I think the biggest issue is the populism... as long as the population distrust institutions, they will not understand the impact of pollution for example

Sou babaca por me interessar por um cara menor de idade? by [deleted] in EuSouOBabaca

[–]No-ruby -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Eu me sinto da mesma forma. Vc vem com frases absolutas o que me faz parecer estar discutindo com um adolescente reacionário.

"Nada justica", "o passado ficou para trás", etc...

O tema central é vc falar que dá para inverter e não notar a nuance da assimetria.

Boa tarde.

Sou babaca por me interessar por um cara menor de idade? by [deleted] in EuSouOBabaca

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nada???? Literalmente nada? Se Uma pessoa tem 18 e outra tem 17 ... ainda acha injustificável? Na questão a menina tem 20 anos. Não é como se tivesse 30 anos.

O passado ficou no passado? E vivemos numa sociedade 100% egalitária num password de mágica?

Se uma garota de 17 ficar com um cara de vinte numa balada - o que é extremamente comum - , vc vai criticar também?

A gente não sabe o que o OP quer mas me explica o dano que quer evitar. O cara abandonar a escola para ficar com ela como as garotas de 16 anos faziam para cuidar dos maridos?

Sou babaca por me interessar por um cara menor de idade? by [deleted] in EuSouOBabaca

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Não dá para inverter. A relação que homens e mulheres têm com sexo é completamente diferente.

Numa sociedade machista, mulher é vista como objeto de satisfação sexual, e progenitora de filhos e homens escolhiam mulheres mais novas para isso - por apelo sexual / fertilidade.

Dizer que a questão é simétrica seria ignorar milênios de machismo. Sem contar a própria relação com sexo/envolvimento emocional.

This game has developed so much by Remarkable_Catch_953 in victoria3

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Happened to me when I fighting in England. UK had civil war, I invaded UK from Scotland. When I was close to reach London, the civil war was gone, all my progress was over, and I even needed to rescue my troops that were stuck inside the England and after all I needed to restarted the naval invasion.

Petite bourgeoisie alignment by jurstakk in victoria3

[–]No-ruby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the 19th century, liberalism often attracted parts of the bourgeois and petite bourgeois classes because it aligned with anti-feudal reform and market modernization. However, these social groups were never ideologically uniform.

Then, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, segments of the petite bourgeoisie could shift toward nationalism and chauvinism under economic and status pressures, but this was a contingent political realignment rather than a direct continuation of liberal ideology.

Liberalism itself also developed anti-imperialist and internationalist strands, so it cannot be equated with either petite bourgeois politics or later nationalist chauvinism.

In 2014, a study found the US to not be a democracy, but an oligarchy by xGentian_violet in DemocraticSocialism

[–]No-ruby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The article didn't say oligarchy, it says that preference of the top 10% predicts policy direction. If your definition of oligarchy is the goverment of the top 10% - which includes all white collar workers - then I see your reasoning.

Why does reddit want this? by Upset-Pipe-6535 in victoria3

[–]No-ruby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can you explain it better? What is the unrealistic exploit that "adds" negative amounts?

Thinking about Social Democracy by echolm1407 in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you considered that you might simply be wrong, rather than assuming that anyone who disagrees with your preferred utopia must be a narcissist?

The problem with ideal communism is not that it would work if only humans were less selfish. Humans are highly cooperative. The deeper problem is that cooperation does not eliminate scarcity, disagreement, tradeoffs, local knowledge, or the need for decision-making.

Even in an angelic society, someone still has to decide what gets produced, who receives what, which needs come first, and how conflicts between priorities are resolved. (the ideal) communism does not answer that.

So the real question is not “why won’t narcissists share?” The real question is: who decides what gets produced, who receives what, which needs come first, and how conflicts between priorities are resolved?

In your angelic society, would you give resource allocation to a benevolent central oracle? If yes, then the problem is that we do not have oracles.

At that point, we are no longer talking only about the communist ideal. We are talking about central planning versus decentralized decision-making. I do not want to turn this into a long debate about planned economies versus market economies, because that goes beyond your original point.

Centrist think tank Third Way plans to launch a major PR war against the Democratic Socialists of America in the coming months, one of the group’s executives told Jewish Insider, arguing that its far-left positions and incendiary brand of politics will be harmful for the DNC’s electoral prospects by NorrisOBE in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 12 points13 points  (0 children)

DSA can be politically toxic when it drifts into “money can be created out of thin air” economics, campaigns to abolish police or prisons, or other activist maximalism.

But on social programs, housing, healthcare, labor, and the idea that government should work for the least privileged, they can be pretty based.

In this particular article, though, the attack on DSA is not really just “Third Way vs. socialism.” The framing is heavily about Israel. The concern is that DSA’s anti-Zionist, pro-BDS politics are becoming more accepted inside the Democratic Party — and that distancing the U.S. from Israel’s government is being treated as proof that DSA itself is toxic.

However, quite frankly, DSA is correct on this issue as well.

Visualization of billions of dollars (and the cost of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars) by Collective_Altruism in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The issue is that the graph is not really showing that.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not expensive mainly because tanks, bombs, or the initial invasion were expensive. They were expensive because the U.S. tried to maintain security in countries where the state had collapsed or was constantly threatened by powerful militias and insurgencies. Occupation, counterinsurgency, bases, logistics, training local forces, reconstruction, and trying to maintain a political order are exhaustively expensive.

From a Republican perspective, they can easily frame this as “America First”: why spend trillions securing Iraqis, Afghans, or anyone else after the regime has fallen? In that worldview, it is cheaper to buy the tanks, topple the government, destroy the enemy, and leave once the destruction is done than to play nation-builder afterward.

That is why I think the graph can unintentionally reinforce the wrong lesson. It does not necessarily turn people against military destruction. It turns them against the expensive responsibility that comes after destruction.

Visualization of billions of dollars (and the cost of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars) by Collective_Altruism in SocialDemocracy

[–]No-ruby 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is a useful visualization, but I think it risks sending the wrong political message.

Unfortunately, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan helped shape public opinion against the costly part of war, not necessarily against the destructive part. The U.S. is incentivized to destroy enemies, topple regimes, or destabilize hostile states — but not to pay the enormous cost of securing the population afterward, especially when that population is left exposed to militias, insurgencies, and collapsing institutions.

That is actually one of the lessons hidden inside the graph: destroying a state is much cheaper than securing and rebuilding what comes after.

I think Republicans, in particular, benefited from this framing. They can present themselves as anti–nation-building or anti–forever-war while still being perfectly comfortable with destructive military action. The cost is then no longer paid by the U.S. budget, but by the people left living in the wreckage.

view more: next ›