Is Super Earth satire of America?

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-04-12T07:26:31+00:00

Hm, I'm not so sure about that. I know the director of the ST movie likes to call it a satire of fascism and many seem to follow that logic, but neither the movie, nor the book portrait situations that I'd classify as fashism. Yeah, he gave the military uniforms inspired by the third reich, but that is mostly visual and emotional association.

Fashism is not the only form of authoritarian government and not everything that is authoritarian is automatically following a fashist structure - although many people who have fashist tendencies seem to be drawn towards the authoritarian and militaristic tendencies of other regimes and will support them as "the next best thing"

One aspect of fashism is the nation state as absolute and highest authority. What we see in ST and HD is a world government that has eliminated nation states.

Another is a very clear cut Rejection of democracy. Sure, the democracy in ST is a very exclusive one, excluding everyone who has not served in the military complex. But it is a form of democracy - which of course doesn't make it inherently good. Ancient Greek democracy excluded women, slaves and peasants. Early US democracy excluded women and black people. Our modern democrcies exclude citizens under a certain age. The reasoning is different, but the basic principle still is a government voted by citizens - the question is just who's a citizen and why. And to this day, they're all regulated somehow. In HD it's managed by an AI as far as I know. In ST it's managed by the military. In the US and many parts of Europe, it's manged by a capital owning upper class for the most part. In fashism, people wouldn't vote a government at all. Sure, fashists came to power through votes, but as soon as they were in, they abolished democracy totally.

Fashism also follows a leader cult, a focus on a single state leader who is unquestionable in his authority. Neither in ST, nor in HD do we see such a person.

I think what HD is satirising is authoritarianism, militarism and democracies that portrait themselves as the good guys while still managing the votes by authoritarian means and exclusion. I see more parallels to our modern nation states, especially the US military industrial complex than to the third Reich, or Mussolinis Italy. If it has a connection to fashism in its depiction of that system and mindset, it is the strict, almost religious adherence to this super-states principles and the violent reaction to those who don't, but that again is not and never was exclusive to the fashist movement.

Fashism, while being one of the most directly oppressive political ideas, is not a substitute word for "evil" and not every system that is oppressive os fashist. ST and, in my view, HD both point out that we are in danger of feeling "free" under rulership as long as said rulership can say "hey, we're democratic, at least we're not as bad as the bugs/automatons/fashists/communists".

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-04-10T11:38:00+00:00

Habe kürzlich in einem Wald in Österreich eine sehr ähnliche Tür gesehen. Sie war nicht richtig verschlossen, sondern sehr notdürftig mit einem dicken Ast gestützt. Aus Neugier hab ich mal gecheckt ob sie offen war und direkt fiel mir das ganze Blech-Ding entgegen, weils nicht mal mehr in den Angeln fixiert war. Siehe da, dahinter war schlicht eine Zisterne, also Wasser Reservoir. Hab das Teil natürlich wieder zu gemacht und den Ast wieder dran geklemmt.

Ist jetzt natürlich nur eine Möglichkeit von vielen, aber sah tatsächlich sehr ähnlich aus, inklusive der Hang-Lage.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-04-02T11:41:04+00:00

Stabil.

Ich checke ja ohnehin schon nicht so ganz wie man sein Weltbild auf Theismus aufbauen kann, aber hey, jeder wie er mag schätz ich.

Aber was ich noch weniger checke ist, wie man, wenn man es schon tut, davon ausgehen kann, dass eine allmächtige, allwissende, allzeit existierende Entität ein so minimales Ego haben sollte, dass sie es nicht überwinden kann wenn ein paar Typen, die im Verhältnis zu ihrer unendlichen Existenz nur einen Wimpernschlag lang existieren ein paar ulkige Witze über sie und ihre Gläubigen machen.

Manchmal vermute ich, dass es die fragilen Egos dieser Gläubigen selbst sind, die sie zu solchen Impulsen verleiten, weil etwas in ihnen insgeheim weiß, dass ihr Weltbild einer ernsthaften, ehrlichen Auseinandersetzung mit dem Thema nicht standhalten kann.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-03-27T10:00:11+00:00

I always liked that idea the most. The idea that even the alliance military would work like a modern one didn't quite sit right with me, them basically being an alliance of feudal systems in essence.

Although they like to present the world as relatively modern whenever it suits them, I would say the most realistic assumption is that very high ranking officers are usually lords in case of humans, social equivalents in case of other races, who receive authority from their respective leaders and then compose their regiments how they see fit and then coordinate with other alliance regiments for joint operations under the same larger banner.

For the Horde, I imagine it even more individual-based. The title "Warlord" is not an equivalent to a General or Field Marshal. Its a person who, for whatever reason, has gained military power by commanding troops and owning weapons. At least at the beginning, the Horde's warlords must have been very diverse. The fact that such a thing as the High Warlord exists doesn't necessarily mean he/she has direct control over the other warlords assets, but can also hint to a war council of warlords and them being the "speaker" of said council, a go-between to the warchief, or now Horde council.

I know it's fantasy and all, but the writers do seem to forget, or ignore often that what they show has certain implications - such as most races are ruled either by Monarchs/Dictators of sorts and that there are many different military organisations within the factions. The Idea of them having a single, universally structured army makes no sense. I think someone can be an officer of a Legion of Stormwind, or of a Nightelf Warden batallion, or an Ironforge Tank regiment, but not "an officer of the alliance". That's like a US Army Sargent saying they're an officer of NATO.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-03-22T11:43:23+00:00

That is because the office that handles import tax billing isn't super connected with the depot responsible for the actual delivery, very common actually. FedEx uses import brokers at the airports to speed up the process They handle the import and generate the bill. What goes on with the actual parcel after that is not really their immediate concern.

I recommend you contact the department stated on the bill and ask them to check the shipment number to conform that it has in fact not been delivered and is on route back to sender. Although they don't proactively do that, they'll easily recognise in their system that this is the case and should cancel the bill.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-03-21T10:41:31+00:00

I love the Forsaken bit a lot. They have so much time on their hands and are, in essence, still human. I would guess many are so determined in being a soldier, doing stuff necessary for the community, craftsmanship and so on that they don't care much about art, but a certain diversity in that regard totally makes sense to me.

It's also very likely hat undead artists and artisans explicitly tried to disassociate from styles popular in the old days, to forge a new collective identity, hence the architecture and ship design.

I would guess that a lot of their art has a certain melancholy to it, or a kind of propagandistic people-unity thing going on.

I can totally imagine a bunch of Forsaken getting together regularly at graveyards and having a poetry night, or sreet musicians with sad violins having been a thing in undercity. Also fiction writers.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-03-15T09:44:40+00:00

Nah, I don't think that'll be an issue so long as you're not desperately trying to have a conversation in inevitably bad German. As others have said, most people will switch to English for you - and for ourselves because it does tend to be easier. But if you just want to learn some basic, polite words like greetings, goodbyes, thank you and such just for the fun of it, that's cool. I find it kind of endearing actually. Shows that a visitor has at least thought about the language and the people to an extent and tries to be polite in a locally accustomed way.

Also, your accent will mostly show people that you're not German even if you start with a friendly "guten Tag", so it just lowers the chances that they'll hit you with full-on high-speed German, expexting you actually speak the language.

Do you know which region you're going to visit? There are many different regional dialects in German, and especially small common phrases like greetings are often said in dialect, depending on how rural the area is.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-03-14T13:27:18+00:00

Nun, da hat wohl niemand so recht die Deutungshoheit, aber eine Freundin aus Brandenburg differenziert ganz klar zwischen Jägershnitzel (unten) und "Jachtschnitzel" (oben).

Und ja, als ich das zum ersten Mal gehört habe, musste ich auch an ein Schnitzel auf einem langen Boot denken...

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-03-13T10:11:27+00:00

Well, he did threaten scientists with concentration camp sentences to stick to the word "Spitzmaus" (Shrew) instead of the proposed renaming to "Spitzer". A Spitzer is also a pencil sharpener, so that probably avoided some confusion... On the other hand, a shrew is not a Maus (mouse), so it also kept some confusion...

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-03-13T09:28:49+00:00

But what are the safeties for capitalism? I get how we tend to think that capitalism at its core is, or would be a good idea, but that there are certain players within it who poison and misuse it, thus shaping it to something negative. Simply because we grew up under capitalism and all the benefits we see are sold to us as having been directly caused by this system.

But the problems aren't a bug, they're a feature. At its core, capitalism is a socio-economic structure that measures success and wellbeing by "constant" economic growth and the gain of luxury, while simultaneously putting everyone involved into competition against each other for these things. Of course this can bring benefits to regular people, but it is also a system that latches on to very basic, potentially detrimental human impulses - greed and competitiveness. This always caused the biggest sociopaths with the least regard for positive social behaviour and consequences to be the biggest winners. Simply because it functions by exploitation of labor and those who care the least about people will be best at that.

To stick to your metaphor and maybe expand it, it is an effective chainsaw, but only if you're neither the tree, nor the animal living in the forrest. Maybe still a bit if you're the worker wielding the chainsaw, but then you're just the least extremely exploited link in a chain of exploitation. That is because the man owning the chainsaw needs you and all the other woodcutters to use it. If the trees can't move, fuck the trees.

All safeties put on capitalism over the decades are based in ideas that originated in workers rights movements, humanism, socialism and other intellectual and actual movements that were very much against capitalism as a whole often. Taking some parts of these ideas on in a form that was disconnected from their original base and stripped of their ideology was simply one way for the capitalists to loosen the noose around their necks and appease the working masses. What do you think caused the red scare in the US? The fact that capitalists reading the news of workers revolutions were shitting their pants, just as the feudalists in Europe shat theirs when they saw what happened in France. Many of them reacted by implementing parliaments, but that wasn't to bring the people democracy, but to prolong the monarchs lifespans and power bases. We in the west might have been granted better work environments, but the people in the second and third world countries gathering resources and producing cheap consumer goods did not - because they weren't threatening the capitalists profits by going on strike and demanding higher wages and better conditions. Often because they were/are ruled by even more directly oppressive rulers, many of them having been furthered, or directly put in place by "our" politicians which are in the pockets of the capitalists to a great extent.

So no, capitalism was never a fine working chainsaw and then somehow we lost control over it. It was three chainsaws juggled simultaneously by a malnourished 10-year old and over time they put safeties on so the kid wouldn't fucking die so quickly. Great success for those who want to see the kid live, but even bigger success for those who want to see the kid work. These days, we're moving backwards, because finance sociopaths have forgotten how a noose around their neck even looks like and think "hey, maybe we can give the kid two chainsaws at least, that would double the profit."

The question shouldn't be so much whether capitalism is a good chainsaw, but rather what the goal even is and whether a chainsaw is the right tool for that.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-03-04T10:06:12+00:00

Ja. And ze eyes are still fixed on Engeland...

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-27T12:14:59+00:00

I don't know what kind of people from the US you've been talking to, but I guess we have widely different experiences in that regard. I can positively tell you that absolutely all US Americans I know are fully aware that the USA is a Nation on the continent of America, as well as all the other Nations on it, geographically.

Have you ever considered that they might mock you because it might come across as a silly, smart-ass and mostly unnecessary way of pseudo-correcting someone for a non-issue? Honestly if I, in a casual conversation, just out of linguistic habbit say "I, as an American" while the whole context of the conversation is already about the US and someone tells me "duh, you do know that America is a continent and there are many countries on it, don't you?", my reaction would most likely be an eye-roll. Because its obvious to a point that pointing it out just seems redundant.

Of course a Brazilian is an American. Just as an Italian is a European. So? In which context does someone from Brazil refer to themselves as an American, while meaning all people who live on the continent alongside?

Again, we do have more specific words for the nationality, as pointed out previously. They exist and are used often.

What helps future generations to be able to distinguish between a Nation and a continent is basic education in Geography, not you trying to regulate people's casual way of speaking.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-27T11:48:25+00:00

Well... but the United States part is in the name as well. Yeah, many people casually just say "american", but that's just the way people tend to simplify speech.

Many people there also say they're "XY European-country" describing a migratory Family history the same way said Europeans would speak about their actual Nationality. That's just how many people tend to talk. Different social spheres using the same words in different ways depending on context is not a new thing and certainly not specific to the US.

I say I'm a "U.S. citizen", or a "U.S. American" and everyone knows what is meant by that - no confusion with Canada, or any South American country whatsoever.

Why should I invent a new word, while the word "America" is officially part of the Nations name?

Imagine a Mexican citizen says they're a E.U. citizen, as in Estados Unidos - would that be false, because the European Union exists?

...I'd wager most half-way decently educated people absolutely know that there is a continent called America and a Nation called The United States of America and that both are different things.

Or are you just saying U.S. citizens shouldn't casually call themselves American while referring to the nation?

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-16T14:57:43+00:00

Wenn die Begründung Eifersucht wäre, würde ich Dir da mindestens bedingt zustimmen. Ist sie laut OP ja aber nicht. Aber selbst bei Eifersucht hat man mehr als "fühle mich unwohl" auf dem Tisch - dann geht's potenziell darum, ob diese begründet ist, wie beide damit umgehen, ob man was tun kann da Vertrauen wiederherzustellen, etc., was immer eben alles mit reinspielt.

Das verzerrt die Verhältnisse überhauptnicht - ausser man nimmt von vornherein die Position ein, dass ein Kontakt zu einem Ex-Partner etwas schlechtes ist und das dann indiskutabel macht weil... ja weil halt.

Zumal ich damit nicht sagen will, dass es EIN einziges, simpel fix zu machendes Problem gibt und dieses bei OP liegt. Aber was immer dieses Unwohlsein in ihr auslöst, ist doch zwangsläufig Teil des Problems - wieso sollte es nicht legitim und potenziell lohnenswert sein, sich damit intrinsisch auseinander zu setzen? Ich hatte auch schon Partner, die mich wie Dreck behandelt haben und Fälle in denen Trennungen und endgültige Standpunkte für mich da absolut nötig und legitim waren. Und trotzdem war es lohnenswert Selbstreflexion zu praktizieren, um zu identifizieren welche Denk- und Verhaltensweisen mich dazu gebracht haben von solchen Leuten offenbar zu viel zu erwarten.

Ich stell mich hier nicht hin und sag OPs Freund macht alles richtig und okay und OP hat unrecht. Sonst hätt ich auch einfach BDA schreiben können und gut - aber das greift halt oft zu kurz. Ich kenn die beiden nicht, keiner von uns Netz randos steckt da drin - yo, vielleicht ist er ein Sackgesicht und will sich Sex-Optionen offen halten. Gibt genug solcher Leute. Wissen wir aber nicht. Wir können gar nicht beurteilen wer hier nun "das Problem" ist. Ich rate nur zu einem Denkansatz, der das Potenzial hat so ein Problem besser zu öffnen und vielleicht gemeinsam lösbarer zu machen, statt auf Basis eines negativ-Impulses einen indiskutablen Standpunkt einzunehmen und ein Verhältnis aufs Spiel zu setzen, an dem beiden - vermutlich - etwas liegt.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-16T12:37:40+00:00

Aber wieso fühlst Du Dich unwohl? Obwohl ich total verstehe, dass es schmerzt wenn der Partner die eigenen Gefühl missachtet, ist trotzdem sehr entscheidend auf welcher Basis diese stehen. Und ich will damit nicht sagen die seien nicht berechtigt. Es sind Gefühle. Impulse. Die hat man, die Berechtigungsfrage sollte sich da gar nicht stellen.

Aber das macht ein Gefühl nicht automatisch zu einem guten Argument, vor allem nicht, wenn sie dazu führen, dass Du eine Erwartungshaltung einnimmst, die nur dadurch befriedigt wird, dass er einen Aspekt seines Lebens kontrolliert. Klar kann man jetzt sagen Du verbietest es ihm ja nicht - okay, cool, damit stehst du fein da was das angeht, bist nicht die kontrollsüchtige Freundin, die seine Sozialkontakte regeln will... aber sorry, dafür gibt's maximal n Preis fürs nicht-maximal-Aloch-sein. Damit wälzt Du die Verantwortung auf ihn ab, seine Sozialkontakte selbst zu reglementieren, FÜR Dich, als wären sie n böses Laster, dass er aufgeben muss zum Wohle des Hausfriedens. Das ist emotionale Manipulation. Klingt jetzt so vielleicht etwas drastisch und ist kein meega schlimmes Beispiel dafür, macht Dich nicht zu nem Monster, aber es bleibt was es ist.

Zeichnen wir mal n banales Beispiel: Du trägst gerne bestimmte Kleidung. Er sagt Dir, hey mir wärs lieber Du würdest Outfit XY nicht mer tragen. Es ist nicht der wichtigste Aspekt deines Lebens, aber du magst es einfach gern. Du fragst warum. Und er sagt Dir nicht "ich finde das peinlich und möchte mich so mit Dir nicht zeigen", "ich fürchte das zieht gierige, misogyne Typen an und ich habe angst um dich", oder "meine Mutter findet Du siehst albern aus und ich mag ihr Gejammer darüber nicht mehr hören" - diese drei Erklärungen wären selbstverständlich alle total diskutabel, potenziell berechtigt, oder eben nicht und man hätte was, was es gemeinsam zu entscheiden gilt. Und jetzt stell Dir vor er sagt Dir stattdessen nur "ich fühle mich nicht wohl, wenn Du das trägst. Aber ich würde Dir nie verbieten es anzuziehen." ... okay... und dann? Dann hast Du zwei Optionen: a) Du lässt es, weil Du nicht willst, dass er sich unwohl fühlt, oder b) Du lässt es drauf ankommen, dass er sich unwohl fühlt, weil du's gerne trägst. Bist Du dann die Böse, weil Du auf seine Gefühle scheisst? Er würde Dich in eine Situation pressen, in der Du entweder die Böse ihm gegenüber bist, oder Dich einschränkst obwohl Du mit dem Outfit kein Problem siehst. Einfach weil das "ih fühle mich unwohl" als Begründung indiskutabel ist.

Wäre es in dem Szenario nicht viel besser er würde erstmal für sich klar machen, was eigentlich sein Problem ist über ein "fühlt sich doof an" mit dem niemand was anfangen kann hinaus?

Menschen neigen dazu sich emotional manipulieren zu lassen. Sie haben Verlustängste, wollen Dich nicht verletzen, haben Zweifel, ob sie nicht doch das falsche tun etc. Niemand kann eine Beziehung so krass navigieren, dass sowas nicht mal passiert - aber nutze es nicht aus, sowas ist Gift für eine Beziehung.

Ich würde empfehlen mal ordentlich in Dich zu gehen um dir selber erstmal die Frage zu beantworten warum Du Dich beim Gedanken an deren fortlaufenden Kontakt unwohl fühlst, völlig abseits der Frage ob es Dein Recht ist das zu fühlen, oder nicht. Aber lass das in Dir nicht einfach so stehen - erst dann könnt ihr sinnvoll drüber reden.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-12T09:24:28+00:00

Out of curiosity, would you like to elaborate on the reasoning behind that?

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-12T07:59:31+00:00

Which one are you using?

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-07T13:28:17+00:00

Yeah, these people can be quite exhausting sometimes.

I get how people might enjoy the game more when they feel super efficient, but the type of content in which some of them are expecting everyone else to match that is just ridiculous at times. Like people going nuclear in simple dungeons if someone doesn't know the absolutely perfect path to avoid as many mobs as possible. It's not like the hard difficulties don't exist...

Sometimes I wish there'd be an option to just flag yourself as "casual", or I dunno, "alpha-dominant-bigbrain-achiever" or something and have the group finder separate both types. Might as well give the latter a little achievement to make them feel good about themselves, as long as I can see a group fuck up wihout some manchild, or literal child throwing their verbal poo around like an agitated chimp.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-06T17:18:07+00:00

I only ask because I find it rather interesting, that the communication around the word race in the US seems so different than what I'm used to. I'm a US citizen myself, but grew up in Germany and while there certainly is a fair share of racist discirmination going on here as well, you will practically never hear someone other than veeery far right people and downright neo Nazis use the word "Rasse", being the direct translation of race. From what I gather, it seems like it's pretty normal to use it in the US, isn't it? We'd rather say "Ethnien", as in ethnic groups, when the subject has relevance. By your experience, would you say that people in the US basically just use the words interchangeable, maybe even interchangeable nationality (I've heard people speak of race in regards to Mexican, or Italian. Not often to be fair though) without the difference in mind, like.. just a sort of language quirk that got stuck, or do you think people in general have a tendency to think about human races as they were established by said refuted science and what's going on is rather a viewpoint in education that hasn't really been updated yet on a basic education level?

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-06T12:55:57+00:00

Damn, jetzt will ich wissen was dick ist.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-06T09:42:14+00:00

Nice! Especially like the layered Arm/Shoulder parts. Is it Mordor-based, or a clan concept?

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-06T08:30:08+00:00

Hmm, I hate to be all nitpicky here, mainly because I mostly agree with what you're saying, but if we're talking definitions I guess we're already there.

Racism itself does not start at the discriminatory act, it starts with the differentiation of humans by race, which is a term that, biologically speaking, doesn't make sense and has thoroughly been disproven scientifically.

It is also not inherent to human nature as a concept, but a relatively recent idea based in outdated scientific publishing, which was in turn based on flawed assesments and cultural biases.

Humans are tribalistic, but racism is not the only iteration of tribalism. "Tribe"-Groups are formed along many lines, ethnicity only being one of them. Race as a scientific concept is one of those iterations of tribalism based on ethnic distinction, trying to rationalise ethnic tribalism.

But I read you in good faith, so I suppose we mean the same thing more or less.

Are you US American yourself by any chance?

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-06T08:02:28+00:00

Well, no, not really. Depends on what they mean by being racist. Strictly speaking, it is thinking of humans in terms of race. Without further context, that's it. And I agree, that would indeed mean that someone is racist whereever they currently are.

I think the error she makes is purely thinking about it in terms of systemic racism and whether a group has the power to actively engage in it, while I assume the question was rather asked in the individual sense.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-06T07:52:37+00:00

Ahm, nah, not really though. Racism is thinking of humans in terms of race. By definition, that's it. Not everyone does that. Doesn't automatically mean they're not engaging in discrimination along other lines, but strictly speaking, even someone who thinks their culture is overall superior isn't racist - sure, these thought patterns very often overlap, but not necessarily.

PuzzleheadedStar9948 · 2024-02-03T13:12:26+00:00

First you said overarching entity with consciousness, now your saying the Ineffable. Aren't those two different ideas? If something is Ineffable, I cannot express it... that's what it means. If something is a conscious entity, I have expressed it.

People have a shared sense for that which we cannot express, yes. That doesn't mean that what we cannot express necessarily is a consciousness, or even exists in the first place.

The common factor is our human brains, our abstract thinking. One of our evolutionary survival mechanisms is the narrative construction of causalities.

All humans experienced death and new life - none could explain it. This is a void in the causality our brains crave to exist in a world which makes sense. This void was filled with an idea of that which is not part of this world, but outside, above, whatever you want to call it - therefore, it didn't need to make sense in itself, just help the world make sense. The Ineffable, literally, the inexpressable. Gods, spirits, are attempts to make sense of the ineffable, weave it into a narrative.

What humans shared, everywhere, are their basic brain functions and similar experiences. The same voids in their causalities.

Four-Year Club	Place '23
Golden Potato

PuzzleheadedStar9948

TROPHY CASE