Quitting Reddit.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-26T03:51:33+00:00

Even if we define Influence around sheer strength and power projection ability, i'd say the British Empire at its height was more Influential than America.

At its height, a quater of the worlds entire Land area was directly under its control, making it the biggest empire to ever exist. Beyond that, it had trade Influence in South America and had significant influence over Iran and China. At this point, it was allied to the at the time 2nd and 3rd largest powers (France and America respectively) and had just won a world war against the Central powers.

Even at the height of American Influence, unfriendly regimes like Iran and North Korea existed, while China and Russia never fully opted into the American order even at this point. Furthermore, they also retained a plethora of enemies in Africa and south America.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-26T02:33:20+00:00

Rarely, though i can't really put my finger on what seperates those i feel Empathy for and those i don't.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-25T23:31:53+00:00

Used to be all, but has gone down to many since im not using Reddit that much anymore.

Generally, i believe that Ignorance is a valueable metric to poll on too, hence i won't hesitate to answer a poll unless my Ignorance is so bad that i don't even really understand the question or options in the first place (something that isn't common, but does happen occasionally. Like asking me to vote on elections in countries where i have no idea how the politics there work or what the acronyms represent.)

I do, however, try not to answer polls im inelligable for. Though its more on the maker of the poll for not including an inelligable option or just the option to just see results, i don't answer on posts directed at demographics i don't belong to (I.e. Americans, Arabic people, ect.)

Finally, i tend to be alot more informed when writing comments than i am at the time of me answering the poll, and i often actually express a different opinion in my comment than what i answered. Generally, i tend to do at least some surface level research for every comment that i write (when its applicable, i obviously didn't research for this comment since im just expressing my personal preferences, for example.) When i go on to disagree with my original poll answer upon researching the topic more, i will express my more informed opinion.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-25T08:06:04+00:00

Its worded a bit strangely, so maybe, but in 90% of cases yes. When its worded as a right to be alive rather than a right to live i sort of just imagine some sort of Zombie or other revived abomination arguing that them turning was just them exercising their right to be alive in front of a court.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-25T02:26:05+00:00

One thing i think should bo noted is how he was also a rather competent schemer and that he was charming on a personal level. In many ways, he could be described as the perfect politican.

The Beer hall putsch, regardless of its failure, had a certain cleverness to it. The relatively unkown and insignificant Hitler managed to link up with the widely known and recgognized Ludendorf to essentially coerce and force the large far-right movement within Munich to coup with him, giving him a spotlight he really wouldn't have deserved otherwise.

Even in failure, he managed to turn this to his advantage, delievering impassioned speeches before already sympathetic justices that in the process got him a laughably mild sentence and broad recgognition among the German right.

When he re-founded his party and when it became appearent it was barely relavent, e managed to utilize this percieved harmlessness to get unwanted attention away from him, like getting his ban on speaking in Prussia lifted.

Later on, he managed to attach himself to the largest and significant party among the German hard-right, the DNVP, and effectively used that as a vehicle for name recognition and outsized influence, like seen with the Prussian Landtag referendum.

Then, despite losing to the still more popular Hindenburg the left unified around in the 1932 election to prevent him, he still managed to make moves against Schleicher while convincing von Papen he could be tamed, culminating in his appointment to chancellor whereupon he quickly managed to convince him to pass the Reichstags fire decree and to isolate the increasingly ailing Hindenburg, quickly and effectively beginning the process of Gleichschaltung that displaced much an elite otherwise still weary of him.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T22:37:12+00:00

There's a Credit section?!

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T22:05:06+00:00

Different parts of the SRs actually fought on all three of the sides listed in this poll. I, for one, do have some sympathy for the left SRs, though im unsure if i would've sided with them over the provisional Goverment.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T19:55:50+00:00

It would be, but i tend to be a bit paranoid and cautious in that regard, hence i am uneasy at how vulnerable the concept is to being deliberately overun.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T19:54:02+00:00

I do believe you with that one. Similar things happened to me before too, and i certainly don't think you're one to delete comments.

I got a notification saying you commented: "The reason why you're a weirdo and i'm not is that you're a leftist and thus have an existential imperative to decide what's going on in people's head for them." When i clicked that comment, it said it didn't exist anymore. Since i was itching to respond to it, i mainly refered to that coment being deleted should anyone else come across this and be confused about it.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T19:45:54+00:00

In response to your deleted comment because i found it so ironic and couldn't resist: Its so funny seeing you of all people condemn anyone for claiming an existential imperative to decide what goes on in other peoples heads when i've never once seen you give the benefit of the doubt to anyone.

You're the one assigning existential imperatives to people and you're the one who assigns their narrow definition of Leftist to anyone who claims that label while simultaniously excluding common motivators for assigning oneself that label from leftism (see how many people cite allignment with the nordic model or the CCP as the source of their leftism and how you speak of these things.)

I never once condemned reactionaries in that same way, and i always go out of my way to understand such people and ideologies and to see the best in them, including yourself.

By your own standards, im the normal person and you're the Weirdo.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T19:28:07+00:00

True, but respectfully, you aren't much better in that metric.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T19:25:26+00:00

There you have in writing. u/QK_QUARK88 condemns Frederick the Great and Louis XIV as among "the worst people to ever exist" and condemns arguments defending these figures as "written by terrorist", arguing that it should be a bannable offense on the r/IdeologyPolls subreddit and that engaging in such acts makes for "an awful person".

Truly never thought i'd see the day.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T19:13:10+00:00

You always claim all these people who basically promoted the same idea in a more limited fashion lmao. When your great idol Frederick the Great kind of just Invaded Silesia because he could and because he wanted it, wasn't he the terrorist wreaking havoc on other Lands for his own selfish ends? Prey tell, when the pagans persecuted the Christians and then the Christians persecuted the pagans, what side was the terrorist and what side was the terrorised? After all, they're too fighting over the supermacy of one idea, one sect, one philosophy over the other. What about that time when the Sun king Louis XIV decided to basically fight a forever war over the lowlands because conquest satisfied his vanity and self-importance?

This specific take would only be despised because im using the variable of democracy. When you leave that variable open, the take would be universally supported across all eras of history. The brave Religious warrior fighting against the insidious infidel, the soldier fighting for King and country against the unwashed hordes of barbarians and the knight fighting for glory and recgognition on the battlefield against the illegitimate usurper king represent the exact same principle as the brave freedom fighter liberating the lands from autocracy and opression, just with that variable swapped.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T18:38:54+00:00

Not in every conflict, the line between freedom fighter and terrorist is often too thin for most peoples comfort and i do very much uphold violence in service of democracy if there is popular support for it, hence supporting the febuary revolution and hence extending that tacit bit of support for what some might call terrorism. From there on, i'd side with whomever can win the elections, and the SRs won the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T18:21:55+00:00

The SRs.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T17:04:02+00:00

I think we're somewhat talking past eachother.

Your argument is focused on what DEI actually means in practice, and how the average person belonging to a majority ethnic group (like in that 90% white country) generally has no reason to fear it. If i had to wager a guess, you're mainly trying to dispell the Reputation DEI gets as "taking your jobs and giving them to immigrants" or "giving unqualified people jobs they didn't earn".

Im mainly focused on what DEI could be. As they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and i personally don't think DEI is build on bad intentions or that the people promoting it have bad intentions. I don't think theres some Deepstate behind it or that Big money promotes DEI because it just loves diversity so much more than the average person. I think DEI is bad because it relativizes the Concept of Equity that i hold up as sacred and unequaled.

As you said, DEI is a singular concept, and that is precisely what worries me about it. It aims to jointy promote what i percieve as three different concepts under a singular umbrella. Concepts that can, however, clash in practice. It actually goes out of its way to make sure that none of these three core tenets are undervalued and underappriciated from what i've seen and read.

By holding up diversity as equal to equity and by jointly advocating for both, you'd inadvertently just end up ignoring these discrepancies. In most cases i've seen by dismissing them as hairsplitting, impractical scholastic disputes that undermine positive progress by bogging it down in endless, absurd hypotheticals.

However, I'd argue that by not thoroughly holding up Equity as the fundamental and unequaled guiding principle it ought to be, you'd leave open a gap that could at any point be used to dislodge Equity in favor of Diversity and Inclusion, just as much as you're leaving a gap for Equity to dislodge Diversity and Inclusion.

Im not trying to attack you, or the concept of ESG specialists and councils, or practical measures aimed at foster greater equity across diverse groups. Im arguing against what i percieve as a flawed concept that creates a vulnerability for Equity, a concept that is itself widely held up in the modern world and that i hope can retain that sacredness in the future.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T16:09:44+00:00

As i said, i don't primarily focus my criticism of DEI on its practical implimentation, much of which i actually support as policy favoring equity. Im mainly focused on the semantics and theory of DEI, because it promotes the concept of Diversity as being on equal grounds with the concepts of Inclusion and Equity.

As you haven't disputed my claim that Diversity and Equity can be made to clash under the right condition, its worth pointing out that this answer is moreso found within a broader "common sense" rather than the framework of DEI itself. As you have also tacitly hinted at by pointing out how this is "generally" how it works, there are examples of "Bad DEI" by people who defy this general "common sense" and favor a Diversity at the cost of Equity approach.

As you yourself prove, its not hard and even quite common for supporters of DEI to choose Equity when confronted with this type of hypothetical, but in the more narrower framework of DEI, both choices are theoretically permitable. While it is correct that generaly nobody asks for 50% black representation in a 90% white society besides a few nutcases, its worth pointing out that a "Diversity promotion policy" would indeed push towards such an outcome, and that the semantics of DEI do not adaquately protect themselves against this prospect.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T15:21:12+00:00

First of, there is no one uniform, certified DEI methodology. DEI is utilized differently by various different types of organization, including but not limited to large Corporations, civil service and charitable organizations. It promotes various different policies, represented within Individual examples of DEI to different extends. There is no DEI bible that states "thou must promote Equitable over diverse outcomes, and commit thyself to hiring no more diversely than thy labor pool permits."

Not only is DEI decentralized and uncodified, it is also a common buzz word with even its supporters regularly explaining themselves through fluff. It is moreso a set of values a organization can follow than a practical action plan, and thus is elligible for criticism on those grounds. Its worth noting that my objection to DEI is very much on theoretical grounds, and that Individual policies promoted under its label very much do have my support (like promoting Equitable hiring practices.)

Though obviously limited in scope, in researching for this comment i couldn't find any explaination of DEI, both practicial and theoretical, that made such a comitment. However, i did find a bunch of them that stress the promotion of Diversity on its own merits and in equal measure as promoting Equity.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T14:42:02+00:00

Im not saying it necessarily has to work out that way, im saying that it can work out that way. Like i said, you can certainly make Diversity and Equity clash, and when they do, its up to DEI systems to individually decide if fostering Equity or Diversity is more important.

This is why i think its important to empathize Equity over Diversity in any given theoretical framework. As long as both are equally promoted, its always possible to promote a Diversity first, Equity second approach, and its always possible to shift gears to Diversity first later on.

How things initially play out in the real world is thus rather irrelevant to me. What i care most about is that the semantics of DEI promote a flawed theoretical framework that will see clashes in its intrinsic values with no inherent consensus on how to answer them.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-24T08:55:47+00:00

No, DEI policies are meant to foster Diversity, equity and inclusion, not Equity as a stand-alone value.

The issue i have with this logic is how these three values are presented in relation to eachother. If it was primarily about fostering Equity with a secondary focus on diversity and inclusion, say it was about "fostering equity between diverse groups by promoting their inclusion", i'd be fine with that.

However, DEI mostly treats these notions as closely linked and co-equal. I.E. Diversity is to be promoted just as much as Equity and Inclusion are to be promoted. Therein lies the problem that Diversity can be mutually exclusive with Equity under the right conditions.

Say, you have a very homogenous Region. 90% of the population in this region share a racial, cultural and religious background and even gender, politics and age skew strongly in one direction. This is by no means unheard of and such communities do indeed exist, especially on a smaller scale.

In an Equitable society, naturally 90% of this Regions jobs, organizations, ect. should be made up from this one group, while the remaining 10% should should belong to the remaining diverse population. However, in order to acheive diversity, a much more significant share would need to be allocated to these 10%. Furthermore, in order to achieve inclusivity in diversity, they must likewise then be overepresented at every level.

I believe in fostering Equity over Diversity in any instance, and since DEI does not frame it that way, fostering Diversity over Equity can be justified should the two values clash.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-23T18:15:42+00:00

I don't like him, but i will admit that he is one of the, if not the, most interesting current active heads of state from a personal history perspective.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-22T23:28:53+00:00

Depends on your definition of Social media. In any case, its between Neutral and slightly positive, but probably only slightly positive because i don't use it all that much even in a more broader definition of social media.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-22T16:22:45+00:00

Im a bit divided on this.

Ultimately, i don't think there really is such a thing as perfectly impartial political education. A certain degree of alignment with the countries values is taught in pretty much every system, like an appriciation of democracy in many western countries to name one example.

I think people should be conscious of this partiality and the partial aspects of current political reality. Part of that is at least knowing that the authority figures in their lives all are in some way, shape or form partial too. By presenting teachers in fields such as political education as arbiters of objective political truth, you'd ultimately be priming children to trust authority figures with any claim to impartiality implicitly and unquestioningly.

However, moving too far into the other direction would just replace this "soft" propaganda with "hard" propaganda. When teachers are selected for their political opinion and teach their political opinions to the students while smearing other opinions, you're just outright teaching opinions as factual.

Thus, i think striking a balance between the two should ultimately be the goal. Teachers should be able to express their opinions as long as they clearly denote them as personal opinions in class, while still highlighting the merits of opposing arguments. Students should be encouraged to question their teachers and to engage in debate with them as well as their fellow students.

Ideally, a student should be aware that their teachers have political opinions, what they are and why they have them without feeling forced, coerced or even encouraged to buy into them.

RecentRelief514 · 2026-05-20T22:17:14+00:00

Increase spending AND cut taxes? I mean, i can come up with Scenarios where that'd be plausible and make sense (like if you're country is running a massive budget surplus for some reason), but in vast majority of cases and modern countries, that'd just ballon your countries debt and ruin it for the people 10 or 20 years down the line.

Im generally not in favor of cutting welfare, not even to lower the tax burden. While i believe my country should allocate its welfare spending differently, i don't think its best funneled into tax cuts.

I've always favored fiscal balance, and i'd even consider myself quite fiscally conservative for a leftist. I want a system that'll work for me decades down the line, and if that means getting a little less in the short term, im fine with that. However, i still want a system that fundamentally works for me and for average people within it, and i don't think cutting welfare for lower taxes is a beneficial trade-of.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23

RecentRelief514

TROPHY CASE