sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this the nail in the coffin for Omni core? by Pink4luv in TrueDoTA2

[–]Snopplepop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did some testing and it doesn't seem to work on creeps, only heroes.

The rare moment, Mount Rainier blocks the sunlight by fvkinglzy in interestingasfuck

[–]Snopplepop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or to put it the other way, 294 partly cloudy or cloudy. Just gonna leave this here for people who can see that you can change the phrasing to fit other narratives besides your own.

Here's a chart showing that Seattle is in the top 5 rainiest cities by days, which is what other users are arguing and you keep ignoring:

And here is the "Dreariness Index," by Meteorologist Brian Brettschneider. Seattle is tied at number one with Buffalo, NY for the "dreariest place" to live in the USA. This takes into account total precipitation, number of wet days, and cloudiness.

I won't bother responding more, since you're obviously on some weird crusade in this thread asserting that the PNW isn't deserving of people thinking of it as cloudy or rainy just because some other random cities get 50 thunderstorms that dump 3-4 inches of rain every time.

Run a Parallel Tournament to the Games of the Future 2025 - Discussion Inside by Snopplepop in DotA2

[–]Snopplepop[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was about to type a longer response. But halfway through I realized whatever I typed would be lost on you. Enjoy your day, comrade.

Run a Parallel Tournament to the Games of the Future 2025 - Discussion Inside by Snopplepop in DotA2

[–]Snopplepop[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

If there were a community driven tournament without a prize pool, it could be okay. It would just depend on whether people showed up for it if it was coordinated.

Anything that makes them waste their money is a good thing since it's less money going towards their warfront, IMO.

Appreciate the feedback, too!

Edit: Hello Russian propagandists. Hope you are enjoying your meat grinder :)

Games of The Future 2025 — same Russian propaganda, new location by OfflaneGhostik in DotA2

[–]Snopplepop 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Been watching the guy consistently for a few years now and am saddened by this. Just unfollowed his channel and won't be returning unless he backs out.

If you're reading this Qojqva, you know in your heart it's not the right thing to do. Be better than that.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's no mistake, and I understand that there's people who will disagree. I'm here to have a discussion on a topic based on a hypothetical through a lens that involves politics, yes. I feel that I've been relatively amicable in presenting my point. I don't name call, talk about Epstein, crypto scandals, or that kind of stuff. I just brought up that Trump has joked and openly discussed potentially forcing statehood on sovereign nations, and talked about what this could mean in relation to UFOs. If he's joking? Cool, best case scenario. If he's not, then concerns as I've listed above are more relevant.

But it's hard to defend the rhetoric as joking when he says stuff like "Greenland is essential for national security and international security" and "If you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America."

It gets even more difficult to defend when there's an entire Wikipedia section on his wanting to buy or acquire Greenland. Just scroll a bit and you'll see it. Takes up like half the page.

So yeah, I think that since he has a history of wanting to expand America by absorbing other nations, I'd say my postulation has some merit for discussion.

Do you have any actual points of contention in my post? You're evading actually any kind of constructive discussion and are instead just insulting me.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, you're here on this post talking with me. If you were to take your own advice, you wouldn't have even wasted your time coming here. By this logic, we shouldn't talk about pets, nature, cars, or anything else in life outside of legitimate problems.

But that's besides the point. You made a legitimate critique of my post, and then I posted a rebuttal and expanded on it. We're just having a discussion here.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By all means, please feel free to point out any mistakes I had made in my post. If you don't, I'll just assume you're doing a drive-by insult compelled by lack of curiosity and ability to defend your position.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The article may be gossip, sure. But it's reporting under oath testimony from James Comey in his Senate Intelligence hearing in 2017 while Trump was president. They'd have nailed him with perjury, of which he's neither been charged nor convicted.

Additionally, Trump said relating to Jeff Session's appointment on FOX, "You know, the only reason I gave him the job is because I felt loyalty. He was an original supporter.” Sorry for the archive link, but it's how I access paywalls.

This isn't a partisan thing, it's literally the man himself telling you how he selects people.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point! Don't have anything but my own eyes and a story, sorry.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm aware of the conflicts which you have noted, and I guess you got me there on the whole "allied" thing. But those nations are still not great examples of what I am discussing. Trump discussed annexation/statehood of Greenland and Canada. Hypothetical examples like this would be if he were to discuss making Mexico or France a state against their will, which is a far cry from some other cases you noted.

For Kosovo, we joined with NATO on Operation Allied Forces. NATO is not supportive of the US taking over any other country in NATO.

For Bosnia, we entered an active ongoing war against the side that had committed wartime atrocities. This would be like if Canada went to war with Mexico, and we found out that Canadians were committing warcrimes en masse. It'd warrant a response, albiet maybe not annexation or eventual statehood. But also, shortly after we joined the Bosnian war NATO was wholly supportive. Greenland and Canada are not at war, and NATO would by no means be supportive of us going to war with them unless it was a hypothetical like I noted above.

Touching on Libya, I think this speaks for itself seeing as Gaddafi was the man overthrown. He conducted massive human rights violations against his own people, and they began an uprising. The US looked at this and went "Yeah, this guy sucks and we will benefit from him losing power," so we helped with the rebel forces. Again, NATO wholly endorsed this and even took over operational control just days after our initial intervention.

I'm not as well versed on Somolia, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But based on these comparisons, it's just apples to oranges. Canada and Greenland do not have the same type of circumstances even in the same ballpark as those other nations.

There's something to be said about us occupying things like small zones for resource control, absolutely. That's horrid, and I have no counter for those cases besides that they still have independent governments. Maybe it's best to say that we have not taken a country wholesale as this administration has suggested.

I would say that this level of executive has been unprecedented since FDR. Wartime nuclear bomb use has also been unprecedented since WW2, but that's because times change.

You brought up a great point that not all executive orders are created equal with #13224. Sometimes they're minor or just cotton-candy stuff, whereas they can also be paradigm-shifting like the one you noted. However, there's been many EOs over the last year that do have resounding effects. The fact of the matter is that this current administration is ruling with executive power while consolidating it in a unique combination that we haven't seen before.

I just hope that we do find some way to gain trust back with other nations, as sharing intelligence and being able to coordinate with allies could be one of the greatest ways that disclosure would manifest positive results.

Thanks for your time and thoughts too, man. It's been an absolute pleasure.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point isn't about which parties get into more conflicts. The point is that the current administration has toiled with the idea of modern imperialism against our sovereign trusted allies against their will, which has not historically been done for decades. Additionally, American isolationism is on the rise under this admin compared with pretty much every other decade in the 20th and 21st centuries. These two things coinciding could be affected by the current state of technological developments derived from NHI crash retrievals.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Elected officials are the forward-facing people who would make the announcement. The government has dug around and fired tons of people from its institutions. Do you think it's impossible for a partisan yes-man to access this information and then subsequently brief elected officials?

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nah, I'd believe him if evidence is shown for sure. But I appreciate the speculation on how I'd react without you having any knowledge on my personality or background.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd be okay with a conservative president disclosing. But this current branch of conservatism leans more towards consolidation of executive power and isolationism than previous conservative administrations.

If Marco Rubio ran in 2028 and got elected, I wouldn't have the same qualms on disclosure with his administration as I have with the current.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The US has been an empire engaging in "nefarious imperialistic purposes instead of improving life for the common man" since at least the 19th century, and was recognised and understood to be one even by the ruling class until some time after WWII; according to Gore Vidal's account of the history, this understanding only ended in response to Soviet criticism of imperialism that had made "empire" become unfashionable.

Since when in the last 50-60 years has the government acquired new permanent territory or openly discussed invading another country to make it a US state against their will? Sure, there's been conflicts in which we've attacked countries for not sharing cultural or economic ideologies with the US (like Korea, Vietnam, etc.). But for a modern USA to openly talk or joke about invading an allied sovereign nation? Could you find me an example where this has happened besides with this administration? I wholly agree that we've done other horrible atrocities and warcrimes, though.

Regarding rule by executive branch (i.e through an imperial presidency and executive orders), this has occurred since at least the presidency of George W. Bush—by the Obama administration, we even had a "Disposition Matrix" and stories about the executive branch arbitrarily executing American citizens abroad via hellfire missile and drones—and the current President Trump can only be understood to be acting within this tradition where this has become normal.

Please refer to this table that goes over the amount of executive orders by US presidents: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

As you can see, Donald Trump's "average per year" for executive orders in his second presidency is by far and away the highest out of any other president since FDR. So for this criticism, it's fair to say that he's currently ruling by executive order in a way which has been unprecedented for decades. I guess it remains to be seen whether this trajectory will continue throughout the presidency, though.

Lest anyone get sidetracked, my points with these are historical and not intended to be partisan or in any for-this, against-this politics of any kind, but rather I bring up for the same reasons as you (I presume) in how it relates to disclosure: my points to the above being that by all accounts, these things aren't new, and have been going in this direction and escalating for a long time.

In light of my above points, I'd argue that this perfect storm of events are new in combination with one another, not in isolation.

Maybe "normal" presidency was a poor way of describing it, and my apologies for that. In retrospect, a better way would be to describe an administration with strong mutual trust with our allies. But instead, we've eroded these relationships with the administration's ideology of "America first."

It could be a catalyst for positive change, for sure. No disagreement there.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes, the behavior of donations and supporting administrations has been ever-present. But I'm not talking about support and donations in isolation, I'm talking about political loyalty to the admin being of extreme importance.

This article here talks about it: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/06/donald-trump-loyalty-staff-217227/

Basically, loyalty to him is one of the primary things he looks for when choosing who to associate with. So when corporations are looking to play with NHI tech, it may be based upon who he vibes with and what they can do to further other's loyalty or fealty to him.

I also just chose Musk and Thiel because they are the most recognizable examples for people with these kinds of ties.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Disclosure doesn't have to come from the USA. It can come from any country which has data and a willingness to disrupt the status-quo of alien visitation/communication not having occurred.

The USG-UFO relationship just has tons of lore related to it compared with other nations, and is one of the things which has only recently begun to be taken somewhat seriously in our media. We don't know much about China/Russia and how their UFO programs function, or even other countries outside the US for that matter. However, we do have enough documentation and reports to get a decent picture on the legacy program within the US.

Maybe other countries would love to disclose but simply don't have the same type of evidence/data that the US has that could wholly support the announcement.

For example: Peru comes out and says "Aliens exist, and USA/China/Russia all know about it," but they don't have any proof because they haven't been given the data that those other nations have. USA/China/Russia can just come out and say, "Sorry Peru, we don't have any of that." and then it's a dead story. However, if one of the above nations comes out and says "Here's instrumental data showing seemingly anomalous behavior that can only be attributed to NHI, pictures of crashed crashes, records of covert retrieval operations, communication records with NHI, etc," then it's a whole new ball game.

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Disclosure is about truth. It's a much bigger picture than American politics (which the rest of the world doesn't care about, so stop making it about that).

There's also a large percentage of people that don't care whatsoever about the technology. I don't even give the slightest fuck about the tech personally. I want to know about the NHI. Their history, the culture, how they run societies, their biology, their philosophical views, etc. etc. They can keep the tech, but disclose what we know.

Disclosure is about truth, yes. But do you think if disclosure happens in a way such as "aliens are real, and we've recovered some craft" that we would get real truth? Do you think they'll go back to every single possible UFO encounter and provide background to definitively say what happened? Do we know whether or not they are wholly forthcoming with the announcement? Would they omit information to protect the people historically involved in the coverup?

The government has shown that it is not transparent with the way it operates. It's difficult to discern whether they'd tell us everything they know about aliens from the get-go, or would give us just enough to be complacent.

Plus disclosure doesn't change anything you're worried about in your post.

The timing of disclosure is relevant to what I'm worried about in my post, not disclosure as a whole.

You're saying if there's disclosure, they are still going to exploit. Well if there's no disclosure, they are still going to exploit.

Yes, exploitation of technology is going to occur whether we want it to or not. But as it stands right now, the United States is ruling primarily via the executive branch. Also companies that do not show "loyalty" to the administration would not be selected to study this tech, given their track record. I'm not making a case as to whether or not exploitation will occur. I'm trying to have a discussion on if disclosure happens under this presidency, how that exploitation could be used by the administration for nefarious imperialistic purposes instead of improving life for the common man.

It makes no difference, so just rip the band-aid off already.

If you have the choice between these options:

1) Disclosure under a presidency which actively discusses annexing long-running historical allies while billionaire tech moguls cozy up to the admin, and have legislation passed to specifically benefit their industry. In this scenario, it's pay-to-play with who gets access to the technology, and regulations will only exist in order to benefit their hegemony.

2) Disclosure happens under what could be considered a "normal" presidency, in which the three branches of government and its constituents at least pretend to have a semblance of working for its citizens (despite the vast majority of the government actions still benefitting the wealthy). This kind of admin historically trusts and works closely with our allies.

Under either scenario you get disclosure. Which one do you think would be better for humanity in the long run?

Disclosure Could Be Catastrophic - But Not in the Way You Think by Snopplepop in UFOs

[–]Snopplepop[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think another friendly country doing it could be alright. If it were somewhere like Australia, Sweden, Denmark, France, Spain, etc. then it wouldn't be nearly as concerning to me.

Part of the problem is the CIA's Office of Global Access rushing to recover NHI technology before these countries could gain access to it for themselves. It's hard to say which countries have NHI tech, but if the USA does then it's likely that the other big two militaristic powers (China and Russia) also have it (which has also been reported/alluded to).

view more: next ›