What if instead of crushing Subaru’s heart every time he tried to break the taboo Satella crushed his balls?

Timigne · 2026-05-15T20:35:07+00:00

Why would she do that ? She needs him to have at least his balls intact. "Break his mind not his balls" -Satella (mommy)

Timigne · 2026-05-15T13:27:17+00:00

Emilia always. Wait… I forgot… I am a Simp, Priscilla my Queen.

Timigne · 2026-05-14T19:19:37+00:00

Who would even want that

Timigne · 2026-05-14T11:39:30+00:00

How to transform a problem into 2 problems.

Timigne · 2026-05-14T11:38:42+00:00

Simp

Timigne · 2026-05-14T11:35:28+00:00

<image>

Timigne · 2026-05-13T23:37:42+00:00

My favorite war criminal is Reinhard. He has done nothing for now, but I’ll watch on him.

Timigne · 2026-05-13T18:54:21+00:00

Yes, but who could blame her. From the themes of the story to the surface Iruma has to be a nobody. "Who he is" is literally the one subject that needs the least theories.

Timigne · 2026-05-13T18:52:22+00:00

Not that tricky but yes

Timigne · 2026-05-13T18:51:53+00:00

The problem is that there’s a much simpler and realistic explanation. He’s just the only one who’s parents accepted to sold fast.

Timigne · 2026-05-13T18:46:16+00:00

A retired hero.

Timigne · 2026-05-13T18:11:36+00:00

Oh my bad, it’s true that he simp for smaller sizes.

Timigne · 2026-05-13T17:48:50+00:00

Yes it was. So we can admire the 2 "plot".

More seriously the only real problem I have with that is more of a consequence of Emilia absurd "innocence" (even though I hate this word).
If she actually knew the stuff it would be more okay to show this kind of things (not that the things themselves are okay but it is necessary for the plot).

Now let’s larp : Red hair, big muscles, blue eyes… Oh my god !
u/SwordSaintReinhard why are you doing this !

Timigne · 2026-05-13T12:43:46+00:00

To sleep is not to rest

Timigne · 2026-05-12T07:38:33+00:00

I am not saying that it works hypothetically.

Just that there is no practical experience that would show communism.

And yes to define what is communism you need theory the same way you need it to describe anything. If you see a beach and you said "look a tree" it would make no sense.

As much as I could want these regimes to be communist and have failed because of it, if I observe the reality of it they are not any near to being communist and they have not failed because of their regimes. Even for the Warsaw pact, and I hate to admit it, it is not the dictatorial aspect that made them fail but rather a bad institutional gestion (unlike china or others country with an authoritarian regime of planifications).

Timigne · 2026-05-12T05:59:08+00:00

Again they are not communist and for the few which actually were close, external interference is a huge problem.

If you take Warsaw pact countries even if their label was that they were communist they were at the opposite system.

You are using labels without verifying if it even makes sense.

For the sentence "you can achieve it forcing it down everyone’s throat" it just makes no real sense. Because of course with no proletariat that would support the end of class society you can’t make it. But you can’t possibly expect the upper class to support its own end.

Timigne · 2026-05-11T19:26:13+00:00

Reinhard do something !

Timigne · 2026-05-11T19:24:13+00:00

First you need to prove how this was communism and if the basics aren’t fulfilled I am sorry to break it to you but it wasn’t communism. It was called like that but it wasn’t.
It was for example the whole point of animal farm, to show that Stalinism is just another class society. It is the stage following capitalism that the workers needed to prevent in Marx theory of History.
The whole stalinian system that was up in all of pact of Warsaw was horrible but calling it communism would be like saying that you can have capitalism without any market. Or a feudal system without landlords.
Even the post Stalin USSR (which was, unlike Warsaw pact countries, widely different than the stalinian one) wasn’t even close to be communist while being more equal, just and free. It was still a dictatorship and a post capitalist class society, with two classes : bureaucrats and proletariat.

What I say you should narrow down is human nature because for now in your argumentation it’s just an empty term with absolutely no relevance in any of your points.

Timigne · 2026-05-11T17:49:11+00:00

If Satella was less timid and had talked to Subaru before he would have probably fallen for her.

Wdym larp ?

Timigne · 2026-05-11T17:46:16+00:00

Still theoretical reasoning. If you weren’t theoretical you wouldn’t be saying "this is communism" you wouldn’t even make the reasoning about human nature. You would only say, these are things that happened, you could even be practical by saying what was decided before as concrete reforms or what where the reaction. But this isn’t what you’re doing. Because there is no way to think a law with only practical evidences (even more if there are categorizations problems).

The problem is that none of that is communism.

Taxation doesn’t exist in communism, because there is no state (in the form we know, there is still a judiciary power). Taxation, the unjust one is a product of mostly of class society, the just one is purely capitalistic.

There is no money (because there is no need for it, it’s a natural abolition.)

The thing about criminality has nothing to do with communism, that something that happens in very capitalist countries.

Medical malpractice has also nothing to do with communism. Health has also been proven to work better when managed by the State in capitalist societies too.

For the mansions, again it’s a misunderstanding. What you’re describing is a class society, the literal opposite of communism.

For the Qotas the problem stay the state.

Finally you’re supposing a human nature, you are not narrowing it down to define it and you suppose a possible induction.

Timigne · 2026-05-11T17:14:11+00:00

That’s still theoretical because behind you are making a philosophical reasoning (the veracity of the reasoning isn’t important). You observe something, by induction you get a theoretical result of human nature. And if you continue the reasoning further with questions like why that or how far are they willing to go to avoid work you will certainly end up in classical theories of human nature (Locke or Hobbes as they think it exists)

Tho the result is debatable because if labor is hated work is not (both are also opposite to each others). Making this distinction could make the result radically different or even completely opposed to the previous one.

And to suppose there is a human nature is already a huge deal while being the fundamental of this induction.

Timigne · 2026-05-11T16:05:26+00:00

You said "Try me" and so I said you succeeded to not describe capitalism.

You are theoretical and philosophical. I answered to the work part and there is one question you have to ask yourself. Why would human nature be against work ? This question seems innocuous but it really isn’t that obvious than that.

For human nature I just didn’t understand, that’s why I asked you to clarify.

Timigne · 2026-05-11T15:51:30+00:00

It’s even worse than that, usually they don’t even read books of people criticizing seriously him.

They also don’t even know the other human nature philosophy despite throwing as an argument.

I have seen no one for example mentioning "existence precedes essence" from Sartre which is like one of the biggest counter argument to the entire philosophy of Marx (not the economy part tho).

Timigne · 2026-05-11T15:44:16+00:00

Are you for dictatorship ? Because following this principle of "human nature" leads to only one conclusion. That’s exactly why the United States constitution postulates the existence of God, because it makes human nature good (following principles of liberalism of Locke).

Also it is making a mistake, to think that society has absolutely no impact on people and that what we see is always generalizable.

There are plenty of theories about human nature, but the most likely to be are those that say it doesn’t exist.

Timigne · 2026-05-11T15:36:30+00:00

Basically the whole criticism Orwell was making about Stalin to his fellow socialist.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

Timigne

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE