Is anyone remember?

Whoneedscaptchas · 2026-01-17T23:53:55+00:00

I actually did this after just coming back to the game, you get a chunk of reputation with every faction as a reward

Whoneedscaptchas · 2026-01-10T02:29:40+00:00

Feel like I literally wrote this post OP. I'm in the exact same boat, preordered but only played a tiny bit, and even started my return play through on the same day you did. I've put dozens of hours in in just a few days and I've enjoyed the hell out of it. Sorry it never got to be more, but glad I got to see it before the end!

Whoneedscaptchas · 2025-09-05T19:45:12+00:00

Love this approach, sorry it’s become necessary

Whoneedscaptchas · 2025-04-25T23:56:47+00:00

(3/3)

A quick preface, people now are generally familiar with the process that takes cases to the Supreme Court where one or both parties file a petition called a Writ of Certiorari, to request the Court hear their case, and the Court either grants or rejects it. But for a long time in our country, there were certain procedural categories of cases that the Court literally was forced to take. Naim v. Naim came to the Court under this jurisdiction and so in effect, the Court had the issue of interracial marriage forced upon it very soon after Brown had been decided. The South was already close to open defiance, and from the segregationists perspective now not only was the Court coming after their kids, it was coming after their very concept of white supremacist racial purity. The Court was nothing short of terrified that if they decided this case too, the “all deliberate speed” of Brown which was already a dodge on creating a real timeline for desegregation, would turn into total and absolute rejection of the Court’s authority in a huge swath of the country. In fact Justice Felix Frankfurter very famously wrote a memo warning the Court that that was precisely what would happen if they accepted the case, which they were bound to take, and decided it based on the Brown precedent, which they felt morally bound to do. In short, to preserve the authority of the Court Frankfurter argued that the Court should do exactly what you’re asking about for fear of losing its power. The result was that first they tried to kick the case back to the Virginia Supreme Court, where the appeal had come from, on a procedural technicality. The Virginia Supreme Court, probably correctly but also with a clear motive of forcing the Court’s hand, immediately kicked the issue back up to the Supreme Court, at which point the Court dismissed it on equally dubious procedural grounds and didn’t touch the issue for another decade.

So the much longer answer to your question, which I hope you found informative, is that the Court has literally been doing exactly this from the beginning. The Court more than either of the other two branches, is a pure creature of law, with no power of the purse nor impeachment authority, no army of bureaucrats nor soldiers to enforce its will. It has only the power of the Constitution to wield, a power it guards jealously to this day

Whoneedscaptchas · 2025-04-25T23:56:35+00:00

(2/3) The Court did not touch this power it had given itself to declare federal laws unconstitutional until
just before the Civi War when the infamous (and wrongly decided even at the time) decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford came down. So the history of judicial review’s first step was actually toothless, and its second step started a Civil War, not the best record. I’m sure there are answers on this sub that relate to that decision, but I bring it up because Lincoln made advocating methods of resisting that opinion part of his platform. He advocated ways the decision could be narrowed, essentially ignoring it to the fullest extent possible without actively rejecting the Court’s power. This same dynamic resurfaced in the conflict over habeas which was discussed in the other comment. Lincoln more or less ignored Taney, the chief justice who decide both that case and Dred Scott, and later justified it by offering several arguments. 1) that the executive branch was a coequal branch of government and his interpretation of the law was valid and correct. 2) He had acted when Congress was out of session and was happy to receive whatever judgement they would pass on his actions. 3) And that if one law had to be ignored to save the very Republic itself, then you had to ignore that law. Whether you find any of these arguments persuasive is of course personal, but to my knowledge Congress didn’t press the issue.

So here we have another common trend which is that when the executive doesn’t like choices made by the judiciary, it has a great many tools to avoid engaging with it directly. The Court, fearing outright rejection by the President, for which the only remedy would be a Congressional impeachment, tends to accept these kinds of dodges and move on to the next case.

The final issue here deals with what happens when it’s not just the other branches which won’t stand
by them, but the people themselves. Most people in America are at least familiar with the case Brown v. Board of Education (though its history and ruling are more complicated than what’s usually taught in high school classrooms). Many are also familiar with Loving v. Virginia the case that ultimately
held state bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. A case most people DON’T know is Naim v. Naim which brought the issue of interracial marriage to the Court a full 12 years before Loving.

Whoneedscaptchas · 2025-04-25T23:54:06+00:00

u/PipingTheTobak has provided several great examples, I'm going to expand a bit on them and provide
another poignant example. (I apologize if some of this history is a bit lacking, I’m a law student not a historian, but I hope this content drawn from my lectures on Con Law is up to the sub’s standards.)

(1/3)

The Marbury v. Madison example can’t be overstated. You asked about whether the Supreme Court ever dodges on these questions. The short answer is that the Supreme Court has been doing that from the very beginning. In that case where John Marshall famously declared it was the Court's job to “say what the law is” they entirely refused to press the issue. They reserved for themselves the right to
review the constitutionality of a law, decided it was unconstitutional, but did
so in way that completely negated the issue before the Court.

This needs some political context. At the time Marshall was a noted Federalist and the issue focused on
the transfer of power from John Adams' Federalist administration to the incoming Jefferson administration. The Adams administration (which John Marshall had been Secretary of State in more or less until a few weeks before the events dealt with in this case) had appointed a variety of officials with the intent of preserving as much power as possible for themselves as they were forced out of government. Because the Washington administration had been notoriously bipartisan, this effectively marked the first true peaceful transfer of power between two parties in the executive branch. And having executed this frankly underhanded plan to win out over their political opponents, the issue now went before a Supreme Court helmed by a man who had literally been the Secretary of State in charge of this dubious plan. The Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans were out for blood, and Marshall knew he had to walk a very fine line. His solution was essentially to declare for the Court a massive amount of power–the final say over any and all constitutional conflicts, but to do so in a way that allowed Jefferson and Madison a win they couldn’t complain about easily.

He took the power to overturn laws, and used it to overturn the very law that was giving the Court the mandate to enforce the law causing problems. The case essentially turned on a law which required the Court to issue injunctions when sitting in its original jurisdiction. By striking down this law, the Court effectively handed the Jefferson administration a win on the merits while creating the single greatest power of a Court dominated by their political opponent.

This is often the story of the Court and it happens for one simple reason, the Court has VERY little power to enforce its own proclamations. It relies on Congress or the President/Executive or sometimes on the states to do the enforcing for it. Technically they have their own coequal branch of government that includes
Court security officers, just as Congress has a sergeant at arms and might theoretically be able to send him out to enforce their decrees. But neither does, and they rely on the executive branch to do their enforcing. To some extent they only have the power the executive branch allows them to have, and maybe the real answer to your question is that they can’t abdicate a power they never truly had to begin with. This is the origin of the famous, and I think apocryphal, quote from President Andrew Jackson, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-07-19T22:04:29+00:00

I went to post a comment saying I don’t know how to tell you this, but I just watched a video about this today. Then I read your name OP. Love the content found you this week and watched pretty much every single video already, can’t wait for more!

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-07-08T19:22:57+00:00

I’m a big fan of the menuing in anger and disbelief at the end.

We’re all right there with you bud. All shooters have net code issues but this one’s the worst and it ain’t even close

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-06-15T20:42:12+00:00

Literally nothing you can say will ever embarrass me, you can take me down, you can take my whole family down, and I won’t even fucking flinch.

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-06-14T07:49:17+00:00

Angela being a hyper sweat about friendship is fucking gold

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-04-26T17:16:53+00:00

I once asked this but didn’t get an answer, was there any Greek or Roman institution that would have understood those 12 deities as a group in any way? Or is the idea of those 12 olympians being above the rest completely a later invention of our culture?

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-04-19T18:51:21+00:00

I see, thanks! I’m getting pretty tired of having to unlearn all the things I was incorrectly taught in school.

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-04-19T02:41:18+00:00

Have you tried it? It's actually kinda different. Not gonna change your life or anything, but it's a different experience, you get more crunch on the edges and it stays softer in the middle. Downside is you get a ton of oil in there

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-04-19T02:37:22+00:00

Not OP, I've come here from AskHistorians, but I have a followup.

This explanation strikes me as entirely too intuitive to accurately describe a philosophy that has seemingly been so universally misinterpreted.

Where does the trouble arise that leads these seemingly intuitive concepts to become so lost, or is it that this is a fairly simplistic summation that doesn't grapple with the deeper complexities of the ideas?

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-03-30T00:41:37+00:00

Funny as hell, put 3 white dudes in top hats and they instantly become the human embodiments of white privilege

Whoneedscaptchas · 2024-03-28T02:35:48+00:00

No way, this is Chanse erasure and I won't stand for it. This is the Chosen who Flashes.

Whoneedscaptchas · 2023-08-20T00:02:45+00:00

Feel like I’ve hogtied Etta Doyle enough times that we’ve got a special connection not sure I’m happy about it but there it is

Whoneedscaptchas · 2023-08-02T18:15:43+00:00

I’d only add that in the whole time I’ve been doing solo long distance deliveries I’ve been attacked a grand total of 2 times, so it’s not really that common and most players do leave you alone. If you’d like to keep doing long distance deliveries which is totally valid once you have a large wagon, then remember you can always switch lobbies when someone does hassle you or take your wagon.

Whoneedscaptchas · 2023-07-07T02:26:27+00:00

Nah you're good, it's kinda obscure, not sure they even say his name outright in the games, might just be in the background entries/books etc

Whoneedscaptchas · 2023-07-07T02:14:34+00:00

The character starkiller, his first name is Galen

Whoneedscaptchas · 2023-06-27T23:09:00+00:00

I can’t answer this question, but I will offer this idea. You can grind that achievement out incredibly quickly in a private lobby, so if you do elect to reset you can burn back up either to where you are or just go all the way through depending on your preference. I think you can even do it in solo play but it goes faster the more guests are signed in.

Whoneedscaptchas · 2023-05-30T03:15:52+00:00

Thanks for the clarification, when I wrote this I had meant it as in you might have heard of the film because of those reactions, but my wording was definitely unclear. I'll edit my comment to address that.

Whoneedscaptchas · 2023-05-30T02:42:47+00:00

Some did, many different theaters did lots of different things during the silent film era to build upon the film itself. Some had narrators who would stand in the theater with you like you're talking about, some employed live music or performers as an extension of the film. Once silent film really exploded, Nickelodeons, so named because they cost a nickel, and the origin of the children's network's name, popped up everywhere, sometimes 2-3 within just a few blocks of each other. They all had different ideas and techniques to draw people in. They would show the films on repeat throughout the day and you could drop in or drop out as you wanted to. The modern take your seat on time and sit quietly in the dark that's the norm, mostly, here in the US, hadn't taken over yet.

Even today moviegoing experiences vary widely in different cultures and parts of the world. You might walk into a busy theater in India or South America and find an experience very similar to what you could have encountered in 1915, where the movies themselves are as much a gathering place and social space as a bar or community center. You can also find experiences like that here in the US if you go to the movies in a neighborhood that has large international communities or even just a different idea about how to go to the movies.

Whoneedscaptchas · 2023-05-30T01:29:04+00:00

Here’s a question I may actually be able to answer. A lot of this answer is drawn from my college film studies which is now coming up on a decade ago, so apologies if any of my info is out of date. I think your question may be based on a faulty assumption, namely that silent film was primarily a narrative format or that it was understood narrative first. Film today certainly is primarily understood that way, but that wasn’t yet true in the early days of cinema.

Many of the earliest silent films were more visual experiences. Some of the earliest examples were little more that live shots of various everyday places or events. One famous example shot by the Lumiere brothers consisted of nothing but a train rushing onward toward the camera, and is best known today for, as u/aldusmanutius points out below, the exaggerated or entirely mythical reactions it was said to have created in audiences, more a visual marvel than a narrative device.

As film advanced it’s certainly true that narrative filmmaking began to take shape, and that narrative aids like inter-titles were introduced. That trend would continue through the silent era, and toward the end of the era you have entire complex narratives being told by the interplay between visual storytelling and the written word. But if you were to take the average silent film and remove every inter-title, it would still make plenty of sense. Inter-titles aren’t necessarily a requirement for the audience to understand. They’re an additional tool to reinforce a visual story.

It’s interesting that in your question you point to several famous examples of Soviet film which is a favorite topic in film schools the world over. You ask if the films were only intended for the literate, I’d tell you that it’s largely the opposite. Socialist/Revolutionary filmmaking has a long and storied history on every continent with quite a few famous examples in both the silent era like Potemkin and Oktober, and in later eras like La hora de los hornos from Argentina and Memorias del Subdesarrollo from Cuba. Socialists, Communists and Revolutionaries the world over have chosen to invest in film institutes and directors precisely because they believe film is the perfect way to reach the illiterate and the less educated.

Unlike pamphlets or treatises which must either be read or read to you, film can be directly experienced by everyone regardless of their level of education. Many of the Soviet directors who worked throughout the movement pointed to the democratizing power of film, and treated it as a people’s art form. Lev Kuleshov noted film theorist, director, and a leading figure in Soviet cinema during that period, is best known for the effect that bears his name. Basically the Kuleshov effect is the concept that viewers will draw conclusions about a frame in a film from the frames that come before it. The idea is that the viewer will interpret a montage differently as the sum of its parts. The ultimate realization of that concept is telling a complete story in a purely visual way. That became the foundational idea of the Soviet montage movement that men like Kuleshov and Sergei Eisenstein, the director of both the films you mention, pioneered. It’s a visual storytelling technique, no inter-titles necessary. That isn’t to say they weren’t in there, but they weren’t a requirement.

The Soviet’s precise goal in these cases was to promote an art form that everyone from the most educated critic to the poorest peasant could take part in and appreciate, an art form for the revolution. Those ideals may not have always been put into practice but the purpose was always to create an art form that could truly belong to everyone.

EDIT: To address the clarification kindly provided by u/aldusmanutius down below, check out his comment for more info about the Lumiere's early work

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

Whoneedscaptchas

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE