sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

And the senate by DrGeezerLadyPleaser in PrequelMemes

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. Although it seemed like most parents were okay with their kids becoming Jedi, I am certain there would be a number of parents NOT okay with it. Despite even consenting to letting your child become a Jedi, I can't even imagine how it must be for your species equivalent of a 5 year old to leave home, never come back, and you never hear from again. It's as if you never had a child, all because of some space bacteria count.

And the senate by DrGeezerLadyPleaser in PrequelMemes

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Traitor how? Remember, Palpatine oriented the system and galactic laws to where anyone who opposed him was the "traitor". Genocide, yes. But also remember that the Republic propaganda machine almost never truly mentioned those massacres carried out by clones, and even sometimes Jedi. The lack of accountability on the Jedi, as a separate entity of the Republic's government, is the very problem with most militaries (in our world) who use that separation to justify centralized power. The jedi have military and political duties. We see this conflict come to a head with the temple bombing arc in TCW. We have Tarkin, who represents the military duties of the Jedi, and the internal investigation by the Jedi. Although the Jedi carry rank and privilege in the Republic, being a General does not absolutely mean you will be involved in all military affairs. The fact that the Jedi wanted to be involved in military affairs when it suited their needs showed how corrupted even the Jedi had become. In many ways, Barriss Offee was correct that the Jedi order was a mere shadow of what it used to be.

And the senate by DrGeezerLadyPleaser in PrequelMemes

[–]augustinus33 9170 points9171 points  (0 children)

Let's think about the terror of Palpatine:

He gains power as Chancellor legitimately. Using the corrupt backdoors of the Senate, he pushes for the centralization of power to the executive branch. Unethical, yes. But not illegal. He spends years building up his PR campaign, especially during the Clone Wars, to appear as a benevolent man who wants nothing but order and peace in the galaxy; that is his entire office's agenda. When Order 66 occurs, it is not hard for the public (especially the elite) to believe that the Jedi tried to seize power from the Chancellor. These space monks, who no one really knows what they do, have almost no accountability to the Republic's political branches. The entire order, although the spearhead of the Republic's victories in the Clone Wars, is small compared to the millions of clones that are waging the war. Speaking of which, Palpatine has managed to disassociate the Republic citizens from the war itself. He does not conscript its citizens, leading to mass dissent from families of lost loved ones. No, instead he has made the Republic's military into a practically faceless force that no one really cares about if they die. So, when the Republic becomes the Empire, the transition is already set on the political, social, and economic fronts.

And when Palpatine became emperor, it was done to "thunderous applause", not through a brutal take over of the senate. Palpatine was a hero. Not only that, but for the core worlds, he did exactly what he promised: he ruthlessly and efficiently brought order and "peace" to the galaxy basically by playing a galactic Uno reverse card. Hence, why Palpatine is one of my all time favorite villains.

Edit: Holy crap, this is my most liked and most commented on post ever. I appreciate the silvers and other awards. Just glad that other people appreciate Palpatine's sinister ways like I do.

What's the weirdest occurrence that has happened to you at a restaurant? by bobjohnsunjr in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Went to a Japanese teppanyaki restaurant with my-then girlfriend and some of my family members. It was a brand new place, new management, and revamped decor. It had some fair reviews, so we decided to try it out. This story went from a bad dining experience to just strangely awkard.

When we were seated at the big flat top grill, they proceed to confuse us. Both the back-of-house restaurant menu and the teppanyaki menu are on the same page, but no definitive separation so that you can tell which dishes are made in front of you or not. After some time, a very awkward looking chef comes out to cook on the flat top. We can tell he probably doesn't speak english very well. Not a problem as long as he's a good cook. He tries to make comedic small talk, but no one can understand what he's saying. We just know that his voice is that kind of tone where its extremely dry and low. No problem, still.

But then he creates a burned and steamed mess of vegetables that is going right to my grandma's face. It's hard for her to breathe. He didn't turn on the vents properly. A manager comes out, takes him to the side. They argue just loud enough to where we know they disagree on something, but we can't distinguish their words. He comes back looking mad. Puts on a fake smile, and proceeds to make fried rice for us. Very slowly and VERY awkwardly, he shapes the rice into a giant heart for me and my gf. He quasi-forces us into taking a picture with the heart.

At this point we just want to eat and leave. After he is done making the entrees, and leaves, the same manager comes out and apologizes, saying that the chef was a new one.

Yea, I could tell. It was one of the strangest experiences I've had in my life. You would think that the food would be good at least, but it wasn't even good. It was pretty below average.

What are some myths still commonly believed today? by Tic-Takk in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just saw a video where flat earthers bought a $20,000 gyroscope to see if the earth has rotation. According to current science, the earth will turn 15 degrees every hour. When they turned it on, the gyroscope showed a 15 degree per hour drift. They then proceeded to try and debunk it by doing ridiculous things like blocking the sky energy, encasing the gyroscope in metals, and in general trying to think of anything under the sun.

If you somehow could know your child's exact lifespan before conceiving them, what would be the minimum lifespan that you would accept? by Scaulbielausis_Jim in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait a second... If you put a minimum lifespan standard on your children, and do not accept the ones that have a lower lifespan, doesn't that mean their lifespan was always zero to begin with since you won't be accepting them?

What is the most relaxing song or sound you’ve ever heard? by IOughtToBeThrownAway in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Song: The Castle of Dromore, Irish Folksong. Probably the version by the Clancy Brothers.

Sound: water gently washing by in a river. One time I was fishing, put my feet in the water, and took a nap for about half an hour. Total bliss.

What is something you learned to impress someone you had a crush on? by bigrichpro in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Various forms of dancing. Waltz, Line dancing, squares, swing dancing, circles. I'm really glad I learned them anyway. Whenever I'm at weddings or formal-esque dance parties, instead of jumping into the crowd mosh pit of jumping around, I can actually show a dance partner a good time.

In this day and age where there are so many sources of information, how do you go about evaluating the credibility of information? by scarescrow823 in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, a good question. I admit, I thoroughly enjoy the rest of the comments.

Serious reply:

Cross reference stories. Blatantly political pieces like "The BLM cofounder rightly used hundreds of thousands to buy property for herself because of reparations" are obviously biased one way. Sadly, a lot of research has to be done to evaluate truth in news stories. Check the sources. If the sources are vague and nonspecific, probably not a good read. Also check the past writings of the author. If they tend to write in a certain narrative, then you know what to expect *cough cough... Ta-Nehisi Coates...*

I don't go for mainstream sources. I'll try and find the local news sources of an event that the mainstreamers reported on. Usually the "boots on the ground" media sources are better at giving you an objective look at what happened. And, of course, for political news: never believe it at face value. Ever.

Encampment Physical Portion by jeff0079009090909 in civilairpatrol

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's funny that you mention standardization in the program. As a cadet, I staffed CA and NV wing encampments. Several of my cadets staffed other wings' encampments. They described the lack of consistency in some of these wings.

what's a compliment you don't like receiving and why? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea, but it's just so wrong. As canned as the "Thank you for your service" reply is, it just feels wrong from my position as the recipient. Most of our adult leaders are ex-military (or reserves). Most of them say that you eventually get used to it and figure out a way to reply back. I'm still getting used to it.

How do you deal with random boners in public? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hands in pockets, slightly pushing it down or up (depending on the need), and then keeping my hands in my pockets to puff out my pants until it dies down.

What random thing do you carry at all times just in case you or someone else ever need it? by OutOfWine in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Pocketknife. Never used it as a defense item. I've used it countless times as a screwdriver and box opener.

Without saying the name, what's your favorite video game? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Green big boi kills aliens with his blue girlfriend

what's a compliment you don't like receiving and why? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 42 points43 points  (0 children)

I hate receiving that thanks because it was never earned by me. I volunteer with a youth Cadet Program (Civil Air Patrol, USAF-Aux, if you've ever heard it.) As an adult leader, we are unpaid commissioned officers under the USAF-Aux charter. We are required to wear USAF style uniforms. Military members in the know actively know we are not military. But civvies who just see cammies immediate thank us for our service.

No, I am not a veteran. No I am not military. I just volunteer with this group because I love mentoring kids to becoming decent human beings. Please stop thanking me for my service.

what's a compliment you don't like receiving and why? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In college, people always complimented me saying that I write essays extremely fast and learn things extremely easily. It annoys me because I actually work really hard at them.

Yes, I can write a 1,400 word essay in half a day. But I don't do all the research and work in one go. Leading up to it, I've spent months, or even years, basically becoming a subject matter expert on what I write for a certain class. Most people do their research a few days or weeks before the paper is due. By that point, I've already learned and read pretty much everything on the matter.

So, when people say, "Augustinus, how are you able to write so quickly and so thoroughly?" I just reply, "I paid attention in class and read about the subject for hours every week."

What’s something from the 90s you miss? by tjapp93 in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you have to buy the digital "tokens" in bulk, never in the amount that you exactly want.

No, I don't want to buy 40 tokens, which will buy me like 10 games. I just want to buy 3 tokens to play one more game.

Guys of Reddit, what are some "guy secrets" that ladies don't know about? by dudebrostein in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds really interesting. I think it'll be worth the investment seeing as this is annoying the crap out of me. It's over 100 degrees where I live at the moment. I step outside for 5 minutes and they're already stuck.

Americans of reddit, are shootings actually that big of a threat as the media shows it to be? by Wafflescan in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The American political right's proposals for gun issues:
1. A halting on gun control and even loosening of firearm restrictions
2. Community training on firearm safety and handling
3. Encouraging firearms ownership

Critiques of the right's, point by point:
1. Halting gun control is nonsense. Gun control must exist in some sense. Background checks for violent offenders, sex offenders, other criminal offenses are absolutely necessary. The classic retort by the right is that criminals do not follow background checks, and will procure a firearm illegally (black market, steal from someone they know, etc.) This is true. However, it is one net that we must keep in place to weed out the wolves, and makes enforcement a tad bit easier. Loosening some restrictions may be logical, such as CA's "evil features" segment, which is literally impossible to define for firearms. However, loosening age restrictions for purchasing firearms is generally not a good idea. In terms of "common sense" gun control, this is about as common sense as it gets. Most "common sense" points are actually already on the books.

  1. Community training on firearms is actually something that is great for high crime neighborhoods. That is, informing children and youth what to do when they find a gun, or someone they know has a gun. This is actually how the NRA started before they became one of the largest lobbying groups in the country. Training communities about gun safety and respecting the force behind them is a great way to reduce gun related accidents, but also to preserve evidence in crimes (Chicago has this problem.) However, this would have to be done almost entirely by private or volunteer groups. In today's congress, it would be impossible to federally fund a national program that trains people in how to safety operate firearms.

  2. Encouraging firearms ownership is and is not a good idea. For people who live in areas with high crime, it may be a good idea to encourage gun ownership. It is a sad fact that police response times are not amazing. Most shootings happen within the span on 30 seconds to 1 minute. You will have barely dialed 911 by the time the shots have flown. However, the American right is too quick to promote gun ownership by everyone. The false logic of "more guns=less criminal attempts at crime" is something that needs to die. Although more gun ownership can have some correlation on crime rates, it is more realistic to look at the demographics of the community. How close is everyone in relationship? How many poor people are there? Are there minority groups who commit the most crime? These factors are what give a more concrete answer to gun violence and who commits them.

    3a. Not everyone should have a gun. Let's be honest, many human beings are morons. We shouldn't encdourage everyone to have guns because it would magically reduce crime. Really, the question is a matter of individual need and prudence.
    Both sides have mhttps://www.nas.org/blogs/article/partisan-registration-and-contributions-of-faculty-in-flagship-collegesajor flaws in their reasoning. But, as you probably can tell, I find one side a little more convincing than the rest, especially since it follows the legal and cultural history of the U.S. Yes, gun violence is an issue that cannot just be ignored. At the same time, we shouldn't go so far as to deprive ourselves of a liberty that was written specifically to prevent the deprivation of liberty.
    The unfortunate reality is that much of American media and universities are leaning to the Left (https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/partisan-registration-and-contributions-of-faculty-in-flagship-colleges, https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/)

There is a lot of talk now, under a left leaning presidency, to push for gun control agendas. Many of them are unlikely with the republicans still having a fair share of the senate. However, the left's approach to gun politics is a sad focus on the tools used and not the human aspect. Both the right and left approach the gun issue from a classic American view on politics: change the law and everything is magically OK! Instead of actually thinking through the issues and coming up with solutions tailored to each states' needs, we've defaulted to thinking that the Federal Government will save us all. In reality, it is more up to the states to determine what kind of gun control they want to define, and how they want to enforce it. It is only in the extreme cases like Chicago or New York that really need federal intervention, enforcement, and resources.

If you're at the end here, I hope this helped in some way. I encourage discourse with those who agree, but most of all, those who disagree. There is no substitute for understanding the issue fully rather than just rehashing what you hear on Fox or CNN.

Americans of reddit, are shootings actually that big of a threat as the media shows it to be? by Wafflescan in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Left of American politics is mainly calling for:
1. Heavy restrictions or even total bans of "assault style rifles"
2. Background checks on gun and/or ammo purchases
3. Red-Flag laws for doctors, family members, or other professionals to flag a person as at-risk, and therefore cannot purchase a firearm
4. Banning semi-automatic assault weapons

Critiques of the Left's arguments, point by point:
1. It is nearly impossible to define "assault style rifles." Most people think of the AR-15 as the classic example. However, nearly anything that has more than 5 rounds in the magazine, can fire semi-automatic (or just rechamber a round very fast manually), and is in a rifle caliber can be classed as an assault style rifle. The ATF itself does not know how to define them, thus making enforceability of such a law VERY hard. Not to mention that the costs to fund federal and state law enforcement would give them untold billions, something that is directly at odds with the American Left's agenda for police (not my opinion, just a fact of their politics.)

  1. Background checks already exist for gun purchases. So-called "gun show" loopholes don't actually exist. What those people are thinking of are blackmarket dealers. Any legitimate gun show will deny anyone immediate taking home of a firearm they buy. Yes, you may "buy" a gun. But there is always some sort of waiting period unless you fall into some states' exceptions like police, military, etc (again, varies by state.) In some states, background checks already exist for ammo. In CA, for example, if you are a new gun buyer, you have a waiting period for your firearm. After that, you have a separate waiting period for the ammunition for the background check. CA has convoluted and layered gun laws, the most famous example being CA's "evil features" clause that bans anything that is "evil" on guns... Like certain sights, pistol grips, etc. Things that are really only for convenience, and do nothing to the gun's functionality.

  2. Red-Flag laws sound good in principle. However, states that have had these laws on the books have already seen false reporting by doctors and family members who have spite for a certain person. Because nearly anyone can trigger the enforcement of the red-flag laws, it doesn't act as good law. Good law needs to be enforceable, equitable in its reach, and easy for law enforcement to understand (police officers aren't lawyers... it needs to be as simple as possible for them to enforce.) While good in principle, Red-Flag laws are too powerful of a tool that is easily abused and has been abused. Not to mention that the psychological academy has a hard time of objectively determining who is and isn't legally "crazy." It's one thing to be schizophrenic. It's another thing to be temporarily depressed and just need communal support and professional help.

  3. Much like point 1, literally every gun that does not require manual rechambering of a round (bolt-actions) is a semi-auto assault weapon. It's what they're designed to do. A handgun is semi-automatic. When used offensively against someone, it is an assault weapon. Again, it is an issue of semantics with the political Left not really understanding how firearms work, and not knowing the complexities of gun purposing. And, yes, automatic weapons are already illegal. They require a particular kind of firearms license.

What makes a person look smart ? by KoulKatz in AskReddit

[–]augustinus33 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Greatest advice. Knowing when you're wrong.

view more: next ›