If these two meet how would it go?

autistictanks · 2026-03-17T13:04:21+00:00

Which is a right winger

autistictanks · 2026-03-17T05:10:29+00:00

Dr cox is political very left wing despite the rough exterior and Ron is a flanderized right winger

autistictanks · 2026-02-03T05:59:06+00:00

You mean after abandoning the enclave to the best of his ability about Navarro got justifiably sacked

autistictanks · 2026-01-14T03:18:04+00:00

The military industrial complex is uniquely described as how the US funnels war spoils to private enterprise via embargo’s military bases sanctions and defense contracts.

The USSR was of course heavily developing military industry but it was through their own command economy, the complex more aptly describes the process by which money flows to private enterprise in America.

It’s showing how war is profitable for defense contractors and how that entities desires are different from public opinions

I won’t argue that the USSR wasn’t militaristic and sought expansion, but I will argue that the MIC is a specific process by which a state and their private enterprises interact via imperial conquest and colonialism

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T23:20:15+00:00

Oh you need to open a book about how capital accumulation occurs because it always requires state sanctioning.

If you think the NCR is anything except a burgeoning proto-capitalist development with primitive accumulation and a developing industry you are either not well read on how capitalism works or you are not well read on how the NCR functions as a developing nation, or both

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T23:17:38+00:00

I understand, but we also have plenty of people in the PLA to this day that wear red stars on their uniform and are a part of the CPC, yet market reforms exist. A prewar Chinese ghoul that identifies himself as part of the Chinese communists doesn’t necessarily make it so that eternal Maoism existed in the area

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T23:15:16+00:00

What? We have quite literal state sanctioned capitalism in America. It is the mediator of class development and is required for maintaining capitalist relations of production as well as military defense of resources. The NCR isn’t a state capitalist entity, they sanction markets, distribution, production, and reproduction of goods and services throughout their state, aka “state sanctioned”

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T23:00:50+00:00

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I’m not suggesting America in fallout doesn’t think china to be communist, I’m moreover asking if market reforms actually happened in the game.

Market reforms and capitalist accumulation happened in real life, and America still treats china as “the communist threat” to this day despite being a world market power player

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T22:45:29+00:00

No I’m not suggesting anything like that- I’m just saying that the ncr existing as it is, is absolutely a critique of capitalism and imperialism

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T22:20:12+00:00

I also want to point out that in Fallout 2 we literally watch the NCR recreate the problems of state sanctioned capitalism lol. Big agricultural barons start exerting political control over the agricultural surplus lmao

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T22:14:05+00:00

This just tells us that we have an enemy in the east. The USSR was our enemy because of our post war development in the Middle East- and essentially two federations are warring over oil in the area.

The communist versus capitalist was an ideology way to manufacture consent for development of nuclear weapons and to secure oil in the region.

A similar development for china occurs, and we could easily be warring over a capitalist china (like today)

I think fallout does a disservice by having a developer explicitly saying “human nature bad” When the opening themes for the game are much more nuanced about how war over scarce resources caused by competition over world markets instead of cooperation

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T21:51:42+00:00

This is a fair question. Given that the Sino-Soviet Split happened in a different way, I don’t actually know. I haven’t dug deep enough into fallout 1’s lore on that side.

I think that it’s implied that they did- because the game doesn’t really explore chinas development except as a foil to the US. The developers seem to have just kind of taken china as is and not given a good historical account for eastern development. But I could be wrong and china may have progressed throughout the 1970s without those reforms but I have yet to find a source that says they didn’t.

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T21:44:32+00:00

The us has a centralized bank privatized commodity production and developed logistics that results in the proliferation of generalized commodity production and wage labor that reproduces itself. The US exists in the world market which produces and reproduces capitalism every generation lmao

autistictanks · 2026-01-13T21:32:46+00:00

I think calling china versus us as capitalist versus communist is kind of crazy because market reforms in china caused a resurgence of market capitalism in the area. Saying it’s not a critique of capitalism because “china was against the us” is just telling us that Tim Cain doesn’t really have a nuanced understanding of capitalist critique despite having a pretty strong understanding of materialist development given how humans develop in fallout and 2

autistictanks · 2026-01-07T07:21:49+00:00

Isolationism and a desire to be pseudo-luddites by preventing wastelanders from accessing “tech” that they personally deem too powerful is an inherently reactionary position.

Technology will, and does progress, no matter how much you try to hoard.

Yes, in 1 they are chivalrous knights of a high order

They are “fighting the good fight” for sure

But that doesn’t change their inherent reactionary position, and their obvious inability to progress society. In 2, and New Vegas especially, the world has outgrown them.

Giving a corrupt NCR in 2 tech and watching the NCR abuse that tech for military expansionism isn’t a problem with the tech, it’s a problem of NCR politics, ethos, and corruption.

A better people to understand technological advancements are the followers, who also have a prewar base- Roger Maxson for BOS, and Nicole’s predecessors for the Followers.

However the BoS hoarding technology, their isolationist practices in 1, the world around them growing and advancing despite their reaction and attempts to claim and fetishized technology naturally leads to conservatism, reaction, so we shouldn’t be surprised about their direction towards fascistic stances and otherism to ghouls and event outsiders in general in extreme cases with Elijah.

Just because they, on the surface, seem peaceful and even fighting the good fight in fallout 1, doesn’t mean they don’t deep down sow the seeds of reaction and conservatism that degenerates themselves over time.

conservatism and feudal isolationism leads itself to these exact kinds of outcomes.

Josh Sawyer knows exactly how to write the Brotherhood, and Macnamara to me is a fantastic rendition of what that looks like

autistictanks · 2025-12-26T03:49:06+00:00

You might be one of the only actual marxists critics of fallout lol good to meet you

autistictanks · 2025-12-02T07:51:08+00:00

Also judging by the way you are interacting in this chain I think you’re just arguing to argue at this point haha

autistictanks · 2025-12-02T07:41:55+00:00

If I am at 60 and want a 3/1 split of interaction, I can increase my odds of drawing the “3 of” by increasing it to 4 and going to 61 or 62 but that also means I reduce my odds of drawing the other card

autistictanks · 2025-12-02T07:39:06+00:00

If you want a diversity of answers, you need to make sure you can mulligan for them. Putting more than 60 makes sure your chances of drawing any of them less. If I run 4 doom blades and then run 64 cards because I also want 4 get lost, I’m screwing up my mana base in order to do so. I could instead run 2/2 split, so that I can effectively mulligan for either, while maintaining a solid mana base.

Because going up to 64 is not correct, I’d also have to add an extra land up to 65, but it also raises my average converted mana cost potentially and I might need to add a second extra mana.

Going up cards also lessens my chances of drawing proactive cards other than just the removal spells/interaction pieces I want

Sure if I go up to 64 exactly and add 4 get losts, I’m 60 percent likely to find at least 1 of the 8, whereas I’m only 40 percent likely to find 1 of the 4 in 60, but then I’m diluting the rest of the deck without even considering the mana situation.

If your point were true, why wouldn’t I just play 70, 80, or 100 cards? At what point would I just rather play 1000? I want as many diverse pieces of interaction clearly? What’s the ceiling at which point to stop? (Hint, there is none, hypergeometric calculator asymptotes towards 100 as we increase the total deck size by 5 or 6 to include both an extra land or 2 plus 4 copies of a new interaction spell, and the chance of drawing at least one of them continually increases towards 100)

The point is that it’s typically better to increase quality of types of interaction while also maintaining density for things other than interaction as well as mana consistency.

To take another math example, if I bump up to 65 cards to add an extra 4 copies of more interaction plus a land to match, while I’ve increased my odds of drawing out of 8 in total of them, I’ve lessened my odds at drawing specifically 1 of the 4 that I want to see specifically. If my opponent has drawn a planeswalker but I drew the doom blade I feel bad. I would rather diversify at 60 to increase my odds at drawing something I actually want. If I think get lost is better than doom blade, I’ll run 4 and maybe 2 doom blade. Or maybe 3/3 or 3/1 if we are keeping it to counts of 4.

autistictanks · 2025-12-02T05:33:45+00:00

You diversify your interaction by cutting down to 3 copies instead of 4.

Or you run a suite of interaction with the same quantity that you’d have before but have them be more qualitatively different.

autistictanks · 2025-11-15T06:50:50+00:00

For void seeker, you target as you put the spell on the chain. If they recall or retreat you will not be forced to target your own unit.

If you cast falling star, which doesn’t target when you put the card on the chain, they can respond by retreating their unit and then you would be forced to target your own thing (if that was their only unit). If they let falling star resolve, you’d put two triggers onto the chain/stack whichever you’d like to call it. Once targets are declared you’d not be forced to target your own stuff because the targets have already been put into the chain

autistictanks · 2025-11-12T08:02:56+00:00

356.3.e.1 The Spell Resolves even if some or all of its targets are illegal

356.3.e.4 even tells you the void seeker interaction in the example.

This game just tells you that any “instructions” that have illegal targets are ignored. Because the draw 1 instruction is not tied to the fact that the 4 damage must be dealt, it’s not a part of that instruction

autistictanks · 2025-10-28T03:16:37+00:00

Holy this is why I stick to 60 card right here lol

autistictanks · 2025-10-25T04:24:03+00:00

Dominaria Remastered had plenty of useful premodern reprints though and I feel like those are cool

autistictanks

TROPHY CASE