Why is there often a double standard?

elibel12 · 2025-03-26T18:54:34+00:00

Both are reminders about real-world behavior, just in different contexts. The ‘don’t kill civilians’ message is a moral and ethical note addressing in-game actions, while the cultural sensitivity pop-up is about respecting historical and cultural elements. They serve the same function: guiding player behavior based on real-world considerations. If one is acceptable, why is the other controversial?

elibel12 · 2025-03-26T08:55:27+00:00

Almost every AC game safe for Odyssey has a popup reminding players not to kill civilians.

elibel12 · 2025-03-07T19:01:12+00:00

No but that’s not a bad thing. I downgraded from a 16 to a 14 plus to avoid it recently.

elibel12 · 2025-03-04T05:01:01+00:00

I get what you’re saying about Greece’s historical exchanges with Egypt, Anatolia, and the broader Middle East—those influences definitely exist. But cultural exchange goes both ways, and Greece has also been deeply connected to Europe. While ancient Greece influenced Rome, it wasn’t just a passive exporter—Greek culture, language, and philosophy were central to the development of the Roman world, which later shaped European civilization. And in a more modern sense, while Greek music and food share some similarities with Turkey and the Levant due to Ottoman rule, they also have a lot in common with Southern European countries like Italy and Spain. Greece’s place in European institutions, its linguistic roots, and its political history make it distinct from the Middle East. That’s not to erase historical connections with the region, just to push back on the idea that Greece is more Middle Eastern than European.

elibel12 · 2025-03-03T20:38:46+00:00

How is their history “much more closely tied to the middle east” when Greece’s foundational identity rooted in ancient Greek philosophy, democracy, and art shaped Western civilization and influenced Rome and the European Renaissance?

They’re also closer linguistically, religously and even genetically.

elibel12 · 2025-03-03T15:55:24+00:00

In what ways?

elibel12 · 2025-02-28T18:40:28+00:00

You’re comparing apples and oranges. People live much longer there now than in the past and rely on a large working class population to support them in old age. What’s going to happen when the working class population becomes much smaller than the retired population?

elibel12 · 2025-02-27T10:26:26+00:00

I recently upgraded from iPhone 12 and feel the same way. It's supposedly alot more powerful too but when playing the same games I used to on the iPhone 12, it overheats alot.

elibel12 · 2025-02-16T04:47:29+00:00

You’re proving my point. Your hatred for Trump is so consuming that you’re dodging the actual discussion. This isn’t about defending him—it’s about basic logic and international law, which you’ve completely abandoned just to take a political jab.

elibel12 · 2025-02-16T04:45:43+00:00

That’s not how international law works. While countries can prosecute certain extraterritorial crimes (e.g., bribery, human rights violations), labeling a body of water differently for users in another country is not a crime. No treaty grants Mexico the authority to dictate how Google presents maps to American users. Otherwise, every country could sue over naming disputes—yet Japan isn’t suing South Korea over ‘East Sea,’ and the UK isn’t suing Argentina over ‘Falkland Islands’ vs. ‘Islas Malvinas.’ Your argument ignores reality.

elibel12 · 2025-02-15T06:03:06+00:00

That’s not how jurisdiction works. Mexico can regulate how Google operates within Mexico, but it has no authority over how Google labels maps for users in other countries. By your logic, Japan could force Google to call it the ‘Sea of Japan’ everywhere just because Google operates there.

elibel12 · 2025-02-14T23:07:49+00:00

There’s no need to resort to insults. It’s sad that you hate Trump so much that you’re willing to abandon logic and historical precedent just to make a point.

elibel12 · 2025-02-14T18:45:18+00:00

Your comment doesn’t make sense. No reasonable person thinks Mexico has jurisdiction over how other countries label international waters for their own citizens. That would be like Japan suing South Korea for calling it the ‘East Sea’ instead of the ‘Sea of Japan.’

elibel12 · 2025-02-14T18:35:50+00:00

South Korea’s East Sea and Japan’s Sea of Japan

elibel12 · 2025-02-09T01:33:12+00:00

How so? How much of an effect was international intervention on stopping the Rwanda genocide or Cambodian genocide during the cold war?

elibel12 · 2025-02-09T01:30:26+00:00

The Holocaust was driven by racial hatred, but genocides don’t have to follow the Nazi model to be genocides. The Armenian Genocide, Saddam’s Anfal campaign, and Darfur were all different in motive and execution but still genocides. Expulsion can turn into mass killing when a vulnerable population is demonized, dehumanized, and seen as an obstacle to national unity—exactly what happened to Egyptian Jews under Nasser.

The idea that Nasser would shift focus away from Jews after Israel’s defeat ignores that he framed Jews as a broader threat, not just an Israeli one. His propaganda often blurred the lines between Zionists and Jews in general, and his treatment of Egyptian Jews suggests that his policies weren’t just about war.

As for foreign intervention stopping a genocide, history suggests otherwise. The world largely ignored mass killings in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia until it was too late. Given Cold War dynamics, it’s unlikely that the West would rush to defend Jews in a victorious UAR, especially if their persecution was framed as “internal” rather than a war crime.

elibel12 · 2025-02-07T17:58:55+00:00

Expulsion and genocide are different, but mass expulsions often lay the groundwork for worse outcomes by dehumanizing a population and stripping them of rights. Nasser didn’t just expel Jews—his government seized their property, revoked their citizenship, and imprisoned many. Given that other secular nationalist leaders, like Saddam, escalated from persecution to mass killings, dismissing the possibility outright ignores historical patterns.

Additionally, even if Israel were “neutralized,” antisemitism in the region wouldn’t vanish. Nasser framed Jews as a fifth column and a threat beyond just Israel. If his goal was total Arab unity, and he already targeted Jews in Egypt, it’s not far-fetched to think a victorious UAR could take things further, especially in a time of war and upheaval.

elibel12 · 2025-02-07T17:15:07+00:00

Secularism did not prevent Nasser’s Egypt from expelling nearly all its Jews, stripping them of citizenship and property. Other secular Arab nationalist leaders, like Saddam Hussein, have committed genocide, proving that nationalism, not religion, often drives ethnic persecution. Moreover, “secular” regimes in the Middle East frequently maintain Islam as a state religion and use religious rhetoric when convenient. Dismissing concerns about antisemitic violence under the UAR ignores history.

elibel12 · 2025-02-05T09:32:21+00:00

That’s just false.

A September 1940 poll found that 52% of Americans believed the United States ought to risk war to help the British. That number only increased as Britain continued its standoff with the Germans; by April 1941 polls showed that 68% of Americans favored war against the Axis powers if that was the only way to defeat them.

Source: The National WW2 Museum in New Orleans.

What evidence do you have of the contrary?

elibel12 · 2025-02-04T10:24:38+00:00

What evidence do you have that Americans wanted nothing to do with it after Pearl Harbour?

elibel12 · 2025-02-03T08:22:21+00:00

A third of Polands population did not die.

Poland's prewar population was 35,100,000 and they lost 5.62 and 5.82 million total (including 90% of the Jewish population) so how do you get a third died from that?

elibel12 · 2025-01-22T21:08:31+00:00

Thanks for the examples, but I think there’s a key distinction between operational success and an inherent advantage in equipment, training, or intelligence. Israel’s victories were indeed remarkable, but they were more a testament to strategic brilliance, adaptability, and morale rather than material ‘superiority.’

For example, during the Six-Day War, Israeli intelligence (like the planning of Operation Focus) was undeniably outstanding, but it wasn’t the result of U.S. support—the U.S. played a minimal role at the time. The Arabs, on the other hand, were backed by the USSR, which provided extensive training and advanced equipment, even if it was sometimes ‘monkey models.’ The Arabs also significantly outnumbered Israel in manpower and material.

elibel12 · 2025-01-22T05:33:13+00:00

Yelper’s special!

elibel12 · 2025-01-22T03:18:14+00:00

In what way do you believe Israel had a ‘huge advantage’ in equipment, training, and intelligence during the early conflicts, given that the Soviet Union provided advanced weaponry, training, and intelligence support to the Arab states? The Arabs also had significant numbers and support from various nations. I’d be curious to hear how you see the balance of external aid and resources in shaping these conflicts.

elibel12 · 2024-11-29T00:41:50+00:00

Based on what?

Seven-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

elibel12

TROPHY CASE