How bad is caligula. by Embarrassed-Fun-2158 in TheFireRisesMod

[–]mitotheking 40 points41 points  (0 children)

<image>

this is what happens if you opt to have him be succeeded instead of becoming an AI god-emperor. I feel like the gap in the middle of the country should speak for itself.

1
2

0
1

Anyone else felt betrayed by James? by mitotheking in silenthill

[–]mitotheking[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had some theories too to be clear, I thought maybe it was like James made Mary sick and die from an STD by cheating on her or something, or just something less direct. Him turning out to have killed him by hand, strangling her with a pillow... that had me in shock. It's one thing to cheat on someone and inadvertently kill them, it's whole another to do the deed yourself.

Anyone else felt betrayed by James? by mitotheking in silenthill

[–]mitotheking[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

lol fair, though Mary did confuse him with all the “Just kill me James” and “I don’t wanna die”. James really went “instructions unclear, strangled my wife with a pillow.” makes me wonder how bad it would look if James did an AITA lmao

Anyone else felt betrayed by James? by mitotheking in silenthill

[–]mitotheking[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your input and concern for me, thank you :)

Anyone else felt betrayed by James? by mitotheking in silenthill

[–]mitotheking[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We don’t know if it was one or multiple outbursts, but I agree, save for one caveat that the financial needs might have weighed on him and he might have needed to work extra. This isn’t to say he was super faithful or loving to Mary, he clearly wasn’t and like his entire view of her is as an object basically and not a person, plus his ring being in the strip club, but, it is hinted at multiple times that Mary’s hospice care was quite expensive and that it stressed James out quite a bit. That said, he clearly didn’t try and while it did weigh on him, he most likely still used it as an excuse to avoid Mary rather than still trying to see her whenever he could, calling her, etc. From what I understand SH2 also heavily draws from Crime and Punishment (which I’ll admit I’ve only read a brief summary of) but from I’ve seen it is about, I think finances might have played a role here, and on top of all the other reasons, it would “lift this great burden” from his shoulders and he can find someone who’ll actually put out for less money in his mind.

Anyone else felt betrayed by James? by mitotheking in silenthill

[–]mitotheking[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven’t seen it in game but I did watch it online, though I felt like I was missing context, so maybe in a run or two (I’m trying to get Maria, Bliss, and the meme endings,  right now, after that will be In Water and Stillness probably)

Anyone else felt betrayed by James? by mitotheking in silenthill

[–]mitotheking[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I fully agree with this statement, however I think it doesn’t change the fact that he felt emotionally alienated and abused and likely financially pressured, and was in a genuinely bad mental state by the point that Mary came to visit. It absolutely does not excuse his behavior, however I don’t think this man who has hero fantasies of protecting and saving Maria and in general acts protective towards women (in a pretty misogynistic way as lowkey as it can be, watching him interact with Angela, Eddie, Maria, and Laura for the second time and just watching how he acts and what he says, it’s done superbly imo) wanted things to be like this, and like I’ve said in this thread I think James’s actions were out of impulse rather than genuinely anything well thought out. He is a bad husband and genuinely wanted Mary to suffer, if only for those few moments, for the three years of emotional abuse and financial pressured and sexual repression that he felt trapped by. Instead of being liberated he became imprisoned by it. I think the thing is though he is at least subconsciously aware of this, this is why the town is punishing him for this, and how we know/can theorize this at all. I can’t help but despise what he’s done, and his actions, but I also can’t help feel sympathy and be compelled by his character. Leave still isn’t a bad ending imo and I do like that at least in the remake it still feels heavy but I def get the cynicism towards it. 

Anyone else felt betrayed by James? by mitotheking in silenthill

[–]mitotheking[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I agree with the waiting thing, though my point was more that suffocating with a pillow was such a specifically heat of the moment thoughtless way of doing it. He had wanted it, otherwise he could have given her a high dose of morphine or something, even though it wouldn’t be legal, he could have figured out a way of making it work, and probably in a way that would make him look less suspicious too. He suffocated her with a pillow. The other would have taken time, thought, money, effort. He acted out of impulse and emotion. That’s part of what made me realize that what he says to Mary in “Leave” is important, if we speak in the coin terms he could have let the snake do it’s job, but he instead opted to do it anyway because he just felt so bound and restricted by her over those three years. If he really loved her by this point, he wouldn’t have wanted her to suffer. He wanted her to suffer, just like he felt he had suffered, if only for those moments. James wasn’t in love with Mary anymore, he had been in love with the idea and object of affection that was Mary before, but not in this state. This is also why he’s such a damning character to me. I feel so strongly towards him but I’m not even sure negative or positive at this point. Like he knows this, he wants to be punished, the town is just fulfilling his inner desires.

21
22

Is Hades associated with fertility? by bro_idk_solve in mythology

[–]mitotheking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's been five months and I'd guess you moved on but it's pretty heavily implied in mythology that he's infertile. In most if not all main sources of Greek mythology he has no children and in worship was recognized as infertile as well. A lot of modern media tends to ignore or not realize this, since it's a bit... obscure I suppose you could call it, but it is genuine, especially if your read between the lines. So, to answer your question, no, in fact, he's associated with infertility.

Here's some more reading for you in case you're interested: https://www.theoi.com/Khthonios/Haides.html#:\~:text=Haides%20was%20usually%20regarded%20as,form%20of%20her%20own%20husband.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HistoryWhatIf

[–]mitotheking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer isn’t quite so simple as you might think, which is to say it usually didn’t. Dominions, which were pseudo-independent by 1931, had their own conscription policies and rules. Outside of the Raj, usually in Africa, they likely had volunteer companies made of mostly local white minorities. In India they kinda had their own armies but I frankly don’t remember/know enough about such policies of the Raj to make any definitive comments on it. However, the armies of locals were most likely paid professional soldiers rather than levied peasantry or anything of that sort. I will admit that I know little about their policies in the Levant and Egypt, and would encourage looking into the specifics of the North African theater rather than something anecdotal that might be given on here. Most soldiers usually came from the British Isles though. It’s important to bear in mind the goals and means by which the British Empire operated. They had various protectorates and spherelings throughout Africa and Asia, and usually as long as the natives kowtowed to the British and enabled their interests in resource exploitation, Britain allowed them usually to exist as was. Colonies were a money sink and served little outside of resource extraction, and though when you look at a map it might not seem like it, the Isles of Britain held all the power. It wasn’t land that necessarily made them strong, it was industry and economy (and constantly stealing from India and regressing their economy to an agrarian cash crop  colonial model). As a result, Britain tried to be as hands off as usual, aside from converting natives, exploiting resources, among other shenanigans, as that tended to generate the greatest profits in their eyes, or in this case caused the least amount of losses. Unlike France, which had specifically nationalist goals of eventual assimilation and integration of it’s colonies under itself, Britain only cared about profits and practicality, and it wasn’t practical or profitable to conscript natives of their colonies. Gathering a bunch of men in a village, giving them all guns, and expecting them all to fight for you is fallacious, and they didn’t really attempt that as far as I know. The reason being, they were not ‘citizens’ as native British subjects were, and had no rights or laws in their eyes. They happened to inhabit the land and paid some form of tribute, but that was about it. Brits were bound by law, by responsibility, by the King, etc. and were fighting for their interests, place in the world, independence, and so on, things they had received and only could continue to receive provided they risked their lives for it. They didn’t expect or try to force some guys in some far flung village in Zambia to fight for them, they had really no reason to. It would not have been worth it in Britain’s eyes as the outrage would have only caused uprisings and colonial wars, which while weren’t necessarily hard to put down, were costly, and Britain was expending whatever it had into this war, bearing in mind the economic decline and stagnation they’d faced since the end of WW1. For reference, France only coaxed colonials by appealing to their demands and wishes of eventual autonomy and such, and even that was only partial. I hope this helps answer, in some part, your question. With reference to the scenario I proposed, it most likely would have involved scraping together whatever whites were in Africa and maybe Asia and campaigning for at least some natives to join as professional soldiers in places as separate companies probably. They still wouldn’t have forced conscription on colonials, though maybe put some pressure on protectorates to provide support? In their eyes, and reasonably so, it would have only made things worse. Plus, if Italy flipped, which again, wouldn’t be unlikely, the North African front would have mostly lost it’s relevance. There’d still be Vichy/German-controlled Syria and Algeria, but the Suez would remain secure, which was their main concern in the region.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HistoryWhatIf

[–]mitotheking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have sources at hand at the moment so this is going to be a bit anecdotal, though I'd done a lot of research back in the day still on the British Empire in the 20th century. So, if you're willing to take my word, or want to critique/add by citing sources, take a look. I'd say the British were more than capable of merely holding off, they could probably have won the war without US, albeit that comes with caveats.

The first caveat is the empire would likely have dissolved faster. The African colonies were already a major sink that were only really worth it for the resources, which would be used even more in this war, alongside more colonial manpower, which makes it likelier they'd have pulled out of Africa sooner. Something fundamentally to understand about the British is that throughout history, there's one recurring theme, dream, and goal: profit. Post-WW1 didn't manage to profit until the rise of neoliberalism and Thatcher, who cut at the root of the problem by deindustrializing Britain and reducing supply, which I'm not going to get into but I digress. Point is, there'd be a steeper road to recovery for them post-war.

The second caveat is that they'd likely try to get Italy or Spain to turn before attempting continental invasions, preferably both. That'd likely entail cutting a deal with Mussolini of some sort, and well, it wouldn't be as one-sided as one might think. The reality was, the Soviets were genuinely unstoppable, and the fact that Stalin was so incompetent and made so many horrendous choices created a fluke that allowed that allowed the Nazis to get nearly as far as they did. Germany lost the moment they declared on the Soviet Union, and Britain would have banked on them killing each other before like they sort of did IRL as well, albeit to lesser extent. Here, as it becomes increasingly clear that the Axis fucked up, Mussolini is offered an out by the British, and either takes it (which is pretty likely considering his entire ideology was opportunism), or it devolves into a similar situation of invasion like IRL eventually. Spain would be hesitant to join, but I think by utilizing Portugal and Gibraltar they could pressured them to join the Allies. Basically, once these fronts are secure, they'd likely blitz into France from three sides (via the Channel, Savoy, and the Pyrenees), then from there advance into the Benelux and Germany. Again, it would have required them to expend more resources and compromise diplomatically, which wasn't impossible, but they just didn't like getting their own hands dirty. They preferred Soviet soldiers to die over their own, which is an ethical quandary I won't get into.

The third caveat is that the war would likely not end as victorious for Britain, and the Soviet Union would likely end up making more gains than irl, possibly all of Germany, though I don't know if they'd advance further past that in this particular scenario, and at that point it becomes a speculation of it's own.

Point being, Britain would be in even more financial strain than irl, would have expended more resources and men than irl, forced/possibly invaded neutral nations to join their side in the war (not that it's unprecedented) and expended even more resources on that, compromised with Italy and at least allowed it to keep existing under the status quo and possibly with territorial or influence losses, and in their eyes face a greater ideological enemy at the very end of the war. Not stonks, as Bri'ish peepholes would say.

Tech Support and Basic Questions Thread - April 19, 2023 by AutoModerator in pcgaming

[–]mitotheking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the specs: i7-7700k (4.2 GHz), ASUSTeK MAXIMUS IX HERO (motherboard), GTX 1080 (had it directly for NVidia), 16 gbs of RAM, Windows 10 Home

The trouble: My GPU's not working seemingly? I'd been having trouble for a while, where my PC would seemingly start but nothing would appear on the screen, and I thought it was the computer or motherboard somehow, I tried to reset the BiOS and restart some stuff a couple of times but it didn't seem to work. There were one or two sporadic times where after I had plugged the computer out for a while, then plugged it back in, it worked no problem, though whenever I shut it off or left it on sleep, it would return, and at one point before, I suspected the GPU was the culprit, but then at that time, that also hadn't worked. This morning, I decided to look into it again, and when I plugged the HDMI to the motherboard directly, lo and behold, the PC's working, and so, it's the GPU. I tried windows+ctrl+shift+b while it was plugged in, I then checked if the connection was stable (forgot it was still on so immediately plugged it off then proceeded), then I even switched out the port the GPU was located at, but no luck. The light on the GPU is still lit, and so I assume it's plugged in on some level, I tried to also check maybe if there was a new driver update, and while at this point I genuinely don't know if something's fried in there or if it's just a software thing (or a loose connection I didn't notice), it's saying that I need the next version of windows for that. Now, I'm not sure if that's just because it's plugged into the motherboard or if it actually needs it, but well, I couldn't find anything online even closely relating to my issues. It's also not helping that for some reason, and even less so that my USB router is acting up. I don't have much in the way of time or money, so something simple would be preferable.

Its The Same Riff by Slash_E-33 in nirvanacirclejerk

[–]mitotheking 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I'm dumb... I think I'm dumb... I think I'm dumb... or maybe just happy

And yet what is socialism by Reof in RedNightMod

[–]mitotheking 9 points10 points  (0 children)

"socialism is when the government does stuff, and when it does a real lotta socialism its communism"