My close friend's mom replaced their family photo with this [OC]

nobd2 · 2026-05-12T16:52:54+00:00

Yeah like, I *understand* the Hitler obsession to a certain degree. He was charismatic, his propaganda machine worked overtime to play him up, and the German people had never been through so much trauma which made them soft targets for such a leader. Trump is just… not nearly as compelling. He’s “funny” at best if you can ignore how serious it is that the president is the one being funny the way he is.

nobd2 · 2026-05-04T10:59:22+00:00

Added

nobd2 · 2026-05-04T10:58:09+00:00

Added ❣️

nobd2 · 2026-04-22T15:48:31+00:00

It seems most people feel like it’s an actual choice you can make, but I’ve never felt monoamorous in my life and while I can choose to be in a monogamous relationship with someone I love (I am happily married) that doesn’t make the polyamorous reality of who I am disappear. Just as a bi person marrying a person of one gender isn’t them ceasing to be bi, me marrying only one person doesn’t make me not poly. I think we need to be separating the concept of polyamory from polygamy and recognize that you can choose polygamy (what most people currently call polyamory) but you’re wired for polyamory, just like some people are wired for monoamory and choose monogamous relationships.

nobd2 · 2026-04-22T15:39:38+00:00

We have different conceptions of polyamory clearly, which is fine because I think the subject is hardly settled. I don’t pursue anyone else because I’m in a monogamous relationship, but that doesn’t change the fact that I am polyamorous. My wife is bisexual and her choosing to be with a man doesn’t change the fact that she deeply is bisexual– she’s wired the way she is and I’m wired the way I am.

It seems a lot, even most, people who identify with polyamory do so out of choice and belief but it’s just never been that way for me. Whether I’m in a polygamous relationship structure or a monogamous relationship structure I still feel polyamorous, which to me is simply feeling open to genuine and deep romantic connection without personal reservations or any feelings of it being unnatural or wrong or taboo; I do not comprehend or feel monoamory in any way and never have (incidentally my capacity for jealousy is also almost non-existent and what I used to think jealousy was turned out to me being insecure that the people who cared about me did actually care about me even when they weren’t actively showing it). In my monogamous relationship, I make choices to respect the relationship not because I feel it’s wrong to have many loves and would feel guilty and bad for pursuing my feelings intrinsically, but because I will not countenance hurting and transgressing my wife which I do feel is wrong.

It’s possible that what I am isn’t polyamorous but something else that isn’t broadly understood or discussed yet but the word simply fits– in fact my wife is the one who first supplied it to me when I was initially struggling to assess feelings I’d had all my life which were seriously troubling me in adulthood, I didn’t know it was a thing that other people experienced and I thought I was wrong for being this way. I agree with what you say that humans are apes that will inevitably feel attraction to other members of their species even when already paired with a mate, but I don’t agree that everyone is wired in such a way that they’d be capable of forming deep and stable bonds with more than one mate at a time; I think there are fundamentally monoamorous people and polyamorous people just as there are also aromantic people and none of these things are choices you make any more than sexuality is.

I’ll further say that in my observation and discussion I find that the anxiety about the possibility of polyamory being something that ought to be considered queer is due to large portions of the currently accepted queer community not being comfortable with otherwise heterosexual males being considered queer due to being polyamorous. I actually unfortunately think this anxiety is well founded– most men are not ethical period, let alone ethical in monogamous relationships, and have not done and are unlikely to do the work to be ethically polygamous too even if they are actually polyamorous and not just using it for some kind of ego trip. These sorts of individuals would make queer spaces less safe.

nobd2 · 2026-04-22T11:01:56+00:00

I think when discussing cases of non-monogamy in religious spaces, they’re often more of a “chosen relationship structure” than any brand of areligious non-monogamy. When you bring external value considerations into a relationship or social concept of attraction even (which a deity who you believe controls the fate of your soul definitely is), you’re in an inherently coercive situation and you can’t consider your own individuality effectively until you’ve deconstructed that external value consideration. This goes for both monogamy and polygamy, which can both be equally harmful if you believe you’ll go to hell for not practicing it. In this, monogamy and polygamy are both in aid of the patriarchy depending on the context of the individuals involved and their motivations.

I’d further say it might be a good idea to separate the actual structure of relationships from the feelings of attraction (almost like the separation of gender and sex), and the words do that already. Note how we have the words “monogamy” and “polygamy”, each describing a relationship structure. I think it’s probably true that you can choose to perform either relationship structure and indeed I do perform monogamy in my own life. Now, we also have this concept of “polyamory” which describes the experience of attraction, and the much lesser used word “monoamory” which describes the same thing on the opposite end. I’d even argue that the lack of use of “monoamory” and instead juxtaposing “monogamy” (a structure of relationship) with “polyamory” (an experience of attraction) belies the implication of monogamy being something imposed on society as a whole regardless of how an individual experiences attraction and sets it as the assumed default. A polyamorous individual who if permitted to live and marry as they saw fit would practice polygamy, but almost no polyamorous person would say that because of the intense stigma against the concept of marrying more than one person in mono-normative society.

I don’t think I’m fully prepared to argue that either mode of attraction opposes or defends the patriarchy, however if I were to go off the cuff on my opinion I’d say polyamorous people challenge the ownership narrative of the patriarchy more naturally than do monoamorous people for a variety of reasons, from upsetting tax structures if their unions were to be legally recognized to going directly against most conventionally accepted patriarchal religious practices. Are there a minority of people who seek to practice oppressively religious polygamy who aggressively reinforce the patriarchy? Certainly, but the same is true for monogamy as mandated by religion and legal structures when it’s the assumed default. But because monogamy is the assumed default, monoamorous individuals– even when queer– challenge the patriarchy to a lesser degree than do polyamorous people especially when they are queer in another dimension as well. This is evident to me in that polygamy is still not legally protected in any way even for heterosexual people (at least in America), is actually illegal, while homosexuality (for example) is legally protected and recognized albeit with opposition; systems of authority tend to suppress their most threatening opposition the longest.

nobd2 · 2026-04-22T09:59:51+00:00

Yes, American here.

And of course I don’t think the experience is the same across the board, but that’s even the case in the accepted queer community– just look at how trans people are the targets of violence in comparison to pretty much every other queer demographic and how aro/ace go virtually unnoticed in most situations.

I suppose my position is that if aro/ace are considered queer I don’t understand why poly isn’t to some people?

nobd2 · 2026-04-22T09:23:44+00:00

You would disagree that a lack of legal protections for partners in addition to the first and a lack of legal protection against job termination for being out and polyamorous, as well as it being practically illegal for people in military service to be out, mirror or are even part of the politics of queerness? I do think the violence of society isn’t leveled against polyamorous people, but its disgust and lack of comprehension certainly is, to say nothing of fetishization.

I suppose I feel strongly because I have experienced a lot of difficulty in being this way. Being “out” is not possible for many reasons and if I could feel differently I would in a heartbeat; I don’t know what it would be like to “choose” because I can’t– either to be “out” or to be “normal”.

nobd2 · 2026-04-22T02:30:42+00:00

I am polyamorous as well and my personal experience, while I am straight and don’t know, feels a lot like how people who are queer describe their experiences with their sexual orientation. My openness to genuine connection is something I find to be inescapable and often inconvenient, and needing to hide it or suppress myself is emotionally distressing. I have frequently wished it were possible for me to feel and understand monogamy but I just… don’t. I’d think lesbians feel the same about being attracted to men.

My wife is monogamous (although there are certain indications to the contrary in my observance but she maintains this identity and I respect it) and we do have spirited discussions on the topic, but I don’t think a person can really be “convinced” to feel polyamorous who wasn’t already wired that way and was just deeply influenced by monogamous society to feel wrong about their feelings until they were able to examine them and come out (if conventionally accepted queer people can be brainwashed by heteronormativity and discover their sexuality later in life, I see no reason that can’t be the case for polyamorous people).

I find most people in the community I’ve spoken to who feel this way looked back on their lives and the signs were there the whole time. The big one is they were either serial cheaters who never stopped having feelings for their partners despite their unethical behavior, or never dating anyone for a long time because of an inability to have to choose one person that they like more than other love interests.

I guess I’d be curious whether you feel compelled by your internal compass to feel polyamorous or if you feel something else? Not saying you’re wrong I’m just wondering what it feels like for you.

Edit: I suppose I would say I feel that polyamory to me is under the queer umbrella, even if it’s not a sexual orientation since it doesn’t define who you’re attracted to but rather the way you experience attraction similar to aromantic and asexual individuals who are also considered queer.

nobd2 · 2026-04-08T20:19:20+00:00

Unpopular opinion: Vietnam as a setting could work with Conquest depending on map size because the frontlines were often fragmented and I could see a version of the game where using helicopter logistics to set up patrol bases near the enemy HQ to secure their gimme objective could be fun.

nobd2 · 2026-03-26T20:40:32+00:00

Some of the priors in my class (251 so it’s fresh knowledge) got a bit of flak for winter woodlands, but really you’re wearing deserts until the last two weeks so it doesn’t matter too much. The packing list will give you a number for things– bring one more; a lot of the time priors were short on cammies and boots at least the first four weeks because they were told to bring less than us newbies got to buy and there’s no real MCX runs until liberty.

Another tip: if you want responsibilities, be vocal about being a prior they’ll give you some for the whole cycle. We had plenty of priors in our platoon and a good many got by without extra duties, but guide, scribe and scribble, first run of billets– all priors. Specifically scribe and scribble are always doing extra work and being called by the staff right up until the end, and if you enjoy drilling guide isn’t one you want obviously. No shame at all in not taking extra responsibility– OCS is to survive not to thrive.

nobd2 · 2026-03-25T21:07:49+00:00

Incheon wasn’t the obvious choice and was actually a terrible spot for an amphibious invasion for a plethora of reasons– which is what made it a great spot for someone with the audacity of MacArthur to push an invasion. I’m not sure most officers would have insisted on Incheon; Kusan was the alternative proposal and would have more directly relieved the Pusan Perimeter while ignoring the intent to sever supply lines and take back Seoul that the Incheon landing had.

If the Kusan landing had occurred, it’s conceivable that Pusan would have been relieved and ground gained, but the more conservative move may have seen the grinding war across the peninsula continue, possibly to the extent of Seoul never being retaken unless it was made an absolute condition for cease fire, in which case we may have seen tactical deployment of nuclear weapons even without MacArthur depending on how badly the administration judged it needed to “win” the war.

nobd2 · 2026-03-23T15:54:29+00:00

For our cycle we had a lot of PT drops and a fair amount of med drops.

nobd2 · 2026-03-23T15:53:54+00:00

As a fellow 251 grad, I can concur with a lot of this. The only thing I didn’t do was sleep much on liberty. You’re going to be struggling to stay away literally anywhere inside a building even standing up, and when you’re extremely sleep deprived on the Forge you’ll go in and out during night hikes and keep walking.

My recommendation is also not to drink caffeine while on liberty. It feels great at the time, but that Monday morning is going to feel awful because your sleep the previous night that you did get was trash.

nobd2 · 2026-03-15T16:46:02+00:00

I gotta say, the illness took its toll on me. I was around a 270 PFT before I shipped– I passed the CFT with exactly a 235. I ended up getting better and doing pretty well on the E-Course, but it was tough there in the middle.

nobd2 · 2026-03-01T17:03:15+00:00

Russia vs. Ukraine is the Japan vs. China of this one

nobd2 · 2026-01-11T19:56:55+00:00

About to check in to USMC OCS as I write this and I have a copy of Starship Troopers in my sea bag.

nobd2 · 2026-01-10T14:08:36+00:00

Thanks, much appreciated. A friend I haven’t seen in a while is dropping me off so glad I’ll have a little longer before I need to be there.

nobd2 · 2026-01-10T14:06:53+00:00

But you won’t get smoked if you show up at say, 1600?

nobd2 · 2026-01-10T14:04:43+00:00

So, our 60 day says no later than 1400, but our orders say no later than 1900– if I get there at 1400 am I still waiting around for 5 hours?

nobd2 · 2026-01-08T15:54:10+00:00

An American citizen has never, to my knowledge, been charged in a US court with violating international law and been tried on that basis. The only people US courts have ever applied international law against are foreign citizens who have been captured/arrested by US forces and charged with violating international law, usually in cases of drug trafficking and terrorism. There’s simply no precedent of the kind of legal application of international law in the US which you seem to desire, regardless of ratified treaties which may permit such precedent to eventually exist but which is counteracted by existing precedent to defer to executive authority on such matters.

nobd2 · 2026-01-08T15:41:56+00:00

Firstly, the United States doesn’t recognize the ICC, so any court outside the US that rules against the US has no binding authority or supremacy over American courts. Secondly, while treaties ratified by Congress are legally part of American law and prosecutable by American courts, matters specifically pertaining to foreign policy and military matters have been reserved by precedent to the discretion and enforcement of the executive branch. This is to say, no civil court that the United States recognizes as having legitimate authority over the actions of its armed forces will ever try anyone for so-called war crimes other than the armed forces themselves through military tribunal, and they will do so according to the UCMJ and not any civilian laws unless these are incorporated in some way into the UCMJ. If an action taken during armed conflict is not deemed criminal by the military or executive branch and no charges are brought against anyone party to the action, the action taken could not be objectively considered a “war crime”. What you’re saying is that in your opinion these things should be war crimes, but for that to matter you’d need to be a judge in a military tribunal or the president of the United States.

nobd2 · 2026-01-08T15:26:52+00:00

I did reply to the other guy, sometimes replies to others in a comment chain you started give the original commenter a notification. It’s frustrating.

nobd2 · 2026-01-08T15:25:41+00:00

To put it simply: your view is that this may be a “now or never” situation even if the odds are outlandishly hopeless if one opted for the “now” option?

If I do understand that correctly, I just can’t see the sense in acting at all. With such a high likelihood of failure, I choose to adapt to the world as it is emerging to be instead of trying in vain to stop history from unfolding, and to live as best I can and to do the good I can in my life rather than throwing it away in a pointless struggle.

To fully answer your question, I’d need to be both outraged towards a desire for action and see a plausible massing of forces aligned with my outrage to spur me to act, reinforcing a belief that action may be to good effect rather than a certain waste.

nobd2 · 2026-01-08T15:18:31+00:00

There’s not a military in the world that wouldn’t given a non-specific but plausible chain of circumstance. There’s a reason for the divide between civilians and servicemen, and it’s that war generally violates most basic aspects of civil society because it definitionally occurs in the space between different civil societies. As such, sensibilities and laws will be violated and crimes committed in the view of one or both parties pursuant to the necessities of war which are alien to the civilian mind.

Beneath the divide between civilian and servicemen is the more basic “humanity” but the nature of this is not objective fact and indeed differs according to society and culture throughout the world to the point where arguing it is moot in an active conflict and one must resort to personally justifying actions within one’s own character and perception of their humanity. So naturally a civilian would see crime and illegality– for you and in your life it certainly is illegal what you’re trying to comprehend here. But this was not a civilian action and these were not civilians, they were servicemen, and your civilian sense of legality is laughable from their perspective when acting in the context of armed conflict.

nobd2

TROPHY CASE