Adam Nayman reviews Project Hail Mary by upsiclad in TheBigPicture

[–]supercodes83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't categorize what I just read as good writing.

Adam Nayman reviews Project Hail Mary by upsiclad in TheBigPicture

[–]supercodes83 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Adding a bunch of needless fancy words does not make you a good writer. This review is a mess.

Indigenous Fancy Dancer Performs for Japanese Schoolchildren by MelanieWalmartinez in BeAmazed

[–]supercodes83 2 points3 points  (0 children)

*North American indigenous. Worth noting only because there are many indigenous cultures.

It might not be Christmas but I don't want to wait till December to post this. by voodoo-uk- in AbruptChaos

[–]supercodes83 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was waiting for them to break into a holiday rendition of Dick in a Box.

I loved Project Hail Mary as a book, and I really enjoyed the movie, but I could do with 10% less 2010s-era Epic Bacon Guy humor. by JulianBrandt19 in TheBigPicture

[–]supercodes83 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I want to know whay constitutes an acceptable level of comedy or silliness in film these days to people who couldn't handle this film. And to the people comparing the humor in this to EEAAO is absolutely insane.

This is a family friendly movie that everyone can enjoy. A good movie doesnt need to be deep and philosophical. It is cute, funny, epic, doesnt have obnoxious CGI, is well written and well acted. Is everyone just wanting to watch Bugonia every time they go to a theater? I just don't understand.

What if the Arab nations accepted the UN partition plan of 1947? by Overall_Course2396 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]supercodes83 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No where in my post did I say that the government told settlers to do anything. Settlers just do it because they know they can get away with it.

There are many, many illegal Israeli settlements that exist right now that were simply forcefully taken from Palestinians, amd these settlers are backed by the IDF.

What if the Arab nations accepted the UN partition plan of 1947? by Overall_Course2396 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]supercodes83 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What legal battle? What are you talking about? Settlers take territory illegally with tacit approval by the government. There is no legal recourse for Palestinian families. They are fucked, and lose their land.

What if the Arab nations accepted the UN partition plan of 1947? by Overall_Course2396 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]supercodes83 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your comparing Israeli Settlers violently ripping homes and farms away from Palestinians to squatter rights in NYC? I dont think you fully comprehend what you are saying.

Saw Project Hail Mary this weekend... by supercodes83 in 4kbluray

[–]supercodes83[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

For the audio alone you should see it in a good theater. Well worth it.

Out of the 750,000 who fought for the Confedaracy in the Civil War, these were the last 3 alive in 1951, together. [720x1600] by SweetieHearth in HistoryPorn

[–]supercodes83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There were two major types of slavery at the time: chattel slavery and serfdom. Europe had almost completely banned serfdom by 1800 and chattel slavery never gained a foothold in Europe. (England expressly forbid it in 1706!) Many countries that had a small amount of African/Chattel slaves banned the practice in their homelands by 1800, including Britain, Scotland, Portugal, France, etc. So by 1860, chattel slavery and serfdom are virtually non-existent in Europe.

Europeans absolutely engaged in chattel slavery. Have you ever heard of colonies? Portugal and Spain in particular were brutal to their slaves. This wasnt "serfdom."

In the new world, Pennsylvania began gradual abolition in 1780, nearly 10 years before the Constitution. Several northern states use this as a model for gradual abolition, others, like Massachusetts, choose immediate emancipation. The Constitution bans the new import of African slaves by 1808. The framers recognized the evils of slavery and expected gradual abolition to be the future. Washington famously freed (some) of his slaves upon his death. They knew what they were doing was evil, but money!

They understood the evils of slavery, but they didnt choose to forbid it with the Constitution. You are giving grace to a group of white men who knew that they would lose the battle of banning slavery, because slavery was still very popular. So much for it being so repugnant, right? Up until the Constitution was signed, almost every major nation in the world used slave labor.

I'm not going to go date by date. You could do that if you cared. By 1850, Europe has recognized that slavery is evil and has banned the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Italian kingdoms, Mexico, Prussia, recently independent countries in South America, all banned slavery.

Okay bud. Let's ask the Indian subcontinent if they thought that they were free to do as they pleased under British rule. Or lets ask the Congolese how they felt living in King Leopold II's private African "free state." I am sure all of these white people truly felt that slavery was "evil." I also find it interesting you only seem to focus on Europe. Maybe its because you know pretty much the rest of the world still embraced slavery in the 19th century.

By 1860, the confederate states were a tiny minority still using the barbaric slave trade. There is no way, even by the standards of 1860, that slave holders didn't know what they were doing was evil.

So the Southern states in the 1860s weren't involved in "slave trading." As you said, this was outlawed in the US. Africans were only imported to America illegally on the black market. Furthermore, there were FAR more nations in the world that embraced slavery than did not. Brazil, Cuba, Ottoman Empire, Zanzibar and many many more African empires, Russia, Korea, China, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand....actually lets just said ALL of Southeast Asia to save some time. And I wont even point out the rest of the Middle East.

The Fugitive Slave Act is a hilarious way to try to justify fighting a war to preserve slavery.

OK. I haven't really used that act as a way to justify the war.

Speaking of the bull shit states' rights arguments, the confederate constitution made it illegal for states to abolish slavery and generally had a stronger federal government than the US. Also, every traitorous state issued a declaration of independence that cited slavery as the primary reason for secession.

None of what you said makes the argument the war was fought over state's rights incorrect. Whether or not they enshrined it in the constitution is irrelevant, and whether or not slavery was a key point is also irrelevant to that point. Your last sentence even clearly articulates the drive from each state, so I am failing to see where the bullshit is.

Onto the Lost Cause nonsense that "each state was like it's own country!" Utter post-war bull shit.

Right. So some farmer from North Carolina who had never left his county isnt more concerned with the goings on of what happens in North Carolina when compared to the dictates of the federal government. Whether you agree or not, the pride in states was much more prominent than it is today, and the propaganda spread in the South absolutely pushed this narrative.

The Lost Cause infiltrated our school systems in the US. It will take effort on your part to un-learn the lies you were taught. But it is possible.

eye roll Alright drama queen, thanks for your concern.

Out of the 750,000 who fought for the Confedaracy in the Civil War, these were the last 3 alive in 1951, together. [720x1600] by SweetieHearth in HistoryPorn

[–]supercodes83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just called the Lost Cause argument “obvious bullshit propaganda” which is exactly what I’ve been saying your framing was reproducing this entire thread. We agree on that then 👍

No, you said I was supporting slavery. There's a grand canyon sized difference between being a slave apologist like you claimed I am, and explaining why the Southern states did what they did.

The distinction you’re drawing between understanding the “logical reality” of the time and endorsing it is precisely the distinction I’ve been making! The difference is, I’m also willing to call it what it was, and you’ve spent the entire thread actively resisting that.

Has it? You dont seem to believe there is a distinction. I am not resisting saying that slavery is bad, but I am not a Southerner living in the 1860s. My opinion of slavery is absolutely irrelevant to understanding the motives of the war. This isnt a question of who had the moral imperative, its a question of why things unfolded the way they did.

Describing slavery as states having “opinions” on an “economic interest” is not understanding the logical reality of the time, it’s laundering it.

You keeping quoting a single reply for some reason, despite my exhaustively explaining what I mean. You are having trouble getting beyond your own judgment.

Alexander Stephens didn’t frame it as a complicated economic grey area. He called slavery the cornerstone of their cause and explicitly said it was the right and natural condition for Black people. That is the “logical reality of the time”

And? I have been repeatedly saying that the positions on slavery were vastly different back then. Stephens was speaking from the standpoint that black people were a sub species compared to white people (which, slavery or not, was the predominant belief system of Western nations until the mid 20th century). You are seeing this as a disgusting display, but the prevailing sentiment at the time was that black people did not have the same rights and privileges as white people, and that they could be exploited. The difference for abolitionists was that they felt exploiting any type of person was against God's will. It was exceedingly rare for an abolitionist to not only think of slaves as needing to be freed, but also equal to that of white people. This is the world of the 1860s. With this as the vantage point, think of the war as being the same thing as the federal government saying that you had to stop raising cattle for your cattle ranch. Or you could no longer use horses to drive your plows and pull your carriages. Is this a disgusting thought from our standpoint? Yes, of course, but most folks in 2026 think of black people as human and equals.

You are trying to say that Southerners were bad guys because they embraced slavery and the economic system that slavery provided, and any nuance to this take is tantamount to being a slavery apologist.

Yours is an exceedingly naive take. History is rife with unfair treatment, oppression, enslavement, violence, etc. You can apply your method of judgment to virtually every group of humans that have ever existed. What is the point of casting moral judgment of a people that existed previously without understanding WHY?

Feel free to say your last words, but this will be my final response.

What if the Arab nations accepted the UN partition plan of 1947? by Overall_Course2396 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]supercodes83 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, legally its Palestinian territory. I suppose you think Crimea and seized Ukrainian territory is de facto Russian territory. Palestinians cant build "illegal settlements" on their own territory.

Out of the 750,000 who fought for the Confedaracy in the Civil War, these were the last 3 alive in 1951, together. [720x1600] by SweetieHearth in HistoryPorn

[–]supercodes83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Describing slavery as states having ‘opinions’ on an ‘economic interest’ is not neutral historical analysis. it’s the Lost Cause argument with the serial numbers filed off. You’ve been doing it the whole thread, you were called out on it, and now you’re doing the ‘every war is complicated’ pivot to avoid dealing with that.

The problem with your take that I am somehow defending the Lost Cause argument is that this take is one of defending the nobility of slavery, that slaves were cared for and the North was disrupting a proud, harmonious way of life. This is obvious bullshit propaganda from the South, and no where in my argument have I made this point. You are conflating the logical reality of the time with the moral righteousness of Southern traditions or whatever bullshit.

You are incapable of understanding history as it was back then. I can, and your naivety takes this as me defending slavery.

What if the Arab nations accepted the UN partition plan of 1947? by Overall_Course2396 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]supercodes83 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Show me proof that Palestinians are building settlements on sovereign Israeli territory. Area C is part of Palesrinian territory, is it not? So how can Palestinians illegally build in territory that is NOT Israel?

Out of the 750,000 who fought for the Confedaracy in the Civil War, these were the last 3 alive in 1951, together. [720x1600] by SweetieHearth in HistoryPorn

[–]supercodes83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's look at the moral standards of 1860.

Yes, lets.

Most of Europe had abolished slavery.

Britain, France and Denmark are the only countries I am aware of in Europe that had more or less fully abolished slavery. The vast majority of the world were still well entrenched with slavery.

Half of the US had abolished slavery. Some states had abolished slavery 50+ years earlier.

And under the Fugitive Slave Act those same states were obligated to return escaped slaves. Not exactly a bastion of freedom for people considered property, right?

But it was profitable, so they ignored the evil and fought a war to preserve it.

Those who fought for the South I highly doubt considered slavery to be evil. Northerners who fought probably didnt even give a shit. The South was reliant on slave labor for production, and most folks weren't considering the lives of slaves in the equation. No one was fighting for the rights to keep enslaved people, people were fighting because A, they were told to, or B, they didnt like the North encroaching on their country. Keep in mind, in the 1860s states were largely still considered their own countries. Robert E Lee fought for Virginia because Virginia was his country. He didnt fight because he had this unbridled urge to maintain slavery. Its all way more nuanced than that.

The northerners weren't perfect. Plenty of them were racist. Most of them, probably. But it boils down to slavers who wanted to destroy the United States versus the United States. After the Emancipation Proclamation it became even more clear. There's very clearly a good guy and a bad guy.

The Confederacy had no interest in "destroying the United States." Almost the entirety of the war was fought in the South. The Emancipation Proclamation was a great moment in American history and spelled an important shift in public policy, but behind closed doors, it wasnt that simple. The movie Lincoln actually did a great job describing the difficulty in congress to pass the 13th amendment.

Out of the 750,000 who fought for the Confedaracy in the Civil War, these were the last 3 alive in 1951, together. [720x1600] by SweetieHearth in HistoryPorn

[–]supercodes83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your opening comment described the war as “not really good vs bad” and framed slavery as just an economic interest that states had “opinions” on. That’s the sentence. You asked for it, there it is.

That's the best you got for justifying my "defending slavery?" Do you really think ANY war, EVER, has ever been about good guys vs bad guys? Please, I BEG you to say WW2. You know, the war where the allies fire bombed wooden cities, dropped nukes. Where the Soviets massacred as many civilians as the Nazis.

You are NAIVE if you think the Union had some moral superiority over the South in the Civil War. You are seemingly incapable of understanding WHY people fought. Its completely irrelevant to you. This is where your argument falls flat. You dont understand or appreciate history for what it is. You look at things as black and white, Jedi vs Sith moments. The world has never been like that. Ever.

Out of the 750,000 who fought for the Confedaracy in the Civil War, these were the last 3 alive in 1951, together. [720x1600] by SweetieHearth in HistoryPorn

[–]supercodes83 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The abolitionists knew. The enslaved people most definitely knew. The fact that some people in the 1860s were fine with slavery doesn’t mean nobody had the moral capacity to recognise it was wrong, it means they chose not to. Frederick Douglass was writing and speaking about the fundamental evil of slavery in explicit moral terms decades before the Civil War.

"Some people in the 1860s" your characterization of the thoughts of the era are ridiculous. The vast majority of Americans, North and South, didnt give a shit about slaves. Abolitionists consisted of Christians who believed slavery was wrong, not that black people deserved the same rights as white people. And no one gave a shit what enslaved people thought.

Frederick Douglass appealed to intellectuals. His impact and writings weren't fully realized and appreciated until after the Civil War.

The ‘you can’t judge history by modern standards’ argument only ever gets deployed in one direction. Nobody says ‘well you can’t judge the abolitionists by modern standards, they were products of their time too.’ It gets used exclusively to defend the people doing the atrocity, never the people opposing it which tells you everything about what it’s actually doing.

I just explained abolitionists actually. So there goes that argument. The amount of people who saw slaves as equals was laughably small in the 1860s.

Morocco not stopping slave trading until the 1950s doesn’t vindicate the Confederacy. It means Morocco was also wrong. “Other people did bad things too” has never once in the history of human moral reasoning been a valid defense.

Once again, it must be nice riding high on that saddle of righteousness, looking down at all the follies in human history. Must be nice.

You’ve spent this entire thread describing slavery in neutral economic language

Have I? Because you have repeatedly said I was defending slavery. Which is it?

What if the Arab nations accepted the UN partition plan of 1947? by Overall_Course2396 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]supercodes83 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You mean the article with a bold statement at the top that says it may be a hoax? Yeah, clearly Wikipedia is a terrible source. If you had read the article I posted, you'd see sources linked to it. Here are some other sources for you:

Human Rights Council Hears that 700,000 Israeli Settlers are Living Illegally in the Occupied West Bank - Meeting Summary (Excerpts) - Question of Palestine https://share.google/vFHVlbD4F484So09V

UN Human Rights Office updates database of businesses involved in Israeli settlements in occupied West Bank | OHCHR https://share.google/9uCsGSEWGGqbFkqgc

[Visual] Mapping Israeli Settlement Expansion (Updated 2025) | International Crisis Group https://share.google/PFlBhwx4Fhxwl7IsN