lord of flies

Whoa-holy crap. Yellow? Are you serious? Yellow (as used to describe a group of people) is a very offensive ethnic slur.

Now, when I first heard that you couldn't be black, I just thought "Well, I guess it makes sense. They'd have to write and voice entirely new dialogue if they did that, since black people are treated differently than white people." It was acceptable. I mean, maybe using "white" as the assumed default and anything else just being a bonus isn't the best race-relations stuff, but it's not that bad. A plurality of the target audience is white males and all that. But now I hear that you spent all this time and effort to make people react differently to you based on what difficulty level you're playing? Why didn't you spend that effort on making it possible to play as a black character? Hmm? I'll just leave you all on that thought. Really disappointed in you, Obsidian. I thought you were better than this.

Hmm, can I play as a neo-colonialist or force of reaction? Well, I suppose I could, much as one can play as the "evil" characters in many games. But I would prefer if I was not required to.

Hey, I never got an answer, so let me ask once more (or twice more, or thrice more, or however many times is necessary): Can I play as an enemy of neo-colonialism or a far-leftist?

There is only one front. No war but class war.

Ah, yes, zealots. Let's use the term for a religious fanatic to describe anyone who defends the objectively correct position. Hmm, this is a wonderful idea. I see no problem with this because I am a mindless middle centrist.

That's actual how scientific proof works. When all known evidence suggests a particular fact, it is therefore assumed to be true. If we didn't use this brilliant, incredible technique, we would still be stuck in the middle-ages.

All signs point to the brain being the center of consciousness, perception, thought, et cetera. Ergo, when the brain stops working (ie death), you cannot think or perceive. There is no "debate," there is only one side blandly attempting to defend blatant defiance of reality with "oh, well, you can't say that for sure there are no invisible, intangible super-sized penises in my pants, ergo i am 'packing heat'."

Nope! Actually, there simply isn't a god, just as there isn't a tooth fairy! And when you die, you are not suddenly enlightened as to the existence of a god or not! You just die! And then you never think another thought or perceive another thing!

lol you literally live in a theocracy where you are taxed for a religion you don't believe in, but you think it's okay. This Is Capitalism.

Everything that I have ever posted on this forum is my earnest belief, and I have never trolled you guys. I am sick and tired of getting called a "troll," merely because I go to some lengths to make interesting, contributing posts which can actual amuse or grant insight. I suppose I could post +1 bull****, but then I'd feel like a ****ty poster. Just because my posting style is "argumentative" doesn't make me a troll. I haven't spoken up a lot about this before, simply because it didn't seem particularly worthwhile, but honestly, please stop. It's very annoying, it wouldn't be productive even if I were a troll. Yes, I believe that your (speaking generally here) political ideology is indefensible anti-democratic imperialist drek. That doesn't make me a troll.

Anyhow, if you can do this, you can redeem yourself as the forum superstar we all love to hate. Get crackin'! Zero evidence of design in biological creatures (no feature migration across disparate species, retarded **** like dolphins having bones for hands, people breathing, eating and talking with the same hole), all signs point to your brain being the entirety of your consciousness, there has been absolutely no evidence found at all in the entirety of human existence which directly, objectively suggests that there is a god and the universe is a vast wasteland of nothingness. I could continue, but I'd prefer not to waste my time since you're probably an agnostic or whatever the hell. But the best evidence is that the empirically correct ideology is Marxism, an atheist ideology. If a god existed, why wouldn't he make the correct ideology a religious one? Uh, yes, your countries are "secular," but secularism is different from "free of the religious taint on their state institutions." Example: xenophobia of muslim immigrants. QED.

Here' a noob guide: don't buy this game for a few months, unless you like paying $40.00 for an open beta. AI-wise, the Japanese AI sticks all of its folks on the border with the USSR so the Chinese can easily repulse them, Italy defends its borders with Germany, France leaves the Italian front totally open and allows them to easily annex all of France. Consumer goods calculations are exponential or some **** that makes France and the USSR incapable of actually using their IC properly. If you don't increase the threat of the Allies, the entire world ends up on their side (including Japan). The weather system can make all of Germany get trapped in a month-long freeze in the middle of July. Playing it on a multicore computer actually makes it go slower. But hey, at least the Theatre AI works!

I'm happy to inform you that God is a lie, and atheism has a long and proud history of being anti-imperialism and pro-civil rights. It's true! Did you know that there was a large migration of freethinkers to the United States in the 19th century, and they generally held firm beliefs in total social, racial and sexual equality? Obviously not, because the religious section of society is viewed as too valuable by the Powers That Be, and so there is a careful recoloring of history, so that Christianity was responsible for abolition (when, in fact, African slavery has a lot to do with the Bible), and atheism never existed until Bolshevism. Those nations most free from western imperialism (China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba et cetera) are mostly free from that religious taint on their state institutions. Coincidence? I think not. I'd explain why god is empirically wrong, but honestly, if you don't know already...

Just a bit of advice: do as I do, and you'll be an instant forums superstar. Was??? I'm still here you know. Also, we decided I was your alt. You're welcome.

I have no interest whatsoever in reading through the comments made by anon in a different website. I saw the comic. What is it you want to discuss?I want to discuss horribly nerdy people, posting poorly on the internet. You should do that, more awareness of this is needed. Women are insane, and they can make perfectly healthy heterosexual men to doubt themselves to the point they're willing to become useless wimps if that offers them the chance to "get some". Ever wonder why gay men are so happy?Ah yes, sexism. And some, what's the term... idealization of the Other? What a well-put together post, representing everything wrong with the capitalist system of systematic oppression. Obviously, gay men are so happy all the time. Just like house slaves, right? Here, let's get BACK ON TOPIC: That bitch. When you tell people personal things, you are ABUSING THEM. Unless, presumably, you have sex with them afterwards.

Too long; didn't read.

I did. In fact, I'm going to say it right now: Israel is a terrorist country. It is a brutal apartheid state which is attempting to gradually depopulate the occupied territories, and which will use even the flimsiest of justifications to start blowing the **** out of the Palestinian civilian populace, all the while illegally colonizing their land. It is indefensible. It is a modern day fascist state, which enshrines one religion and one ethnicity above all others, both in word and in deed (reminder: specific religious groups in Israel get full citizenship without military service; none of them are Arabs). It follows no law of God or man. It is an abomination.

No, they will only be nice to you if you by into their capitalist-imperialist-anti-democratic system of murder, rape and oppression. If you fall outside of this tightly regimented ideology, you are SCUM, a TOTALITARIAN, a STALINIST, a HITLER-APOLOGIST, a TROLL.

This thread. Oh my god, this thread. The tip of the ice-berg:

How could Hitler's regime in Germany have done better? Well, I once read a cool alt-hist timeline where Hitler got hit by a car in the '20s and became a communist. But, uh, I don't think that's what you're talking about. So, how could it have done better? A later attack on the USSR? That's actually a terrible idea. The fact that the Nazis caught the Soviets off-guard is what allowed them their "massive" success. "Ideal" war scenario is a "Peace with Honor" with a Halifax-led Britain in 1940-ish and a massive troop build-up and cold war with the USSR, while the USA just beats on the Japanese. Of course, Hitler would never have stood for "jewish Bolshevism" to live on his eastern frontier, so we'll have to kill him at about that point. This would probably butterfly away the Holocaust, since that only really got going in '41, and without Hitler never would've shown up (the rest of the Nazi leadership had no real plan on what to do about "all these jews"). For Japan, just never getting involved would probably be best. Maybe take another couple of coastal cities, but leave the Chinese Civil War alone in general. The United States got really pissed that Japan was screwing up its business interests in China, and conflicts over control of the Pacific were a real boiling point for the two nations. Remember that Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive strike from a threatened nation. The USA was helping out the Chinese well before then. Basically though, the best way for the Axis to "win" WW2 was to not start it. Japan and Germany were big industrial and economic powers, and neither of them "needed" to do what they did to maintain their position.

Apocalypto. It is a movie about how an American Indian is going to be sacrificed, but at the end he is saved by the arrival of the Spanish. Mussolini gained power in a coup. Hitler was already suppressing his enemies long before the Enabling Act and kept on doing so long after it should have rightly expired. In the end though... if Hitler had never invaded another country, only suppressing his own people and perhaps annexing Austria... he would not be noted as one of history's greatest villains. Massive genocides have been committed since then and gone unnoticed. Democracy means "rule by the people." If only a small minority (as in Athenian democracy) can actually vote, it is not a democracy - it is an oligarchy. Xenophobia is very, very different from racism. Xenophobia is an underlying human condition. But for a xenophobic Roman (let's say), it makes as much sense to fear a German as a Turk. Everyone is equal, in a way - there is Us, and Not Us. It's simple. Pure. There is no depth there, no proximate cause but human tribalism. But modern racism is too complicated to be described as just a natural extension of xenophobia. Why fear blacks, but not, say, the vietnamese? And what does the power of the "Holy Roman Emperor" have to do with anything?

That's not the "dark side of democracy." Tell me, if you put it to a vote, how many Americans in 1953 would vote to overthrow a democratically elected government and replace it with a monarchy where the prime minister was a former Nazi? Do you think it would be a majority? No, of course not. Because, for all the flaws of American culture and society, its people respect some basic dignity. They know that autocrats are bad. Democracies are good. And that the Nazis are the king of all the monsters. This is not the "dark side of democracy." It has nothing to do with democracy. It has to do with capitalism, and the way it twists everything. Did you know capitalism created racism? It's true. Modern racism is more-or-less a direct consequence of colonialism. By encountering new and militarily inferior peoples, the wealthy class - in the case of Spain circa 1492, the inbred autocracy - were presented with an opportunity to expand their own pockets. In order to justify it to the people, they created something: the first form of modern racism. They didn't know who the people on the other side of the Atlantic were. They'd never met them. But they had to categorize them, and they did. They created what is a myth that more-or-less persists to this day: the idea that American Indian civilization circa 1500 was a horrific, murderous creature, a great monster of human sacrifice and brutality that was rightly ended. Later, British settlers became heavily reliant on African slaves. Of course, there were preceding capitalist causes (which lead to those African slaves coming into existence), but those are irrelevant for the moment. It is important to remember that the majority of the white, southern population did not own slaves. Only a rich pseudo-noble class did. But they had to convince the general populace that it was in their best interest to allow slavery. And they did so, with that American racism which still loathes blacks above all others. Tell me - did you know that in their rule, the Nazis privatized, while their neighbors nationalized? It's true. So in the end, what defined Nazism? Socially - racism, created by capitalism. Economically - privatization, driven by capitalism. Hitler was a natural consequence of the capitalist system of oppression. True democracy is only achievable in a nation where industry is under control of the people in the form of a democratic government. Maximum responsibility and speed of reaction to popular will are the ideal traits of any democratic government, and this is not possible in a society where a huge swath of the resources are owned by a wealthy few. Good job responding to any of my points. Wait... you just fired off an ad hominem attack and ran away.

Wrong, fascist. Hitler's expansions of power were decided on solely by himself, as with Mussolini. But please, rewrite history all you like if it lets you justify overturning the will of the people, just because your biased, oil-emphasizing media tells you what to think by how it frames everything.. Of course, the balancing act between "state power" (ie the power of its institutions, which in democracies are responsible to the people) and "that of capital" (ie the power of rich upper-class people to control the general populace). The rest of your post doesn't even deserve a response, it's so full of lying crap. Except this part: Just... wow. Yes, western capitalist democracy is just so ****ing great, right? Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, there was an emerging democracy in the second world. But, because of historical happenstance (ie the imperialist devastation the "West" wrought upon the world), a western power had an extremely lopsided trade agreement with it. The local government tried to negotiate with the western power, but they would have nothing of it. It was here that they began to plot his downfall. Because of this, the locals acted to defend their interests, as any rational actor would, by seizing the industries which that western power controlled one hundred percent. And then, not too long thereafter, they were overthrown, in a coup d'etat which ended their fledgling democracy and enacted a long period of bloody suppression. About 24 years later, that government was also overthrown, and the country has been constantly painted as a threat ever since. The prime minister of the new government had previously been arrested by the very same western power which so pushed for his overthrow. Do you know what his crime was? Nazi sympathies. I'm sure you've already guessed which country I'm talking about. That, sir, is western capitalist "democracy," shown clear for all to see. No morality, no beliefs, nothing to back it but rampant unstopped greed, backed by corporate **** who manipulate its every foreign action and a large swath of its domestic action too. Reads like the incredibly one-sided opinion piece it is. Actually, I'm quite aware of history, and horrible leaders who were selected by the people and then had their powers expanded solely by democratic institutions don't come to mind. Explain further.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world...90731-e3i5.html For the People! A bloo bloo bloo. Yes, let's literally overthrow every government which manipulates its media. There is literally nothing better to do than replace a popular leader with a right-wing dictatorship. Chavez is extremely popular in Venezuela, and all expansions of his power were passed with public approval. But why don't you explain why the people can't be trusted to select their own leaders? And who we are supposed to trust to select them instead?