lord of flies

Yes, the Iranians will... what? Invade us? Shoot us with their nonexistent nuclear weapons? Iran is not a threat. Iran is not a threat. Iran is not a threat. As time goes on, the classification "white" in the US has consistently gotten larger and larger. At first, it encompassed western europeans, much of the populous there was not considered "white," and ethnic conflicts were very major. Then we added "Irish" and "German" to the list of ethnicities which are proper whites, and we treated the Japanese as though they were white in 1905 (speaking internationally, of course). At present, Americans tend to see the world in two primary shades - white and brown. Persians are beginning to be considered "white" because of their light skin and moderately advanced country. PS: technically arabs are white in America, even if folks don't tend to think of them that way. Yes, because rich Americans need money way more than people in Latin America do. :roll: Your country was built on the backs of the people of Indonesia. Of course, we see yet another person viewing my leftism as "Marxism." Marx was a big dumb baby. There, I said it. I am anti-imperialist, I am a socialist, but I am not a Marxist. His theories were built on false facts (bourgeoisie getting smaller as time went on) and ludicrous idealism. It took actual statesmen to make communism a cohesive ideology. My top choice for helping Africa:1) Recognize the political and economic sovereignty of its peoples, and target aid at countries with better human rights records (rather than the other way around, like it currently works). 2) Stop the ****ing neo-colonialism in Afghanistan, killing civilians in droves in some vague idea of "war" and try to acheive some kind of non-victory scenario by replacing the tribal chiefs and fundamentalist government with tribal chiefs and a new fundamentalist government.

There's nothing "new or interesting" about Iran not being a democracy (it hasn't been since the 1953 US-supported coup), either. Please explain. Red herring/ad hominem, my personal effect on Africa has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Georgia v. Russia: very important. Ethiopia v. Somalia: not important. Genocide of Kosovans: important. Genocide in East Timor: not important. Government of Iran not being a democracy: important. Government of [insert country here] not being a democracy: not important. What connects these? Hmmm... Name one which is independent of colonialism or neocolonialism. I assume you mean Latin America, correct? Obviously ill children in the US don't really need much help since any day now (lol) we'll get around to it.

What the -- mentioning race when it's relevant??? He must be a RACIST!!! Seriously, when was the last time the US media ignored a genocide/major war in a white-people country? Why do you think Americans are so rich and can give more money than everyone else??? Hint: neo-colonialism, which is centered on Africa and Latin America. Wrong again, most of the posts in this thread are about me/my opinions, which makes this thread about me. If I can change just one person here's opinion, my positive effect on sub-saharan Africa will be doubled over my lifetime. Do the math - a few minutes time wasted before going to sleep is nothing in comparison.

Wrong again. People might be interested in hearing that Michael Jackson is dead, sure, but bam, I just informed you that Michael Jackson is dead without distracting you for days from the world around you. People can care about a thing: it's all about presentation. Tie it to them - the American government or American corporations. This isn't hard, as neo-colonialism is a good chunk of the reason Africa is such a ****hole, and everyone is involved (other reasons include gaining real exposure to western culture in 1880, and old-school colonialism). Put it hard, don't let them think it's not so bad; ****ing put pictures up of little girls who've had nails driven into their heads by their families and are now mentally retarded. And, if you care to push this into social consciousness, keep it going indefinitely. One could easily say that "people don't want to hear about horrific treatment of enemy POWs," but yet Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo Bay became major issues. Why? Because the media kept on it. Media skim stories from each other so much that you could easily keep this going around if you make people OUTRAGED about it. This thread does not belong to bourgeoisie clowns, it belongs to the people. It was a dumb topic anyway, no one will miss "June 2009 is way worse than June 2003 because some rich white people died." It's been months since I last bought a video game, and I give most of my disposable income to charity. What now? There's plenty of USAID going to Latin America too (targeted at the more repressive regimes because of corporate influence), doesn't mean that the US has had a positive effect in ANY WAY on Latin America.

On the contrary; the death of a random African child is newsworthy. It is newsworthy because it happens every day, and many times every day. It is newsworthy because it can be corrected. It is newsworthy because it is something that is evil and terrible and wrong in the world that can be fixed with political and economic action that is never tried because Americans are distracted with "Michael Jackson died" and the corporate shills in congresses and parliaments worldwide have no reason to do anything with their public so mollified, and can thusly continue to get contributions from the most disgustingly oppressive corporations in return for never bringing it up.

Every death is a tragedy, but the death of a bourgeoisie clown whose sole purpose in life is to distract the proles from the US' imperialism is not as bad as that of the African child whose father died mining Coltan so you could watch low-quality Youtube videos of Michael Jackson's song on your own computer. Hey, Christopher Reeves! Get off your high horse! Heh. But seriously, the only good thing Christopher Reeve ever did was push donations to charities which could help him with his condition, after he got his condition. Still a bourgeoisie clown. "Ooh, look, Superman! Golly, this is reinforcing my black-white, cold war era mentality which ended several democratic regimes!" *ignores the fact that one of the few just wars is going on in Vietnam v. Cambodia*

Every death is a tragedy, but the death of a bourgeoisie clown whose sole purpose in life is to distract the proles from the US' imperialism is not as bad as that of the African child whose father died mining Coltan so you could watch low-quality Youtube videos of Michael Jackson's song on your own computer.

They support the capitalist system, and by putting undue emphasis on their lives we prioritize them before those who truly need our help. There is really not much you can do to make a celebrity die later; you can, however, help the impoverished in the third world. PS: As you read this post, another African child died.

Every time somebody cries about a dead celebrity, a child in Africa dies from starvation, murder, or disease.

Guilty until proven innocent, then still guilty right? He was tried in a criminal court of law and found Not Guilty on all charges. You can say "odds are" that he was a child molester, but you're wrong.

Seen it already. Thanks for contributing, though! Who?

Did you know: the same political party which opposes Affirmative Action in the United States (the Republican Party) draws its biggest support (its "base," if you will) from the states which voted against the ERA and seceded from the US over slavery? I'm sorry, I don't think this is "pattern searching." Yeah, there are probably more things which hurt the ability of blacks to compete on equal footing with whites. The comics were ruined long before I got here. A couple more: Ed's Note: "Jewish town on the West Bank" refers to illegal, government-supported settlements made in violation of international law which represent a clear attempt to colonize Palestine and eliminate the Palestinian people. You cannot settle an occupied territory: it is against the law.

War in Iraq. The 2002 attempted coup of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Edit: Oh yeah, and this whole thing in Madagascar (happening RIGHT NOW) reeks of neocolonialism because no one in the West is recognizing the new regime just because it canceled some one-sided deals.

Welcome, one and all. Prepare thyself, for this is Satan's thread. Unless you are prepared to be shocked, enraged, and traumatized by the realization that amongst you live modern fascists, regressives and reactionaries, turn back. Turn back now, before you read! For this, the child of El Diablo himself, is the most heinous of images: terrible political cartoons. To get the ball rolling, here are five. This is an actual cartoon someone was paid to make. There are no more words about it that can be said. It makes a mockery of the idea that America is a "sexless" society. Universal health care is literally the Holocaust. Liberal fascists. Need I go on? This cartoon was drawn by a white man. That black character is literally just a way for him to expound his racing views without seeming quite so bad. No, sir, they're apologizing for slavery. Condaleeza Rice, Colin Powell, even Clarence Thomas at one point or another spoke praise for affirmative action. This is because they aren't racist southerners. Oh **** I just remembered this cartoon. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! **** we're going to invade Iran, **** **** ****. America's new foreign policy: resort to force... at will. Not particularly egregious (by comparison), but it is a representative sample of "Heh, global warming? It's cold outside, LIEberals" cartoons, of which there are like a million. Contribute your own! Feel the deep pain in your soul as everything you love is destroyed! Good political cartoons are welcome. But before we go, here's a little "light at the end of the tunnel" for you all...

I believe in one of the dev diaries it was explained that players get to choose MT's motivations (patriotism, vengeance, and thrill seeking being the examples used in the video). After this discussion, plain ole' vengeance sounds more interesting than saving the world....ooo maybe there will be a critical moment where we get to choose personal vengeance over saving the world....I totally want to play this game now. Oh, of course "patriotism," also known as nationalism, the bane of all right-thinking lovers of freedom and equality. Hey, Rorie, you never answered my ****ing question! JESUS ANSWER ALREADY. Also: 29 million Indians starved under British rule as a direct consequence of their dogmatic commitment to laissez-faire capitalism. That's more people than were killed in the holocaust, or under the entire administration of Soviet Russia under Stalin (STALIN!).

Yeah, we live in a "post-colonial era," right... I've got some oceanside property to sell in Nevada. You interested?

What if you have sex with your girlfriend, but you pretend you're raping her, and she pretends too?

Pretend sexual assault and pretend murder aren't, however. Did you know that some people consensually engage in pretend sexual assault with their significant other? It's true. But I guess that's "not OK" by your definition of it?

Wrong. I don't know what kind of dumb moral system you're building this around, but I'm a utilitarian, so let's go with that. Rapelay hurts, literally, no one. It does not hurt the player. It does not hurt any women. It does not hurt the women in the game, because they are not real. They cannot be hurt. They do not feel pain, or pleasure, or anything. They are fictional, just like the people you blow up in Postal, just like the people you shoot in Mass Effect, just like the people you cut up in Knights of the Old Republic PS: All soldiers, save those who sign up during a defensive war, are murderers. They knowingly, willingly signed themselves up to kill people, and not in self-defense or defense of another. They chose to side with military unilateralism and engage in an activity that inevitably leads to starvation, rape and death amongst the populace.

Oh yeah? What if I stand still for ten minutes? Didn't think of that, did you?

Here's my constructive criticism: the game looks terrible! The AI looks retarded, the animations look clunky, the gameplay looks thoroughly meh, and invisibility? Go back to the drawing board, Obsidian! Here's a list of what I would change about this game: Everything

Hmm, yes, a given country can lose a war. But when was the last time a first world country lost a defensive war on their own soil? Was it... World War 2? And were the losers the ones who started it? Yes, they were? I don't believe I ever said that reason factors into it, did I? As I recall, I said The doctrine of not declaring was is not in and of itself moral, it is a reasoned response to the fact that war is ****ing terrifyingly bad. The total people killed on the Eastern Front of WW2 rivals the greater holocaust, and dwarfs the Shoah. And that's one front of the war. Also, come on - Iraq? Hmm, did you notice that the US was allied with South Korea, and North Korea started the war? Hmm, I wonder what that means? If you want to put it in the most blatantly biased way, sure. "Hope" is the wrong word, however. Do you really think that most people who die during a war are soldiers? Do you not realize that North Korea has nuclear weaponry? Yes. Yes it ****ing would be that high. No, I have made a carefully considered moral judgment, laid out in this very post.

Yes, I responded with Germany attacked first. Because they did. That's what separates Germany from most other countries. To say that warfare is a valid, moral means of achieving your political agenda implies that the declaration, the starting of warfare is such. If I say that shooting someone is a valid, moral means to stop them from dating your sister, it's more-or-less assumed that I'm not talking in self-defense. When you start a war, it is quite a different thing than when your opponent starts a war. There is always the possibility of political compromise outside of warfare. Even the most ideologically opposed and rivaling countries can compromise and even totally politically convert via nonviolent, economic means: see the USSR more-or-less adopting the US' political ideology. Show me where I said you can't exact political change via violent means? I have no illusions about that. I have a firm, grounded belief that political change by starting violence is immoral, and is also ineffective in comparison to other methods.

It is a bad thing, but there are certainly solutions that the USA can pursue which are not war. Firstly, they can establish trade with North Korea, enabling them to push reforms on the government (which is currently in massive debt), which worked to great success with the USSR. Secondly, they can covertly aid members of the current power structure in overthrowing the current government in a coup, which is a whole lot riskier and could easily result in a civil war, but might be necessary given juche. Thirdly, they can covertly fund local militants, which will more-or-less certainly result in a civil war which could result in NK deploying its nuclear weapons. Clearly, here, the best option is the first. War would only end in a quagmire, kill civilians in bombings, cause North Korea to use its nuclear weapons, and lead to even more starvation as the infrastructure of the nation is destroyed. It was already tried, and it was an utter failure.