lord of flies

Where? I'd be happy for you to point it out, especially since communism is a subset of socialism, but I doubt I even made the 'mistake' of refering to the superset where I meant the subset. I think it's more probable that your understanding of socialism is confused. Most forms of socialism are vile and dangerous (whether communism or some random form of perpetual revolution). The only mildly acceptable form to my mind is socialist democracy (Venezuela, but its swiftly drifting off the tracks to pure socialism). A second-world democracy nationalizing local industries does not mean it is on a step towards authoritarianism, unless (of course) the US decides to fund fascist militants to overthrow the government. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, their Parliament was democratically elected, all the increases of power that Chavez has gotten were democratically gained, and if Chavez should be elected God-King of Venezuela, it will have been through democratic means. PS: Bush wasn't elected democratically, and he enacted authoritarian reforms which centralized power into the hands of a single, growingly autocratic, position. OH NO, AMERICA: TURNED TO FASCISM??? PPS: Most forms of capitalism are exploitative drek which crush the lower class, whether colonialist, neo-colonialist, imperialistic, or simply laissez-faire ****-the-poor stuff.

Hugo Chavez was democratically elected and all the increases in his power were voted on, which is more than you can say for most presidents of the United States (most presidents of the United States just grabbed power arbitrarily without any sort of vote, and four were elected against the popular vote). Stop being such a baby just because a poor country decided to rise up against the imperialist west and take their ****. "Oh no, not Venezuela nationalizing multinational corporations' local industries! This is such a crime! How dare the oppressed rise against their oppressors by theft!" Special Reminder: Venezuela has a higher HDI than Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama. Look up Operation Ajax. You are an idiot if you think a coup of any kind could be considered a "good idea," because who is actually going to lead an armed insurrection to overthrow a democratically elected leader? That's right: bad people.

Hmm, perhaps it was because they recognized that Russia was one of the most politically unstable countries in the world, and they were fighting a brutal war with her? So they sent in political dissidents and revolutionaries to allow themselves victory by destroying Russia? Meshugger: the fact that there are democratic processes in place to prevent routine bloodspilling, torture and genocide is irrelevant if they fail to actually prevent it (which they do).

Fall guys never exist in a totalitarian state? Anyway, you seem to be implying here that acts of genocide are somehow better if they're performed "democratically." How does that make the least bit of sense? As the old quote goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Trickle-down economics is a disgusting and terrible theory that has hurt the lower class in America. It is a vicious attack on their sovereignty, and on their ability to survive and protect their children, with the sole purpose of lining the rich's pockets. Americans in the bottom 7/10th in 1992 were making less money than they were in 1979. How does that work? Trickle-down economics is how. PS: Clinton? Come the **** on. A completely politicized attack is equivalent actual risk of justice? Name a president who was ever actually arrested for actual ****ing crimes. (Hint: You can't.) The crimes of US presidents are excused and pushed under the rug. How is historical revisionism better than considering an act a "necessary evil"? Both attempt to excuse terror and violence, just in different ways.

Yes, because when a democratic society, when its leaders engage in suppression of dissent, support for vile regimes and neo-colonialism, it is much more acceptable that when it happens in a totalitarian one, right? Wrong. These were not outliers. Name me a United States President, and I will tell you his crimes. Ronald Reagan? Afghanistan, the Mujahideen; Iran-Contra; supporting the terrorist Contras against the democratically-elected Sandinistas; "trickle down economics;" "Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine." George Washington passively sat by while innocent dissenters were lynched, he used the militia to put down protestors (and, of course, Indian Removal). Andrew Jackson overrode the Supreme Court, slaughtered thousands of American Indians with his Trail of Tears, and put the abolitionist cause back by a decade. It is the natural course of American "democracy" (which of course never considers the opinions of its imperialized, terrorized targets) to slaughter civilians, to murder children, to torture her supposed enemies, and to suppress dissent. From her birth till her death, she shall continue these things.

Hmm, a revolutionary government does some somewhat questionable things to remain in power? Perhaps you have heard of the lynching of Tories in revolutionary America, or the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France? And a few thousand civilians dead doesn't even match up to about the Mexican-American War (committed more than half a century prior, when there were much fewer people), much less the mass slaughter of civilians under US-backed dictatorships.

Yeah, except Lenin's "political adversaries" (the Whites) had just tried to repress him and the Soviets. Of course, I'm not sure this is actually true, so... Hmm, yet it seemed to take two quite undeveloped and underdeveloped nations and turned them into global superpowers. This is an inane idea. They would have realized that decades prior. I mean, Stalin ended paying farmers for a surplus. Sure, Soviet planning almost ended in Russian defeat. But French planning actually ended in French defeat, but no one uses that as an argument against republicanism. Perhaps the same could be said... of all leaders? Shall I speak of Woodrow Wilson's reign of terror, his brutal suppression of anti-war elements, and his entrance into a pointless, brutal colonialist ****-waving contest? Shall I talk, instead, of FDR's decision to put ethnic Japanese in camps? Andrew Jackson's institution of the gag rule, silencing opposition to slavery? Or perhaps of Jimmy Carter's funding of Indonesian suppression in East Timor? Ronald Reagan's entire presidency?

The USSR failed because its government allowed itself to become economically reliant on other (capitalist) powers, and capitalists withdraw at the slightest show of economic instability or the tiniest drop in commodity prices. Without that, the USSR faced sudden, rapid economic collapse. Imagine if your economy relied heavily on a single export... then that export suddenly dropped in value, and refused to recover. It doesn't matter whether you're a capitalist or a communist, you're pretty much ****ed. The Soviet Union achieved its greatest growth (under Stalin) when it was seeking economic isolation. Firstly, the Eastern Front of WW2 was one of its most brutal. Secondly, by 1937, the Soviet Union had become the second largest industrial nation in the world. At best, one could say that Russia's dominance was based upon the downfall of colonialism, but colonial regimes are based upon raw resources, not industrial power, and the independence of India was acheived well before then. If people are so terrible, why would you assume that the takeover of human society by the whole, rather than the individual, would somehow make things worse? The failure of the USSR no more means that communism is a failed ideology than the collapse of the First French Republic means that democracy is a failed ideology.

Yeah, communism was a terrible idea, and Stalin's successors pursued Stalinism, right? Then explain how come Russia went from the backwater of Europe to the unquestioned number two power in the world under Soviet rule. Explain why the fall of the Soviet Union coincided with a massive spike in mortality rates in Russia. Explain why Krushchev, only a few years after taking Stalin's job, made his Secret Speech wherein he decried Stalinism. You can't. It just made a comment about moral relativism (saying some people say Lenin was bad and Hitler was good) and Venom misunderstood it. It was in the Alpha Protocol forum, in my thread.

Okay, this has been bothering me for a while. Venom713 posted this a while back on my thread: Then I responded with: I sadly never got an answer. But seriously though... What crimes against humanity did Lenin commit?

I don't mean "eat babies" literally, but as a metaphor for "be a jerk for no reason." Can I, for example, purposefully give people poison instead of medicine, for no real gain? Can I manipulate my allies and get them to kill each other? Can I commit an act of genocide? I've been reconsidering this game, and I suppose most of it's design decisions aren't too bad, and I'm reconsidering a purchase, but if I can't be pure evil...

Oh. Oh I see. You're trolling me. Nice try, buddy, but you have all the classic signs of trolling (unlike me).

You don't really believe that! Stop lying! As the saying goes: Revelations, revelations, Twenty one eight, twenty one eight, Liars go to hell, liars go to hell, Burn burn burn, burn burn burn.

"Matt MacLean" sent me the following PM, and has since given me permission to repost it: Since I was right about that, what else was I right about, hmm? What could that mean?* Think about that before you post again. * It means I'm right all the time.

What, do you not believe me? Because if you don't, just come out and say it, don't hide behind sarcasm.

I can, but I'm not totally sure about PM etiquette, so, uh, I'm not going to post it.

Assuming, for a moment, that I am a troll (which I'm not), how do you explain the PM I got from a dev who said my "trolling" was "hilarious"? Hmm? I think the evidence shows it is you who is the worst troll ever.

You know what other game had unlimited ammo? That's right. Alien Hominid. You're such a whiner.

The game the game the game THE GAME the game THE GAME The Game the Game THE GAME the game the GaMe tHE gAME. Now, if this particular tangent is quite over with, can we get back on topic?

Let us suppose, for a moment, that I am a troll. I am obviously rather intelligent and aware of the game (if I do say so myself). As such, it seems to me that this hypothetical troll-me would actually be quite well informed of the game, perhaps even to the point of being a regular poster using a proxy. But which regular poster? Well, obviously, Walsingham. Of course, I am neither Walsingham, nor a troll, so this thought exercise is useless... or is it?* * It is.

"Take your opinions elsewhere on the internet!" you say. Pfft, I say. That is the same argument that YouTube LPers use to justify their atrocious LPs. Which was my point too. Yeah, you don't have to have sex with multiple women, but why would you play the game if you weren't going to? You said I was a fundamentalist. Those "two" people? What "crimes against humanity" did Lenin commit, exactly? Overthrowing the reactionary Provisional Government which had purposefully delayed elections and failed to end the war with Germany? The reason I opened with "it's going to be bad" is because when people say "I'm worried about X, Y, Z and F" they mean "I don't think this game is going to be any good," and I wanted to just cut to the chase. "Sorry." Uh, so he can sell him? Didn't you read my post? I specifically said that's why. Oh, so it's only if I'M "willing to have a decent discussion," Mr. "Calls the other guy an idiot"? "Stealth is waiting," buddy. If you don't have patience, don't use stealth. Maybe I enjoy this sort of frank criticism of video games, even if I don't find a game particularly appealing? Did you ever consider that?

Okay, look, would you stop calling me a troll? It doesn't contribute anything. Even if I was a troll, it wouldn't contribute anything. I thought this forum was for Speculation & Discussion, not Speculation & Calling People Trolls.

Yes, "you're a troll," definitely the most epic of all arguments. Pretty sure you can avoid a genocide if you don't like it. Why didn't those jews just move out of Germany (and Europe)? Hmm? Oh, so I can't complain about games I'm not going to buy, then? And? You don't have to commit crimes in GTA either. Ugh, yeah, all religious folks are "fundamentalists" and "trolls." Why do you insist on this persecution? And of course, good and evil are all relative, right? Like, hey, to some people, Hitler was good and Lenin was evil, so it's obviously "relative." Rolling my eyes again.

You can't see it, but I'm rolling my eyes so hard at your post my head is starting to hurt.

Isn't that a rather slippery slope? First it's "just a game" then it's "just television" then it's "just news" then it's "just politics" and before you know it it's "just genocide." As I said, "it's gonna be terrible." You don't seem to be really disagreeing with me. Terrible internet memes merely mark you out as a 4channer, not as an insightful person. It isn't a joke.