Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
While Germany didn’t really get to keep territory, and lost some- one of the major popular goals with the people going in was to get the unilateral and abusive WW1 treaty stipulations relaxed- that goal was accomplished. In fairness- much of the recovery post war was in large part due to wealth accumulated through “spoils” during the war- so in part the modern German prosperity is owed to stollen wealth- but I can’t say much as an American. Neither can the UK, many South Africans, Australians.... the list goes on. Basically every modern democracy is based on stealing from people who have more- which was Hitlers main plan with annexing territory- so the Nazis lost, the Germans won, and everyone lost because war is a waste of human potential, life, resources... it’s just a waste and should always be avoided if that is an option.
Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
WW2 turned Germany into a technological, economic, power house. The Nazis were by and large cleaned up (until “denazification” became a real PITA and everyone more or less dropped it except for the worst criminals of the war..) and a new and stable German government emerged that has endured to this day- with problems like any government, but better than the Kaiser imperial system and better by far than Nazis.
Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
But in another odd way- Germany was somewhat a “winner” in WW2. The Nazis lost. But while most Nazis were German- not all were, and while many Germans were Nazis- most Germans really weren’t. So Germany was a winner. The developments of the war and the war economy turned around many of Germany’s misfortunes from post WW1 treaties and the depression/hyper inflation. Not wanting to set the stage for a WW3 in a few decades- this time the allies didn’t brutalize a battered Germany and instead helped lift it up- helped of course by the fact that the West and the Communists were both using German post war recovery to try and show off and win favor like two immature divorced parents.
Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Oddly- I do somewhat disagree with your tally though. I’d say Germany most certainly was amongst the losers of WW1. Most combatants suffered dearly- but of the major powers involved- Germany came out of the war humiliated, castrated, it’s government and social structure in ruins- setting the stage for WW2, but also causing massive poverty and suffering to the nation- which in a less philosophical way- “lost” by surrender.
Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
I would largely agree that war in general usually doesn’t actually have a “winner” in that sense- but WW1 was a particularly brutal war, and really compared to many other wars- even the more dubious ones- of the 20th century was just... the causes and goals and end effects... war is a waste- but WW1 was a waste that stands out amongst waste.
Good job 6 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Then... why not just buy pringles? If that’s what the market wanted- it’s what we would have. Of course- Lays DOES make their own “chips in a can” like pringles. They just aren’t as popular.
Fishy Fun Day #51: Poem Game Edition 51 comments
Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
For example- the imperial occupation f the Balkans- well... after WW1 when the monarchy in Germany was dissolved and the Balkans freed.... well... how has uh... how’s history been in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Croatia...? WW1 Germany wasn’t doing what Post communist Soviets was as far as the bad shit. So I dunnoh if we can call it a win for Serbia in WW1 even if they managed to kick out the Kaiser.
Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
But if WW3 were to break out today- we have to wonder who the combatants would be and why they’d be fighting- and who would Germany side with? Against Russia or China- it would probably side with America. Against the UK.... probably against. But... there is a big question about WHAT the fight will be about before we can say who is “right” or “wrong.”
Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Well- here’s a spoiler- Germany lost WW1. The Germans only entered the way to start because they were allies to Austria and Hungary; and there is a complex history there- but AH had annexed many Balkan territories for a couple hundred years at this point. Austria/Germany/Hungary were still in the empire days- not yet shifted to egalitarian democracy. It is all more complex than all that- but WW1, Germany weren’t the good guys or the bad guys inherently.
Antiquarian soft Sardine 21 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
If we are only taking about world wars- it’s not really worth worrying about Germany “winning” a Third World War because we don’t know who’s side they’ll be on- they may be the “hero” of the story that is WW3. Ww2 is pretty straightforward. The Germans were Nazis, and their winning would just be bad there. But WW1....?
Go away 5 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Yeah. Lol. This one always bothers me. We don’t have to talk about wether pedophilia is a mental illness, we don’t have to compare it to other behaviors society sees, or has traditionally seen as abhorrent and come around to embrace. It’s real simple. Beyond some type of hopefully image morality and evolutionary instinct saying it’s wrong- every shred of scientific, biological, medical evidence we have, says very clearly, children cannot give informed consent for sex. Psychology isn’t a “hard science” but if also says that it’s harmful to children. There isn’t a moral or philosophical or other debate you can have on pedophile acceptance- get hard data to prove it isn’t harmful. Get the majority of the scientific and medical communities to accept the data, then maybe we could talk. It isn’t going to happen though- the data will not support the conclusion. Human minds and bodies aren’t fully developed until after adulthood.
China baaaad 5 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
And if you are 100% cynical of the United States or still don’t see the distinction there- here’s a simple fact for you- the American people have enough to deal with when our own government interferes in our elections and tries to subvert media and society- if we already have one massive government to worry about listening in on us, already have one government to fight for our rights- why would we want to have to worry about 2? That’s like owning a dog that bites you and shits on your bed, so saying “well- I guess I may as well go buy a bear...” no fool. Now you have 2 big problems. Focus on training your dog better without also worrying about what the bear is going to do.
China baaaad 5 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Again, it’s a travesty we’ve allowed privacy to be eroded to the point it has been- but we don’t have vans in every town with government agents monitoring all the communications and waiting to grab people who say things the government doesn’t like. Ever been to China? Especially Rural China? That’s not an exaggeration. There’s a reason the entire HK zone flipped out when China declared they’d be enforcing mainland law there. Ask the guy who runs the Tiananmen Square museum about that one.
·
Edited 5 years ago
China baaaad 5 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Now realize, that you went online and posted something criticizing US surveillance and government policy, and insinuated that they are no better or even worse than a foreign government. Then realize that even if no one read it or cared- that somewhere some US surveillance and intelligence program may we’ll have seen that. Now- realize that IF you even had access to post this in China- that someone almost certainly would see it and care, and you may be in for some unpleasantness for speaking your peace. And that is a BIG difference.
China baaaad 5 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
You can SAY that “well- the Chinese government isn’t a rival to ME, they don’t like the US government, they don’t have a problem with me!” Oh yeah? And Stalin was our buddy when we both didn’t like the Nazis, but once they were gone- without a common enemy we weren’t friends. China won’t be nice to you. You are different. Ask the people in Hong Kong- many of whom are Chinese ancestry- ask the Uygher or the Tibetans etc etc about how swell China is at dealing with people who are different than what they want their society to be.
China baaaad 5 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Well.... yeah. I mean, don’t get me wrong- I do not care for the level of surveillance or breaches of privacy we have today- especially from the government or corporations. That said- the attitude here is foolish and dangerous. As messed up as our government can be, as much as individuals can abuse it to look out for their own interests- your own government is theoretically the only government that actually has any reason to care about your well being. So if our own companies and government are questionable on wether we trust them with our data- why the hell would you trust a government that is actively a rival to you and your government?
1
Individual rights always come first! 6 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
So... we can argue about wether you’re a moron to get stung by bees- especially in cases where you can potentially become a multimillionaire for it- but when it comes to covid... bee stings aren’t contagious. If you get stung the bee isn’t going to stealthily cling to you and then start stinging people at the grocery store and then laying hidden eggs to go do that some more. So I mean... kinda funny comic, but sort of an example of how metaphor is often not a good tool for debate or counter, since they can be imprecise and vague.
▼
Individual rights always come first! 6 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
I mean... I get what they’re trying to say, and it’s both humorous in that light and something I can support... but this cartoon is a mess. We can say the guy is dumb- but is his business if he gets stung by bees- that’s the sort of thing that made the guys from Jack Ass rich and famous. Johnny Knoxville has had a profitable film career in high profile movies like MIB and Dukes of Hazzard among many other films. Before he decided to do stupid things for money- he was a struggling actor in commercials who was 29 and likely to have missed the boat on the “immature comedy” breakthrough that most guys in the genre hit when they are closer to the same age as the primary fans of their material.
Bernie bro was the accident 6 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Tl:dr- marketing, or distorted self image. If it walks like a duck and eats like a duck and looks like a duck and hangs out with ducks... but it makes sounds like a donkey... smart money is to assume it’s a duck that’s a little off and not a tiny donkey that looks and acts like a duck.
3
Bernie bro was the accident 6 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Of course... the problem there would be that if we are talking about who gets elected.... in a democracy... the “system” that doesn’t let people like him in to lower offices like Mayor.... would be... the will of the people electing a representative to speak on their behalf...? So... I guess what he is saying is that he isn’t someone who most of society would choose to be in charge and look out for them? Well... add prophecy to his list of talents because every run he’s made at President- that’s exactly what voters have said.
1
Bernie bro was the accident 6 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
Well maybe he’s referring to the fact that there aren’t a lot of rich liberals with social justice backgrounds and sympathies in positions of power? Oh.... there are? Well... well... what I’m sure he MEANS is that the system, traditionally doesn’t elect those people, but generally favors candidates who even though liberal- are conservative by comparison. You know.. like social progressives with more conservative financial ideas?
1
Bernie bro was the accident 6 comments
guest_
· 5 years ago
No, no. You heard him. They very rarely let someone like him in. How often do you hear about middle class New Yorkers making it in politics or... oh. Ok. We... HE WENT TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL! HA! What did you say? Other people who made it in as Alumni at his school include other Senators like Barbara Boxer, Nobel Laureate Stanley Cohen, Famous writer, producer, actor... etc Mel Brooks, and Attorney Alan Dershowitz.. amongst others? Well....maybe they don’t let people “in” like John Lewis- who sanders worked with on civil rights! Wait... Lewis is a bit of an insider... and... the Clintons also worked with him.... oh. Well that’s still “rare” right...?
2
