Jump to content

LexusInfernus

Member
  • Content Count

    2,950
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

1 Follower

About LexusInfernus

  • Rank
    Clerk of Red Tape

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere below sea level
  • City-building game(s)
    SimCity 4
    Cities: Skylines
    SimCity (2013)
    Cities XXL
    Cities XL
    Banished
    SimCity BuildIt
    SimCity Societies
    SimCity 3000
    SimCity 2000
    SimCity Classic
    Other

Recent Profile Visitors

962 Profile Views
  1. Industries of Titan

    That looks really cool! I've put it on my wishlist on Steam
  2. President Donald Trump and his Administration

    Yes, its probably possible that every statue ever made offends at least one person. But just because you get offended over something doesn't mean you got a cause. Not all criticisms over statues are equal simply because they are criticisms. Some types of criticism carry more weight and have a much better and stronger cause than others. And people going after statues that revise history, downplay the fact a war was fought over slavery and praise the side that was pro slavery and explicitly racist? Yeah, hard to find a stronger cause. So, do not equate a person disliking the Statue of Liberty because they hate freedom with someone hating a revisionist statue of General Lee. Those are two completely different leagues.
  3. President Donald Trump and his Administration

    As a rule, I do not support violence against people I disagree with, but that has its limits. Groups that advocate violence against other people that disagree with their views for example. And make no mistake, the radical right advocates exactly that. They are on par with groups like ISIS in terms of their lack of morality. If they believed they could get away with it, they too would be gruesomely murdering their enemies and post sickening videos of it on the internet. So yeah, I do not particularly care if nazis at a protest get beaten up. The legally arranged protest was declared illegal after the first night so if anything the police should have been tear gassing them and shooting them with rubber bullets. And for once the police showed restraint. If this had been a BLM protest, they would have forcibly dispersed the protest. But perhaps that is because BLM protesters are generally unarmed so its safe to shoot them with rubber bullets. These nazis were openly waving their guns around, so perhaps the police was afraid that if they intervened with force, those idiots would lose their cool and started gunning down police officers. That would be a first, the police being afraid for their lives and not using that excuse to gun people down. White supremacy belongs in the gutter, so throwing it there is just natural. The allies used brute force to bring the fascist beast down in the Second World War. Does that mean that the allies were just as bad as the Nazis they fought? Currently the coalition is using brute force to destroy ISIS. Does that mean that the people who shoot ISIS soldiers are just as bad as the ISIS soldiers? Of course not, that is completely removing every bit of context from the conflict. The allies occupy the moral high ground even when they firebombed Dresden and Tokyo. Why? Because they were fighting people that started the war, that devised genocide on an industrial scale, that ran horrible experiments on living human beings and that propagated an ideology that excused, justified or even praised the atrocities they committed. If people think that the Nazis are Allies were equally morally bankrupt then I question their understanding of morality. And while certainly some of the factions fighting against ISIS are morally just as bankrupt as ISIS, its not because they are killing ISIS soldiers. And the Western members of the Coalition against ISIS do occupy the moral high ground. Why? Because again, they are fighting people that started a war, gleefully and sadistically murder innocent people for the most trivial reasons, revel in their barbarity by posting their snuff porn all over the internet, run a highly organised sex slave ring, destroy the regions history and hold hundreds of thousands of innocent people hostage. America has to sink extremely low before they are morally on par with ISIS. Motive and context matters when examining morality. It is simply not enough to do a superficial comparison of methods when examining the morality of two fighting parties. I always found that form of pacifism, where non violence is turned into a point of misplaced pride to be morally bankrupt. These pacifists are fine with millions of people getting butchered by people who do not give a damn about morality, just so they don't have to get their hands dirty. Their pride is more important to them than the lives of other people. Obviously its better to try and resolve a conflict peacefully. But for those who value peace, its also an undeniably reality that the choice for war is not one they can make. There are those who don't care enough for peace or who don't mind war as a way to get what they want. These people decide whether there will be peace or not, so as the saying goes, if you want peace, prepare for war. Well, the fact that this hypothetical church doesn't organize events or protests that promote their homophobic bigotry makes all the difference. You'll note that Nazis are free to hold their little gatherings on private property as well and that generally no counter protesters show up to disturb those. And if antifas show up to raid a nazis private property I wouldn't support them on that, just like I wouldn't support protesters to raid the homophobic church. And if they do organize a non violent protest, well a non violent counter protest would be the best counter to that. But should they threaten or begin a fight with the counter protesters, well the counter protesters can and should fight back. I agree, I find the American liberal focus on the idea that everyone who voted Trump is a racist a dumb oversimplification, and it makes me worry that the democrats and American liberals in general will learn nothing from their defeat. I think its a symptom of the ever increasing divide between left and right and the have's and have not's in America. It represents an inability and unwillingness to listen and empathize to the other side and to reach a compromise. Instead each side just creates their own narrative that sits comfortable with them, and less and less people are willing to look at the other side as 'also Americans'. If this trend continues and each side dehumanizes the other side more and more, another civil war will be inevitable and America will break apart. Alright, little thought experiment. Say that this protest wasn't organized by Nazis and White Supremacists, but by Jihadists. Imagine if there was this group of guys with long beards, and dresses, some of them heavily armed, waving the ISIS flag, protesting against the US's fight against ISIS and arguing that infidels should be killed or forcibly converted. Would anyone argue that Jihadists should be allowed to organize a protest like that? And then one of them got in a car and plowed into a group of counter protesters, you think the police wouldn't have arrested everyone at the protest, shot everyone who resisted and have them all tried for 'terrorist activities'? And who would blame them, that would be common sense. But no, these guys are white people so they get treated with gloves on even if they are from the white peoples equivalency of ISIS. No, I don't think it would end racism or stop these hate groups. But they would be on the margins of society and completely powerless. That is sufficient. How hard is it for the president of the United States to condemn Nazis and White Supremacists? Well, pretty hard apparantly because Trump couldn't do it. It took him days and only then he basically placed equal blame on counter protesters. Obviously Trump can't openly endorse Nazis and White Supremacist, but what he did is about as close you can get as a politician. And the Nazis certainly got the message, accepting that Trump just basically endorsed what they just did.
  4. President Donald Trump and his Administration

    You assume that both sides are equal, that there is some level of parity between them. They are not. There is no parity. One side is hateful scum, the other side is anti hateful scum. One side advocates, supports, promotes and justifies violence against people because they aren't white, the other side is against the group that advocates, supports, promotes and justifies violence against people because they aren't white. If the nation is a human body, then White Supremacists and nazis are a deadly virus and everyone who counter protests them the White blood cells and anti-bodies that protect the body from harm. There is no equivalency between the two. And what part of this protest gave you the idea that it was illegal to be a racist in the US? The part where the police lined up against the heavily armed neo nazis and absolutely butchered them because they posed a clear threat to the public safety of everyone? Or how about the part where they promptly shot every nazi beating up a black guy with poles in a parking lot? Oh right...they only do that when the protesters are black and unarmed. Sorry, but every moment that protest went on without the police wiping the floor with them just proved how much it is still legal to be a disgusting racist in America. It's not, but nazis are about the closest thing to an exception to that rule. Mostly because they themselves are vocal advocates of suspending that rule. Where were they? Never heard of the birther movement spearheaded by the current president? Or Fox News? And those were just the mainstream racists. No one is telling these White Supremacists its against the law to believe what they believe. Because there are no laws that say such a thing. And you seem to be confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. Freedom of speech simply means the government can't tell you what to say and what not to say. It means that if Nazis hold a protest, the police can't just gun down everyone at that protest because they are nazis. It means the government can't use violence against you because you proclaim to believe certain things. However, freedom of speech does not mean that other people can't vehemently disagree with what you are saying. In fact, freedom of speech means that those people have as much right to tell these Nazis to sod off as those Nazis have to hold their little gatherings. And there are a lot of people in America who believe Nazis are utterly disgusting racists and who wish to make it absolutely clear to everybody that they do not support the views that these White Supremacists hold. That is Free Speech too.
  5. World Affairs

    The theory is not actually mutually exclusive to the practice. Punching above your weight in this context just means punching above your weight in military terms. In case of a hot war, using nuclear weapons at your disposal allows you to inflict much more damage and casualties on your victim. The fact that its a suicidal move is irrelevant, you still would have done more damage to your enemy than you would have if you didn't have nukes. As for the practice, sorry but there is no evidence to support that claim. Only a handful of countries have nukes. The United States, Russia, China, France, the UK, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Of those countries, I would only classify Pakistan and North Korea as 'small' in terms of power and relative military capabilities. So far neither have had an open conflict that was the result of their nuclear ambitions and whatever hostilities they engaged in where there long before they ever got their hands on a nuke. So far, no nation with nuclear weapons has been defeated in open conflict, if North Korea falls it will be a historical first. Hell, even the amount of open conflicts involving nuclear powers are pretty minimal. Only the US and Russia have really gotten into open conflicts with other nations, all of which did not have nuclear weapons, and all of those conflicts were relatively low intensity conflicts. And while there have been more nations who tried to develop a nuclear weapon themselves, all of them have stopped after being persuaded by either peaceful talks or economic sanctions. Not war. As for North Korea being no threat, meh. Rationally they shouldn't be because self preservation demands deescalation. But this isn't a rational world and nuclear weapons are a huge risk due to their destructive power. So don't be to quick to dismiss this as a non threat. Furthermore, Kim constantly needs to one up himself to get the world to pay attention to him. He walks a very thin tightrope and it is not inconceivable that one day he misses a step....
  6. Simtropolis 9.0 Site Upgrade

    Just wanted to say I like the new look! Very stylish
  7. Money and Circuses

    Or watch womens soccer. None of them trip over their feet only so they can demand a penalty. Hell, during the match between Belgium and the Netherlands two ladies bumped heads, and instead of wussing out they just got some bandages and played on like pro's. Though the absolutely insane amounts of money that switch hands in these transfers does beg the question to what degree society should pay up for the costs of it. Who exactly is paying for a new stadium? And who pays for all the police that are present to secure these matches? Are it the clubs or the government and by extension, the tax payer.
  8. World Affairs

    Whats the point of annexing a puppet state exactly? You are already in control, so why bother with annexation. That costs money and gains you nothing you didn't already have. Also, stockpiling military assets near a border doesn't have to mean much. Throughout the cold war NATO had massive amounts of stockpiles near the East German border, it never meant they were about to attack East Germany. Though it is a nice way of saying 'keep of my lawn'.
  9. World Affairs

    Wait wait wait, China invaded Bhutan? Where did you get that? All I can find is that Chinese and Indian troops jostled with each other. And that this is part of a border dispute between Bhutan and China (Inda backs Bhutan) that has been going on for decades. That doesn't sound like much of an invasion to me. Also, war isn't likely. No one stands to gain anything from escalating this to an actual war.
  10. The refugee crisis

    Yes and no. Refugees (as defined by UN conventions) are fleeing violence, war or prosecution. To say that they should stay because they are the better off and better educated segment of society and therefor the only ones capable making something of their country is incorrect. When a war rages in your home country or you run the risk of imprisonment, torture and execution because of who you are, you can't really expect these people to make a positive difference. Perhaps when the war is over or they are no longer prosecuted, then yes. But until then, its stupid to tell these refugees that they should return home and make that place better. Economic migrants, people who try to go to Europe because they want a better job or make more money, and not because of the situation in their home country is life threatening, well they are perhaps better off staying at home. Brain drain is a serious problem in their case. Then again, these people are not recognized as refugees and they are usually told to return home. Problem is then that its pretty difficult to send people home, as their home country often refuses to take these people back in.
  11. Feminism and religion

    No, they just make it difficult for you to be a journalist or an academic (in certain fields). But if you are an academic or journalist, you can still get a nice career in politics going.
  12. Feminism and religion

    Yes, but sometimes there are good reasons to suppress someones right to self determination. Like with drugs, the problem is that drug abuse increases crime. From robberies by junks who need cash to pay for their next fix, to things like manslaughter because someone who is under the influence drives his car into another car or enters a psychotic rage and kills someone. Those crimes are much more severe breaches into the self determination of the victims of such crimes. Hence governments regulate these types of things. Also, having an opinion is never a detriment to someones ability to self determine. Separation of power is for the government, not social movements. And why can't a social movement have an academic base as well? If you want to change the world for the better, you need to determine what exactly 'for the better' means. For that you need to do observations and analysis. That way one can determine what goes wrong where and what could possibly help with fixing it. Just yelling you want change and rely on your gut feeling and political instinct on what would be good change is stupid and usually results in the idiocy of populism. Also no, if you try to change what you observe, why would it lead to a self fulfilling circle? If the changes you make don't work, your observations should show that it doesn't work. Not a single advanced country on the planet makes it difficult for academics or journalists to enter into politics if they so desire. And why should they? Being a scientist is a career and you are free to switch careers when you want in a free country.
  13. Feminism and religion

    Well there is the problem. People who simply use feminism. The politicians that ban burkini's or headscarfs, supposedly to liberate the women beneath them. All the while failing to realize they are white guys with the power of the state telling women how they should dress. These people use feminist arguments but they are the exact opposite of feminists. This is the patriarchy co-opting feminist arguments to protect itself and its interests. Therefor, the problem isn't that feminists and feminism present their ideas or goals in the wrong way because these aren't feminists or feminist ideas or goals. The problem is and remains the patriarchy.
  14. President Donald Trump and his Administration

    Now Trump tweets that Transgenders can't serve in the military anymore after having talked it through with a bunch of generals, citing 'costs'. Well, can you be more of an asshole then by effectively firing thousands of people serving in your army and helping the country remain safe, than by doing it through a tweet? And for such a lame excuse? What costs? Transgender soldiers are hardly more expensive and if you can justify spending over a billion dollars on a shitty airplane, cost is no longer an excuse. Although of course, to that waste of human flesh that somehow became Commander in Chief, shiny expensive toys are probably more important than the people he is responsible for. Also, apparently the Pentagon wasn't aware that this policy shift was coming up, so that bit where Trump talked about it with his generals was probably a lie.
  15. Stellaris

    I played it a bit and I think its a meh game. Mostly the way they try to balance stuff just flies in the face with the narrative the game is trying to set up. Yes, I understand that from a gameplay perspective its unbalanced if the player can recruit countless big scientists or generals or politicians. But at the same time, I'm playing as a species that has mastered its homeworld and is in the process of setting up an interstellar empire. Are you really telling me that a homeworld that has a few billion inhabitants only produces 10 people smart enough to be a scientist/general/politician? That kind of limited access to 'hero' characters makes sense in a game set in a pre industrial setting focusing on nations instead of interstellar empires. And honestly, games like Endless Space also give you limited access to hero characters, but at leas there its not absolutely necessary to have one on your scouting units or researching new tech. In a game like Endless Space it also makes heros actually special because your entire empire isn't depended on them to run the show. But really, this problem, as well as all the other artificial barriers that Stellaris keeps throwing at you. And while there is a way to push the barriers, the fact that they are so prominently there and are so completely out of touch with the narrative keeps me from remaining interested for more than an hour or two.
×