BrythonLexi

Well, you did it. You took my one chance at happiness and crushed it, crushed it into tiny bite sized pieces. I really did expect better of you, but I guess i'm a loser for that too. Don't bother beiging me tomorrow, i'll tell them you all won in a triumphant march. So thanks, thanks for nothing. In all seriousness, I can't support myself playing this game anymore. The double standard for fascism in this game is absurd. Apparently it's okay to support literal white nationalists, but thinking they don't belong is too far and would dogpile us. Apparently realpolitik is more important than any political hill to die on. Apparently it's okay to think gay people are disordered, but not okay to say that opinion is not a good one. The level of salt that I eat playing this game far outweighs the joy I get from it, and even my dearest ASM comrades. It drains me way more than is worth my time compared to Valheim, Paradox titles, LEGO, and my non-PW comrades. Thanks @Redarmy and @Pasky Darkfire for opening up their lives to me. Thank you @Comrade Joe for giving me a chance so quickly into my tenure in this game. Thank you @Akuryo for being on my side in almost every debate and argument. Thank you @Aiya and @Menhera for being our Blankie Gang comrades in GNO. For yinz, I still wish to be friends. But this game is just self-harm for me. Consider this a win, KT - thanks to the liberals, yinz have free reign over Orbis's politics. Peace.

The NAPs are inherently fine, imho. However, no punishment for breaking the NAP is just appeasement, plain and simple. If we were in a world where treaties meant anything, there'd be more than just Oasis fighting KT for violating it. Just like with the American impeachments, it just proves that the NAPs are meaningless if there's no effective punishment. Why sign them if there won't be any enforcement?

Clearly a beet shield

Well... this was fast. Best of luck to y'all.

Bold to break the NAP, especially formally.

Uh, what?? Its almost like... hear me out.... having corporations is not left wing? It's almost like every power of the war enforced restrictions on businesses because, yknow, world war? Or do I need to mention Hitler literally wrote in Mein Kampf about Marxists being terrible??? Like, the Reich imprisoned socialists in the same camps they imprisoned the Jews. https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&q=socialism+definition Look at those Hitler quotes and tell me how it argues for community-owned production???

Take care, Tarroc. I wish the best for you, your family, and your friends. We've all made !@#$ ups in our life, but we can all rally together to wish you best care for this nightmare situation.

@Alex Forum Name: Aqua-Corpsman Link to Post: Nature of Violation: - Name Calling - abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group. Specifically: Using the term "retard" to refer to somebody, a slur against the mentally disabled. - Flaming - posts targeted at a player in an effort to anger, hurt, insult, harass, or provoke. Specifically: Calling somebody an oxygen thief, a pogue, and using my name specifically as a strawman argument by calling me a fascist if the event in question was caused by "anarchists".

Bruh, it's been 2 months. Nobody cares. Only thought my mind in terms of P&W politics has been the FA moves [or lack thereof] for my alliance - not what happened in a dogpile that changed very little.

Yeah, that's where we agree. The Republicans tend to deflect from the President's responsibility by saying "But Democrats defended BLM looting" [they didn't]. It's annoying.

I'm of the belief that the current President did fan the flames of what happened, with the discussion of "fighting" and how the protestors can affect change, specifically "We're going to march down to the Capitol." While I understand the House Republican angle of "That's still free speech and he didn't directly incite the conflict", Guliani referring to "We're going to have trial by combat" definitely pushed things over the line into incitement. To me, the incident at the Capitol was indeed domestic far-right terrorism, and needs to be curbed. In regards to the argument that Democrats were supporting the looting of businesses and destruction in the BLM protests, no. There were leftists and protestors who did condone such looting - usually as an argument of "They've taken so much from us that we're just taking back what is ours", but those were not democrats; those were lefties who are often as opposed to House Dems as conservatives! And I say this as one of those leftists. In regards to the idea that the Capitol riot was pushed by Antifa... that's a pure conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. Many of the most prominent arrested, incl the guy with the odd fashion sense, are well known in the Qanon community as members of said community.

Yeah, this is absurd. Ad upvotes/downvotes don't do anything meaningful. Can you buy upvotes for credits now?? What about fixing the multiple treaties bug? What about preventing the flame war between left and right that has been going OOC for months now? What's more important? An "achievement" for surviving 2020, or your community fracturing in half and feature breaking bugs?

I can't, in good faith, continue supporting my own report here. The events of today in the Capitol have stunned me and make me realise the importance of unity instead of difference. Do as you wish - be it nothing or not. But I want to bury hatchets.

After the events of today, I cannot, in earnest honesty, continue arguments that will devolve into ad hominem attacks. Attack me all you wish, but I cannot argue anything more but the unity of the American people in the wake of the blood spilled in the Capitol today. Communist or fascist. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or even independent. It doesn't matter - no socioeconomic system of ours cannot work without the content of the governed, be it capitalism, communism, or any other forms. We are all workers. We are all humans. We are in this together.

Forum Name: Aqua-Corpsman Link to Post: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/30512-yet-another-socialism-thread/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-482625 Nature of Violation: Admits to being an "associate member" of the Three Percenters, which Wikipedia lists as a "American and Canadian far-right militia movement and paramilitary group" While not listed as a terrorist organisation, it is still acknowledged as a paramilitary established for political purposes, whose members have been previously arrested for actions against civilians such as the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, plotting an Oklahoma City vehicle bomb, and threatening armed protests outside the Oregon State Capitol.

I don't think its fruitful to have this discussion anymore. In what way is a militarised group who commits violent crime (Kyle Rittenhouse, for example) against civilian targets for political reasons not a terrorist group? I think this is where I have to disengage, if you can honestly argue that such an organisation doesn't qualify as a terrorist group.

Yeah, that's fair! I tend to think of society as being modular in that regard (a nation being a larger community, a neighborhood being a small nation), so that probably influences how we perceive things. My criticism of that theory where we protect people is that we only add in discrimination protections for, say, racial and ethnic groups when the national community at large perceives those protections as being needed. So, by my modular view of society, it's just a larger step up of a community - and getting 10k people to agree is easier than 300 million.

I like these questions, a lot! For social-democrats being / not being socialists, that actually is a pretty large debate in of itself. I'd definitely prefer them over liberals and conservatives, that's for sure! For the questions of advanced industry, plague, etc: That's already what happens on a macro scale with current nation-states, is it not? The world's leading figures don't work out vaccines together - it's national races. Resource chains, etc are also something that already happens on an international level with trade agreements between countries - could that not happen on a micro level as well? Electricity follows the same way As for large proportions of people not wanting to take part, let them. Let those non-anarchists have their own places in which to live, free from the communes. The freedom of choice is one of our key principles, of course. As for tribalism, that already happens on a national level as well. It'd be a shame if it came to war, but I guess it'd never be possible to erase that. For discrimination in these systems, I can't really say I have an answer - as that question propogates many different types of societies. There will always be some form of discrimination in countries/places, and one can hope that there will be those who take care of the oppressed. Those changes have to come from society, whatever its form - be it under capitalism, socialism, or (gods forbid) fascism.

I am a supporter of UBI as well, but I don't think its enough. Anarchists have governments as well, and I fail to see how Zapatistas living off the land means anything; if anything, thats even more an example of independence. The label of terrorism is one that states put on organisations and militant groups that they don't like - Trump wanted Antifa labeled as anarchists despite the lack of an organised structure, and the USA won't label its friends in the Middle East as terrorists until they're no longer our friends. To be labeled as terrorist only means that the powers at be disagree with your message; which is why, again, Trump wanted Antifa labeled terrorists but the Proud Boys don't get that label. Systemically in pain being the large scale poverty that you mention with those specific examples. People who have no chance of escaping the cycle of poverty due to the lack of support. We are still forced to work - that's the problem! If you don't work, you starve - simple as that. And most people are still poor - our income inequality is larger than it was before the French Revolution! A direct democracy, organised at the local level like in ancient Athens. The community would decide themselves how to work for the future.

In a way, I am against charity - not because it's bad, but because it shouldn't be up to charities to take care of people. That's supposed to be what our taxes go to in the current system, and is why taxes are notoriously high in mixed economy countries like in Scandinavia. While we are under governments like this, it should be their job to take care of the citizenry. I find it folly to say that abandoning our current system would bring us all the way back to before the Industrial Revolution. Did the Reich abandoning democracy and embracing a whole new social order turn WW2 Germany into the HRE? No - in fact, they did well economically before the Allies did the right thing and fought them on the beaches [etc. etc.] The Catalonians didn't lose or abandon electricity when they declared themselves, only losing it in the Civil War as all sides had. The Zapatistas, who are anarchists surviving to this day in Mexico, do have the essentials of life. I push for change and for the welfare of my fellow workers because it is the right thing to do - I feel it wrong to accept a society where people are systemically in pain like this. And while I understand there is, obviously, risk in social change - to me, that's a risk worth taking to pursue the rights of all. And if revolution never comes? Fine, but one can at least hope to drive enough social change to make things better for those on the bottom.

An addition I guess: What i'm saying by me living in anarchism is not that i'm in an anarchist society (clearly). What I mean is that the values in my life and how I act, in some way, are under the attempt of following anarchist principles. I give to the needy not in exchange for anything, but to help out those who need it. I provide what labour I can, and am helped where I need it. We all have our ways we can help, and we all have ways in which we need help. And I, for one, am honoured to do my part in keeping others afloat - gods know others have kept me afloat for 2 years

Cool, aight. Simply put, the communes would give people who don't want to take part in it the materials they need to be independent - their own land and the materials to use said land. Those who want to join communes would be signing some sort of contract for living there - those who don't, again, would have the ability to go off on their own and do what they wish. The myth of individuality being erased under communism and anarchism is just that, a myth. Nobody is saying that everybody must be the same - in fact, i'd argue that capitalism is more a risk of people becoming "the same". So many people have dreams of things like the arts, or writing, or being a scientist - and must shelve that for factory work or the service industry because the arts don't pay. People's professions today are based on what pays - and for most Americans, that means retail or fast food, with no sense of what the worker wants in life. Under the anarchist system, people in communes would indeed be obligated to work some number of hours to keep society running - but after those few (10-20 hr/wk estimate) hours of work, those people could expand out and explore themselves, free of the exhaustion that full-time capitalist labour gives. Under anarchism, artists could explore their talent without being shackled to 40-60 hours a week of useless "service" and be too tired to expand themselves. I'm greatly sorry that you've gone through such medical issues, and it's such a shame. But that is not what we want to throw away - we believe the individual can be even greater than before, once their bread has been secured (in the way it hasn't in today's society). Capitalism is not the most innovative system, first off. Humans have been developing their craft of invention since our dawn, and our ceaseless tinkering has never ended. I've done so much programming, myself, not to innovate or drive a profit - but because I enjoy my craft. I wouldn't throw that out the door. And why would you say techological advancement is the goal of society? While that is one valid answer to things, think about other ways to measure society. Even if capitalism is the most efficient and innovative system, I measure a society based on how the least among it are treated. To me, capitalism is a poison because it inherently means that those at the bottom of the chain - the disabled and poor - are left to suffer (See: The Reserve Army of Labor) I truly believe anarchism is the way forward, and here's why - we rely on eachother, not the elites. Growing up, the biggest people in my life have been those in my community - my family, my friends, my coworkers. When all went to hell, the state left me with only enough for food (finding a job was impossible - small town, back injury, and my motel being so far away from any job it would be impossible to keep one). But who rescued me but friends, and offered help but charities? To me, i'm living in anarchism already - mutual aid, our core tenant, is something I live every day; helping others not for profit, but so that we are all better off. I wish to destroy the states and eat the rich because, in my eyes, us workers can do more alone than we can under those bosses. Us workers help eachother sustain ourselves, even under a system that incentivises personal greed. Us workers don't give food to he who can pay most - in my experience, we share food amongst ourselves so everybody eats. It's the most natural system, and capitalism poisons the tree and leaves innocent victims of poverty and disease in the richest country on Earth.

I'm confused? What are you asking / saying?