Jump to content

Big Brother

VIP
  • Content count

    973
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Big Brother last won the day on February 25 2017

Big Brother had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

871 Silver Tounge

7 Followers

About Big Brother

  • Rank
    Watching you

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Miniluv, Airstrip One
  • Interests
    Seizing the means of production, nationalizing toothbrushes and worshiping Cthulhu.
  • Alliance Pip
    Stratagem
  • Leader Name
    Big Brother
  • Nation Name
    Oceania
  • Nation ID
    66932
  • Alliance Name
    The Revolutionary Front

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Big Brother

Recent Profile Visitors

3679 profile views
  1. Big Brother

    Let's Dance!

    Well, like rey already pointed out, most of Starbuck's post is about what ET was like while he was a member of it, in the past. The last parapgraph does appear to be in the present tense and like I said Keegoz is totally right in correcting Starbuck on the current state of ET, but the paragraph, while possibly inaccurate, strikes me as an opinion derived from past personal experience and I don't think it constitutes pretending in any way. There's a difference between pretending to know something that's true and erroneously believing something that was formerly true to still be a valid. The former is intentionally dishonest while the latter is an honest mistake anyone could make. If Keegoz had just said Starbuck was wrong, I probably wouldn't have said anything. But claiming that he's pretending also implies that he's being dishonest and I don't believe that's accurate nor fair in this case.
  2. Big Brother

    Let's Dance!

    Just of out curiosity, how does anything Starbuck posted constitute pretending to know someone? The post is a description of what ET used to be like, based on personal experiences. I mean, if you were told to describe an alliance you used to be a member of, you would do the exact same thing, you would draw on your memories and personal experiences to form an opinion. If your memories and experiences of what the alliance is like no longer accurately describe the conditions of that alliance, that's fine, but that still doesn't mean you're pretending to know them, you're ideally just trying to be as accurate as possible with the information you have available to you. I don't know about you but to me, trying to make it seem like anyone making up their minds about something based on the information and experiences they have stored in their brains are acting fake or in a disingenuous manner is tantamount to insulting the entire human race, because pretty much everyone does that pretty much every single day. Don't get me wrong, you're totally right in setting the record straight about ET and I hold no ill will towards you or that alliance but I do have a problem with your use of the word pretending in this context, which strikes me a defensive knee-jerk reaction that could (and should) have been avoided.
  3. Big Brother

    A Message from Roz Wei and Roz the departed

    I'm not sure anything is harmful by itself. For something to be harmful, it has to interact with something that is harmed. Regardless, you do know that movies and video games do have age restrictions? They might not be enforced by the law but they do exist and they exist for a reason. It can be harmful for children to be exposed to what we call adult content in general. You saying that it's tame and benign (lol) is really nothing but your personal opinion, which many people don't agree with and you haven't exactly proved that your personal opinion is any more valid than anyone else's. Just because you're ethically cool with teenagers (aka children) watching pornography doesn't mean that it's suddenly okay for children to do that, and holding that opinion doesn't hold any worth or validity by itself, it doesn't prove anything conclusively. Nor does the lack of preventative measures against children being exposed to things that can potentially be harmful to them mean that people shouldn't try to take such measures in the present/future. It certainly doesn't mean that sharing adult content with children shouldn't be condemned as wrong. You're basically saying that because kids are looking at porn anyway, sending them more porn isn't really a big deal. But that's just apathy, it just means quitting and giving up. If more parents thought like you do, I would be seriously concerned about how kids are gonna end up in the future. Except there is a legal definition of children, as I showed you earlier. Minor = children. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. If you find using the word children or kids to be misleading, that's an individual problem of yours that I can only assume is a result of either your denial of simple facts or perhaps your failure to understand the things I've shown you. If your age is below the age of majority (which is usually either 18 or 21 and which "legally demarcates childhood from adulthood"), you are a minor and thus a child. It really isn't any more complicated than that. You can disagree with using minor and child interchangeably all you want but it would basically be the equivalent of denying the existence of gravity. Your disagreement doesn't change the truth and in this case it only ends up making yourself appear dishonest. Now, considering how easy it is for you to deny the facts, what's to stop you from doing the same should any proof be discovered? I get the feeling that you're more interested in sticking to your guns and convincing yourself that you're right than you are in actually learning the truth of things. Even if I could somehow figure out the identities and ages of every single person who received the links, there'd be no point to providing any proof if you're going to be unwilling to accept it as true. You are right about there being no proof though, so while I still consider it to be fairly likely that at least one minor received the links, I won't judge someone for an act that hasn't been proved to have taken place. I still believe sending the links to anyone to begin with was wrong and completely worthy of the ban. It was also kind of tame, I honestly expected something edgier and more megalomaniacal.
  4. Big Brother

    A Message from Roz Wei and Roz the departed

    You're joking, right? My post wasn't my personal opinion, what I quoted about the age of majority and the legal definition of children is literally tangible evidence, not my subjective opinion. Not only are you defending an act that is in no way worthy of being defended, you are straight up denying facts even when presented with them. No one will fall for your poor attempt at relegating fact to personal opinion and it only serves to make yourself look unwilling to accept the truth. Who's screaming pedophile? Sending children links to pornography doesn't make you a pedophile. Being attracted to children does. Please, stick to commenting on things that are actually being said or written instead of commenting on your own made up nonsense. As of right now, the main message of your posts is that you're the one full of bullshit, incapable of admitting to even the most basic truths if it means you have to admit to being wrong. And yeah, I agree that just because something is against the law it's not necessarily bad, but this is not one of those cases, something that should be obvious. But hey, I guess you're too busy brown-nosing to develop a nuanced understanding of the morality of illegal actions before you open your mouth. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the legal definition of children, it is what it is. And it being what it is does in fact mean that you can make an argument rooted in fact and law that James II is right and Roz did actually send it to people that are underage, people that shouldn't have access to pornography and that can be defined as being children, which is not only very ethically or morally questionable, it's also possibly illegal (not that I care much about the law). But hey, it certainly wasn't surprising. Shitty people do shitty things all the time.
  5. Big Brother

    A Message from Roz Wei and Roz the departed

    Wrong. No one agreed that there aren't any children here, you just don't know how age of majority works, apparently. Teenagers are children, until they reach an age recognized by law to qualify them as adults. "The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as recognized or declared in law. It is the moment when minors cease to be considered such and assume legal control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thus terminating the control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over them. Most countries set the age of majority at 18. The word majority here refers to having greater years and being of full age as opposed to minority, the state of being a minor. The law in a given jurisdiction may not actually use the term "age of majority". The term typically refers to a collection of laws bestowing the status of adulthood. The age of majority does not necessarily correspond to the mental or physical maturity of an individual." Which means that if you're under the age of 18, in most countries, you are legally a child. Of course, this in turn means that a lot of people playing this are children. Bottom line is, you're wrong and you don't really know what you're talking about. Amazing, considering the fact that you could have looked this up just as easily as I did and you could have corrected your own opinion according to the facts. Instead, you chose to spew bullshit. Gg man, lol.
  6. Big Brother

    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

    You've spewed bullshit about how communists are supposedly incapable of competing with each other and just "circle-jerk" in the past. I corrected you back then and there's no more basis in reality for your claims now. You're right that part of the infighting is priorities, but that's not all there is and to claim so is reductionist. There are many more fundamental political differences between leftists and communists, particularly pertaining to strategy, governance and economics. It doesn't make sense in any way that communists as a group are less capable of competing against each other (in a game, for fun) than fascists, ancaps or any other political grouping. You're making a whole bunch of assumptions about communists in-game based on your opinion of RL communism works, despite the fact that you yourself said that there's no way to actually engage in communism in the game, which is contradictory. It's like you're under this illusion that most of the wars declared in this game are a result of people embracing ideas like imperialism when the reality is that most people are just fricking bored and want to do something relatively fun. Finally, the fact that you think communism can only be simulated through centralized bureaucracy means that you don't even grasp what communism is in its totality and that no one should take your opinion on it seriously.
  7. Big Brother

    Shifty News Network: The Cold War expands

    Read the middle paragraph of my post above, you'll see that I have addressed this. To summarize, communism hasn't "worked out" anywhere, because there have been no societies that fulfilled the criteria that determines what communist society actually is. A country (and a state) being run by a communist party is not a communist society. In fact, it's a complete oxymoron. You don't create a stateless society by creating a socialist or communist state. And if anyone is suffering from capitalism, it's places like the ones you mentioned. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for most of the deaths I detailed earlier, followed by Southeast Asia. So no, communism hasn't worked in African nations, but only because the conditions of such a society have never been reached by any state on this planet. What we can say with some certainty is that they all follow the capitalist mode of production and that they all suffer enormously for doing so. First of all, human civilization already possesses more than enough productive forces to end world hunger. But, just giving away food to everyone that needs it isn't profitable and so it doesn't happen. In fact, our societies throw away massive amounts of food every single day, while people are starving to death. These are preventable deaths that could be solved, but unfortunately a lot of people are more interested in filling their own pockets instead of actually helping their fellow human beings. Also, everyone that is starving to death, dying of disease, malnutrition and lack of basic necessities are lazy and less intelligent? You're a god damn joke man. Get over your elitist arrogance. Do you have any idea what complete shithead of a fool you make yourself look like when say stuff like that? You're not convincing anyone of anything but the fact that you have no empathy for your fellow humans and that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This is why most people don't engage you, because with you it seemingly always boils down to you saying that if people aren't succeeding, they're either lazy or stupid, which is a gross over-simplification of the systemic issues that prevent people from attaining decent living standards. You suck dude.
  8. Big Brother

    Shifty News Network: The Cold War expands

    If you really believe that children are dying from starvation, dehydration, poverty and preventable disease because they and the people around them have low intelligence or because of overpopulation, you're the one with low intelligence.
  9. Big Brother

    Shifty News Network: The Cold War expands

    I mean, everyone should be. They're basically opposites. I consider myself to be a communist and I find the Red Terror, the purges and the gulags to be wholly reprehensible acts of state terror against its populace. The Soviet Union was authoritarian, state capitalist and imperialist. It should never have existed, at least not in the shape and form it took and it deserves condemnation. The fact of the matter is that there are many different types of communism and a big problem on the left is that people constantly disagree with each other over what the correct path to follow is. The only type of communists who are firm in their support of Stalin and the Soviet Union are Marxist-Leninists (aka tankies). So while your criticism is valid of communists that support the USSR and its leaders, like tankies, it's inaccurate and invalid if used against literally every other type of communist (and against communists as a single group). Then there's the fact that just because a country's state is run by a communist party doesn't mean the country said state governs is a stateless, moneyless and classless society (which are the key aspects of communism). I'm pretty sure that should be obvious but I guess a lot of people don't care for simple rationality. Countries with states run by communist parties are supposed to work towards eventually achieving a society that fulfills the criteria of a communist society but a lot of the time they're full of shit and they don't do what they're supposed to (which is why states shouldn't be trusted). So, while I agree that the deaths you are referring to was the result of corrupted communist parties' actions, they were not a result of a communist society. I know it's way easier to just say "commies killed over 9000 people!11!" but unfortunately for some, the world isn't that simple. Finally, the death count of communist parties is insignificant in comparison to the death count of capitalism. Based on UNICEF statistics, somewhere between 21 000 and 29 000 children die every day. If we go by 21 000, that's 14 children dead every minute or just below 7.6 million dead every year, starting from 1990 (and living standards weren't better before 1990). 1990 is 28 years ago so if we do 7.6 million times 28, we get just above 212 million dead children. Capitalism became the dominant economic system at the end of the 18th century, so about 200 years ago. There's too many things to factor in for me to bother doing the work to come up with an accurate figure, but I think we can safely assume that if 7.6 million children died in 1990, many more have died during the last 200 years of capitalism. And you know, I'm not even counting adult deaths. The worst part is that a lot of these deaths could be prevented by something as simple as having access to clean water. So, while you may feel like 100 million dead is a substantial amount (and it is, relatively speaking), that's basically the equivalent of 13 years of capitalism. I don't know about you, but that speaks volumes to me about what the greater evil is.
  10. Big Brother

    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

    I love this! Congratulations and good luck, comrades. May the revolution last forever! Right, because there certainly aren't any other alliances with themes that have no representation in the game whatsoever If you're going to criticize something, at least try to put some effort into it.
  11. What is love?

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. Big Brother

      Big Brother

      You uncultured brutes! The appropriate response was clearly "baby don't hurt me".

    3. Dio Brando
    4. Dobby the Free Elf

      Dobby the Free Elf

      a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties
      • maternal love for a child
      (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers
      • After all these years, they are still very much in love.
      (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests
      • love for his old schoolmates
      b : an assurance of affection
      • give her my love

       

  12. Big Brother

    Question about IQ alliances

  13. Big Brother

    The Golden Shower

    That's true and I agree that it should be handled with care. I don't condone using it as a political weapon and I wasn't trying to present a judgment as to whether or not using the word as an umbrella term way is right or wrong. I was just trying to show that people do use it that way and why they use it that way. A democratically elected government can fight fascists, but unfortunately there have been and continue to be many cases where they don't. Even worse, there's many cases where the lawful authorities have sided with fascists against the people they were supposed to protect, leading to state sponsored terrorism. When the lawful authorities don't do their job, someone else has to step in, even if that means opposing the lawful authorities, should they side with political forces that endanger people. I don't expect anyone to automatically trust any and all anti-fascist movements, people will have to make up their own minds about each and every group. But even if people don't always trust anti-fascist movements, they're still a necessity when the authorities fail to meet their responsibilities. I want to agree with you but once again the problem is that the law itself becomes a politicized weapon used for political persecution or for allowing such persecution to take place. I don't expect people to believe every single accusation they witness of someone being a Nazi but I think a due process, which I understand as a legal procedure, is very much susceptible to abuse and isn't actually necessary to judge whether or not someone is a Nazi. All you really need is access to information or knowledge about what a Nazi is and information about which ideas, policies, beliefs and so on, that the people accused of being Nazis throw their support behind. If the two match, there's good reason to believe that the accused is in fact a Nazi. If a group of people suspected or accused of being Nazis hold a rally where they openly espouse the policies of national socialism and the authorities won't do anything about it, a due process is not only unnecessary (in relation to judging whether or not someone is a Nazi) but also more or less impossible to achieve due to the inaction of the authorities. So while I wish anti-fascist movements weren't necessary and that the law would function as you've described it, the sad fact is that sometimes it doesn't and that's when people are forced to take action, regardless of whether or not that action is sanctioned by the law.
  14. Big Brother

    The Golden Shower

    The proper umbrella term is indeed fascist, but in practice a lot of people use the word Nazi in very much the same way. That's not to say that's the correct word to use, it's just an observation of something that is actually occurring. Perhaps convenience shouldn't be a factor when accusing people of something, but people still do things out of convenience all the time. Why you don't recognize the difference between what things should ideally be like and how they are in practice, is beyond me. I shouldn't have to explain these things to you. Even if you don't think using Nazi as an umbrella term is correct surely you have witnessed people use it in that way, which is something I was merely pointing out, not endorsing. I'm confident you understood this already which leads me to believe that you're just trying to be intentionally difficult, describing to me what things should be like, which words should be used, instead of accepting my observations as to what things are actually like and which words are actually used. I agree, but if any judgment is to be passed it should be done so by the properly qualified authorities, not random strangers on the internet who are merely spouting their own interpretations and who are in no way equipped with the necessary traits to make an accurate and unbiased judgment. Am I a leftist regime? Am I speaking on behalf of a leftist regime? I think not. I don't dispute that left-wing regimes have persecuted many many people but based on what I have observed and learned about anti-fascist movements (not authoritarian left-wing regimes), I can tell you with certainty that the vast majority of anti-fascist movements don't bother fascists who aren't politically active and who don't actually encourage or agitate for ethnic cleansing, ethnostates, segregation and the like. They bother those that are active, and once they cease their activities, their work is done. At least for the time being.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.