Sir Scarfalot

Terrorists hunting people down and murdering them for their beliefs sounds rather similar to terrorists hunting people down and murdering them for their beliefs, yes. In case you hadn't remembered, one of the chief weapons Nazis used was the dehumanization of their rivals. Turning it back on them doesn't actually make it not a fascist behavior. And sure, the genocide is indeed a very well understood fact of history that goes without saying sufficiently to be described in little more than scare quotes, but thank you for reiterating it. I'm sure you've got plenty more historical trivias to reiterate, so I'll go ahead and let you do that until you've satisfied your urge to feel like the smartest person in the chat.

Amongst many, many other things yes. Such as their brutal and unforgivable "silencing" of Jewish ideologies for a start. Though yes, you're right in that @kosmokenny's position is a lot closer to Stalin's fascism of "kill anyone that doesn't comply, then kill anyone that's remotely associated with them, then kill anyone remotely associated with those" than Naziism, though either way he's close. I'd certainly like to see both of you head liberal-ways, it's a lot less toxic over here.

Nazis are bad because they embrace and embody extreme fascist behaviors, such as (but not limited to) endorsing the degradation and annihilation of any creed but their own. Ironically enough, that means that your "with my extremist views or else literal !@#$" is a very fascist stance you've got there. I would suggest you back away from fascism, but you do you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How's that though?

Maybe a "time until next turn" should be better emphasized on the sidebar? That, and *certainly* an update to the snore page. That thing literally tells people that there's a problem. Actually, thinking about it, maybe players' earliest turns should be accelerated so they have a reason to play continuously during their first few most critical minutes. That's the way that all the clash-of-clans and boom-beaches do it, so there's definitely merit to encouraging continuous play right out of the gate.

KT is KT in KT's inimitable style, and all is well because of course it is.

I've made no fascist arguments, m8. I'm simply willing to engage against fascist behaviors and arguments as the repugnant things that they are. Which makes it rather odd when you declare a similar stance, then proceed to undermine yourself by declaring that anyone that makes an argument you disagree with should be eradicated (despite somehow professing the opposite in the same paragraph)? I have not bothered to read Mein Kampf, which is an academic limitation of mine, but I am still quite well educated in American History, having taken several classes on the subject including but not limited to the world wars thank you very much. I am quite well aware of how dangerous fascism can be when applied to a culture that isn't always, always willing to look inwards and make informed internal decisions, even ones that require effort to understand or change. So, yes. Yes, you should "engage" with racists, ISIS, Saddam Hussein and all the rest, because for the love of all decency they should be told to !@#$ off. We can't DO that though unless either A. we murder literally all of them alongside everyone that even "engaged" with them, and then anyone that "engaged" with those, just to be comprehensive in eliminating even the memory of their sick and twisted modes of thinking, or B. we explain, in detail, exactly why they should be told to !@#$ off with their awful and horrific crimes, and allow them the space necessary to prove themselves worthy of elimination. And, potentially, let them show us exactly what spawned their insanity in the first place so we can prevent the problems that led to their rise, too. Otherwise, we can't expect to grow past these problems as a species, only as a set of individual, fractious, paranoid and deceitful states. Also, I actually did look up the german fascist party, just google "National Democratic Party of Germany" and you'll get the wiki page, which by the way includes the words "efforts to ban the party have been renewed" and also cites shit from 2011 at the minimum. That process took less than a minute, so I could well have misinterpreted something, but still: they exist, legally if tenuously. As for pacifism, !@#$ that. I appreciate that people other than myself have different ideas of where their comfort lives, and if they don't want to hurt anyone under any circumstances then I applaud their commitment and self-discipline if nothing else, but I'm no pacifist. Racism, organized crime, disorganized crime, ISIS, !@#$ dictators, pedophilia and otherwise assorted evil deserves a solid boot to the snoot... but not censorship, since those behaviors would therefore not be destroyed but rather would be merely hidden away from our eyes... and our boots. They'd end up in the dark, and therefore would still exist, just with the added bonus of being hidden. I mean come on man, surely you're not so afraid of seeing these evils exist that you're willing to try and just monkey-see-no-evil them out of existence? Shit that's bad is still bad, owning up to it doesn't make it smell worse. Labels labels labels. What, pray tell, is the practical difference between a "moderate right winger 👍" and a moderate that got swept up into the !@#$ brigade as a matter of force, rather than personal choice? Do remember that any dissenters were, indeed, eradicated... just like you support, come to think of it. You have an academic argument about gulag? Go directly to gulag to study it then

Wow, lewd. MODS j/k

Nuance is hard tho

I'm right there with you, unfortunately the convo has clearly gone a bit past where it was supposed to have ended. I'd actually kind of argue that it was never a convo about the actual game at all lmao But yeah, humor isn't easy and jokes can cross lines. I hear ya there

Germany has fully functional and publicly known fascist parties, you imbecile. Even there, people are legally allowed to be fascist and those parties are tolerated exactly as much as any other parties, which does indeed mean that they get into legal trouble when they overstep the lines that the Bundestag has legally introduced. (Which, it would seem they are in such trouble. Looks like fascists are dumbasses there too. Not a surprise. Furthermore, note that Germany isn't beholden to the US constitution nor American ideas of what free speech means; their laws and cultural comfort zones are their own.) The fact that Germans are highly against fascism and fascist behaviors of any form is laudable, and entirely different to what you're trying to present as some kind of moralist "silence/punish anyone that disagrees with me, since I'd rather not put in the effort of engaging with their arguments fairly or honestly" behavior. Which is not merely enabling facism, but is fascist in and of itself. I wrote a post addressing this in the general discussion thread, since that convo is most assuredly NOT "alliance affairs" by this point

That's not even a strawman, that's just straw on the floor of a barn.

I think the problem people are having with the "black lives matter" versus "blue lives matter" versus "all lives matter" movements and counter-movements and confusion is simply this: the opponents of each are detecting unintended implications. It's kinda like follows: "Black lives matter? Sure, everyone's life matters, blacks no less than anyone else. But why single out blacks when there's plenty of pain and tragedy to go around? I don't like the implication of the statement." "Blue lives matter? Sure, everyone's life matters, cops no less than anyone else. But why point out the cops' lives when there's plenty of pain and tragedy to go around? I don't like the implication, especially since there's several high-profile cases wherein cops killed blacks in a racially charged environment. That's not a statement I'm ready to allow." "All lives matter? Sure, everyone's life matters, that's just obvious and goes without saying. But why not single out blacks when there's a disproportionate amount of tragedy and pain levied against them statistically? I don't like the implication that we should ignore those tragic statistics." To answer all of those three questions: YES everyone's life goddamn matters, so stop making up reasons to argue about semantics and implications and just realize that tragedy = tragedy no matter what color it happens to be. Everyone's got their own pain, and it's theirs, so respect their pain and stop looking for fights. I've had it up to here with all this implication-smearing, especially when the implications are flat-packs made of straw to begin with. Ree. Ok I'm out, I don't even want to see if this actually got through to anyone until tomorrow

See, this guy gets it. I simply want to point out that even historically, there were jesters in political courts that could and did say things mockingly, because you didn't have to take what they said seriously. IMO, trolls are basically the modern day recreation of that old utility... yet, even jesters and trolls have to know their audience, since a jester that went too far would see his unique privileges removed. Usually alongside his head :S

I'm saying that silencing people outright is directly out of the fascists' playbook, no more no less. Your intentional and disingenuous interpretation of what I said is also directly out of the fascists' playbook. So, the fact that you want to smear people who want to stand up against the fascist playbook is setting off exactly the alarms you're asserting, all without actually being productive. Which, hayo! Directly out of the fascist playbook. What I'm against here isn't any label nor set of values per se, but rather a very clear and tragic set of behaviors, which unfortunately you are definitely exhibiting right now. Actual fascists don't generally go through the trouble of actually explaining nor even understanding their simple-minded behaviors, and just look like complete dumbasses whenever they open their mouths, so I'm perfectly willing to believe that your intentions are perfectly genuine, just misguided. Don't fall for the fascist behaviors, just make sure you're avoiding their damned playbook, capiche?

Dropping poetic propaganda for cheap political points and by so doing implying that all your enemies are by definition fascists is in and of itself a highly fascist move, just with a deeply old coat of paint applied to their playbook. (Ok that metaphor got away from me, so what) Those poems could be very powerful if you weren't abusing their majesty for your own direct intentions, those being to imply that anyone not instantly and directly and completely agreeing with you and your position without blinking is a dirty fascist-adjacent and thus deserving of an immediate execution. Stop that. It's ridiculously ancient and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see right through it.

Actually, nuclear ordnance requires very specific, precise and specialized conditions to detonate in the way we're familiar with. They're not cartridges that'll fire at the drop of a literal pin, they're very well engineered to avoid unauthorized detonation. Though scattering the materials inside the nuke everywhere would be rather a pollution nightmare, maybe we could set it up that way?

Earth gib prize muns now

That's what NPO said

You know what you all got? You got TROLLED get over it already

So, the 5th fishery leaves you with just as much produced fish as the 4th fishery, because literally reasons?

And yet you continue to act exactly like yourself, as you yourself continue to describe. Supporting NAPs by inaction is equivalent in effect to supporting them by action, so I really don't know what you're even trying to describe in your contradictions, let alone what you hope to accomplish?

Which, by your own (and entirely correct) logic, it should. QED Thing is, people (including yourself) tend to prefer an environment of solid and sacrosanct NAPs after large-scale conflicts which alter or rebalance the power structure for that peacetime period, and for reasons beyond purely selfish ones. Ones which you clearly value (as you've signed those NAPs despite grumbling about them), but for some darn reason just can't seem to find their way into your actual rhetoric. It's almost like there's some kind of underlying reason as to the theatrics on the forum that ensures some kind of playable balance in the actual video game... one that actually and genuinely required the "mysterious HM leader" to remain mysterious so as to ensure all sides had themselves a grudge to posture over and thus ensure the war didn't end up as IQ vs IQ or something equally horrific. Just my two cents plus change

Right, and hitting your opponent directly after they rebuild and decom, in direct contravention of peace agreements, is far and away the most effective way to help your allies and ensure your security. Which is something that no alliance can rebuild from again afterwards, since there would therefore never be any possible time to do so without immediately getting hit afterwards. Which means that NAPs are 100% contraindicated by any alliance that is by your definition "well run", and there's no time wherein you shouldn't be at war. Which contradicts your point that alliances should be "well run" enough to have billions for post-war rebuilds at all times. tl;dr: The only alliances that are even remotely close to your idea of "well-run" are Arrgh, KT and Mythic, and the ones furthest from "well-run" are Grumpy, T$, e404 and basically everyone that isn't a dedicated raiding AA.