Re: [Off-Topic] Community Chat Thread
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 9:10 pm
Magic the Gathering Resources, Tools, Previews, and Community.
https://www.mtgnexus.com/
If it was anything like America today, I'd say 35% would've been very concerned, 40% would deny the end is nigh, 5% wouldn't give 2 %$#% either way so long as they stood to profit, and 20% just would be too poor to be bothered about any of it given more immediate concerns.kirkusjones wrote: ↑2 years agoI feel like I've said this before, but do you think the Romans living in the last days of the empire were aware of it? Or did they see the approaching germanic tribesmen and think "oooh, that's a creative take on clothing!"TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑2 years agoNo offense taken. My country is totally bonkers right now; half the country sees a legitimate threat looming, the other half would rather die than do what their government says is necessary. Frankly, I figured our previous 20 years of lackluster leaders and frequent warmongering would doom our international reputation eventually but covid really showed our true colors and it is not a flattering pallete.toctheyounger wrote: ↑2 years agoI get it, people are sick of it, and it's kinda funny (meaning no offense to anyone here) but I compare it to the cartoonish notion of how non-Americans see Americans - 'muuh Freedom pew pew pew' - that's literally Aucklanders here.
The craziest thing? Nobody here even cares that we look like the globe's most well-armed dunces. Nobody. I feel bad for everyone who's counting on us, cause we're drowning ourselves.
Rome was destroyed in detail, and thus for different groups it 'fell' at different times. If you were a tenant farmer, it fell during the Diocletian land "reforms" in the 280s, when the emperor decided to simplify taxes by preventing tenant farmers from leaving or changing jobs, leaving them at the mercy of their manor lords. If you were a merchant, it fell sometime in the early to mid 400s, when the Vandalic wars disrupted Mediterranean transport enough to fragment the "Roman lake". If you were a noble, it happened when the local warlord showed up at your doorstep and decided he liked your castle, or you decided to hedge your bets and start learning German, up to four centuries later. If you were an artisan, or otherwise "middle class", it fell whenever the local aqueduct collapsed for want of maintenance and everyone got cholera.kirkusjones wrote: ↑2 years agoI feel like I've said this before, but do you think the Romans living in the last days of the empire were aware of it? Or did they see the approaching germanic tribesmen and think "oooh, that's a creative take on clothing!"
BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoRome was destroyed in detail, and thus for different groups it 'fell' at different times. If you were a tenant farmer, it fell during the Diocletian land "reforms" in the 280s, when the emperor decided to simplify taxes by preventing tenant farmers from leaving or changing jobs, leaving them at the mercy of their manor lords. If you were a merchant, it fell sometime in the early to mid 400s, when the Vandalic wars disrupted Mediterranean transport enough to fragment the "Roman lake". If you were a noble, it happened when the local warlord showed up at your doorstep and decided he liked your castle, or you decided to hedge your bets and start learning German, up to four centuries later. If you were an artisan, or otherwise "middle class", it fell whenever the local aqueduct collapsed for want of maintenance and everyone got cholera.kirkusjones wrote: ↑2 years agoI feel like I've said this before, but do you think the Romans living in the last days of the empire were aware of it? Or did they see the approaching germanic tribesmen and think "oooh, that's a creative take on clothing!"
"First they came for" is overused, but it really is the only way international orders fall. Any single crisis or administrative snafu will leave it damaged, but recognizable and repairable. It is only after effective repairs stop, that damage begins to accumulate over centuries, that such an order falls. So it will be for America. At the same time, I imagine it was little consolation for the peasants when their lord took half a millennium after their fall to take down his Roman colors and start wearing pants. Destruction in detail doesn't feel so gradual if you're the detail being destroyed.
States are so much more stable than their parts. The HRE killed a third of their population in a sectarian civil war that makes Yemen look cozy, and still managed to limp on as a geopolitical force until Napoleon, two centuries later. Nukes could do us in, but short of that, the state/international apparatus will endure. At the same time, that also means basic quality of life has a very long way to fall before the US truly goes belly-up.kirkusjones wrote: ↑2 years agoI feel like information (and therefore panic) travels so fast and recent history has revealed that so many of the "responsible" adults in the room have been skating by with the "fake it til you make it" philosophy that the luxury of slow collapse isn't something we can afford.
Imagine actively hoping for a rapid succession of unmitigated humanitarian disasters.
It's likely already too late to change course and besides that, global leaders very obviously do not care. I just want to get it over with. I'd rather get hit by a meteorite than go down on a sinking ship.BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoImagine actively hoping for a rapid succession of unmitigated humanitarian disasters.
You're missing the point. You're worried about termites while the house is on fire.Let's be clear, that's what I'm talking about. The difference between a state or international system being dissolved by choice and forced into collapse is the difference between going to sleep in one's bed and being beaten until one loses consciousness. Also, if you have any awareness of recent history, violent state collapses tend not to be great for the environment anyways.
Doomer mentality has become wholly uncoupled from critical thought. We do not live in a YA novel, where the apocalypse just clears away all the obligations and hard problems, leaving the plucky heroes to rebuild everything in between love triangles. Far more likely it simply ushers in the oh-so-eco-friendly Millennium of Bushmeat, Radiation and Woodstoves.
I think you mean Waterworld. Until the seas boil, anyway.BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoDoomer mentality has become wholly uncoupled from critical thought. We do not live in a YA novel, where the apocalypse just clears away all the obligations and hard problems, leaving the plucky heroes to rebuild everything in between love triangles. Far more likely it simply ushers in the oh-so-eco-friendly Millennium of Bushmeat, Radiation and Woodstoves.
I get that you want all of us to die so you and your friends can have cool adventures in our ruins. You have made that abundantly clear.
Only if we get to treat the jet skis like horses.BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoI get that you want all of us to die so you and your friends can have cool adventures in our ruins. You have made that abundantly clear.
Please be careful of your tone. This comment can be perceived as flippant and insensitive, and given the potentially serious tone of this particular conversation, I strongly advise that for awareness of your words and potential tone! - benjameenbear
This is a pretty fatalistic mode of thinking, but even I cannot deny its appeal. I'd also rather get chopped quick than succumb to a slow boil.TheGildedGoose wrote: ↑2 years agoIt's likely already too late to change course and besides that, global leaders very obviously do not care. I just want to get it over with. I'd rather get hit by a meteorite than go down on a sinking ship.BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoImagine actively hoping for a rapid succession of unmitigated humanitarian disasters.
That is your choice, I believe, in regard to yourself, but sending countless others to the knife, to spare yourself the pot? That is atrocity.TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑2 years agoThis is a pretty fatalistic mode of thinking, but even I cannot deny its appeal.
Atrocity? I thought it was statistics at that point.BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoThat is your choice, I believe, in regard to yourself, but sending countless others to the knife, to spare yourself the pot? That is atrocity.TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑2 years agoThis is a pretty fatalistic mode of thinking, but even I cannot deny its appeal.
But where is the appeal? While struggle may yield nothing in the end, it is impossible to predict that before the said end. Giving up on the other hand always gives the same result. Death is inevitable, pain - while certainly vary in type or intensity - is a standard course of life, but only by fighting through there can be something to be proud of.TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑2 years agoThis is a pretty fatalistic mode of thinking, but even I cannot deny its appeal. I'd also rather get chopped quick than succumb to a slow boil.TheGildedGoose wrote: ↑2 years agoIt's likely already too late to change course and besides that, global leaders very obviously do not care. I just want to get it over with. I'd rather get hit by a meteorite than go down on a sinking ship.BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoImagine actively hoping for a rapid succession of unmitigated humanitarian disasters.
This is an accusation better leveled at those who continue to worship at the altar of profit above all else, I think. Although I don't claim to know TheAmericanSpirit's mind, they could easily be bowing before the god of "I Got Mine, C U Later Sh*tlords" too.BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoThat is your choice, I believe, in regard to yourself, but sending countless others to the knife, to spare yourself the pot? That is atrocity.TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑2 years agoThis is a pretty fatalistic mode of thinking, but even I cannot deny its appeal.
That is also bad. It's the "condemning multitudes to agony" bit that makes it bad. The reason why just fails to redeem it. It doesn't really matter if you're condemning multitudes to agony because money, or because you want to plant trees in our ribcages. Prima facie evil %$#% doesn't stop being prima facie evil %$#% if you signal left-wing ideologies.kirkusjones wrote: ↑2 years agoThis is an accusation better leveled at those who continue to worship at the altar of profit above all else
Sorry, apparently my point didn't come across. I'm saying that the accusation of condemning the majority to the pot should be leveled at those who seek profit above all else.BeneTleilax wrote: ↑2 years agoThat is also bad. It's the "condemning multitudes to agony" bit that makes it bad. The reason why just fails to redeem it. It doesn't really matter if you're condemning multitudes to agony because money, or because you want to plant trees in our ribcages. Prima facie evil %$#% doesn't stop being prima facie evil %$#% if you signal left-wing ideologies.kirkusjones wrote: ↑2 years agoThis is an accusation better leveled at those who continue to worship at the altar of profit above all else
It was a direct response to Goose saying flat out that they would sentence countless humans to agonizing death for their own benefit. "This other thing is also bad" is such a weird non sequitur to calling someone out for overtly advocating total ruin. I get that they're probably trolling, but its still such a wretched sentiment I feel it must be called out.kirkusjones wrote: ↑2 years agoI'm saying that the accusation of condemning the majority to the pot should be leveled at those who seek profit above all else.