New Testingstan

because racism

Anyway, you know, after having watched a number of documentaries on WW2, I'm getting irritated at how overwhelmingly the attention is turned on the American perspective on things.

Sure, they're the one who won in the end, but most of the fighting and the dying, as far as I know, was done on the Eastern Front, and you don't often see documentaries looking at things through the perspective of the Russians, the Japanese, the Italians, or, god forbid, the Germans.

Or how about French documentaries on the period almost always end up being the same old tales about the Resistance, while neglecting all the actual fighting De Gaulle's forces did on all fronts during the war. It's always "The Fall of France" and "The Occupation", always the same old stuff...

myopia is a depressing thing
new over here always goes 'In the Swiss Alps today, two British people died OMG! ...and 82 foreigners also died'
With the internet spying thing, Obama apparently thinks 'oh no, we're not spying on American citizens' is an adequate explanation, as if it's OK to spy on random people in the rest of the world

Oxymoron wrote:So the fact Obama did something legally, something which has been approved and voted by the democratically elected members of congress make it worse enough to provoke popular outrage... how exactly ?

He black.

Surely the answer can't be that depressingly simple.

What I find ironic in some way, is that from the few things I've seen from far away, in this current situations you have Senators and Representatives with an (R) next to their name rallying to support the Obama administration, while the (D) are trying to damage control their image by publicly criticizing the President.

Oxymoron wrote:Surely the answer can't be that depressingly simple.

What I find ironic in some way, is that from the few things I've seen from far away, in this current situations you have Senators and Representatives with an (R) next to their name rallying to support the Obama administration, while the (D) are trying to damage control their image by publicly criticizing the President.

Not true. Plenty of democrats are supporting Obama on this while plenty of republicans are criticizing him.

Oxymoron wrote:Surely the answer can't be that depressingly simple.

That is part of it, though not always or even necessarily a majority of the time.

But he will always have a D after his name. So he makes us look weak to other countries and is soft on terrorists while simultaneously is dangerously abusing power by killing them with drones that necessarily must violate the sovereignty of other countries. The economy was ruined by him and nothing he do can possibly make it better because any solution he comes up with will involve more taxes that screw honest, hardworking Americans and more money for lazy welfare bums who don't want to work. Etc., etc.

That's the gist of it anyhow.

evilsoup wrote:what if you have like
video evidence of the whole thing
admittedly this has its own problem

I've actually seen MRAs say you should always secretly record sex so you can prove that when she inevitably claims you raped her to protect her purity you can prove that it was a womanly plot against the poor men and not actual rape.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:

evilsoup wrote:what if you have like
video evidence of the whole thing
admittedly this has its own problem

I've actually seen MRAs say you should always secretly record sex so you can prove that when she inevitably claims you raped her to protect her purity you can prove that it was a womanly plot against the poor men and not actual rape.

We need to gas these people. Badly.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:

evilsoup wrote:what if you have like
video evidence of the whole thing
admittedly this has its own problem

I've actually seen MRAs say you should always secretly record sex so you can prove that when she inevitably claims you raped her to protect her purity you can prove that it was a womanly plot against the poor men and not actual rape.

Don't forget the ironclad, noterized sex contract indicating that she does consent.

haha, some people are just beyond parody

6.750 words and we're done for the weekend. Too bad it's 11PM.

What are you talking about, Bounty ?

No I wouldn't replace a 30mm cannon with a 7.62mm machinegun, but I sure as hell wouldn't replace it with a freakin 16inch battleship cannon either.

If the 16 inch cannon fits with the same amount of ammo, why the hell not?

There is just so much wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin.

Oxymoron wrote:So the fact Obama did something legally, something which has been approved and voted by the democratically elected members of congress make it worse enough to provoke popular outrage... how exactly ?

It's called partisan politics for a reason.

Basically it comes down to "it's okay if our person does it, but fuck you other person for doing something similar "

RogueIce wrote:

No I wouldn't replace a 30mm cannon with a 7.62mm machinegun, but I sure as hell wouldn't replace it with a freakin 16inch battleship cannon either.

If the 16 inch cannon fits with the same amount of ammo, why the hell not?

There is just so much wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin.

Well, giving the context would be a good start.

Oxymoron wrote:

RogueIce wrote:

No I wouldn't replace a 30mm cannon with a 7.62mm machinegun, but I sure as hell wouldn't replace it with a freakin 16inch battleship cannon either.

If the 16 inch cannon fits with the same amount of ammo, why the hell not?

There is just so much wrong with this statement, I don't even know where to begin.

Well, giving the context would be a good start.

A thread on SB about why nBSG doesn't use nukes as point defense and as pretty much every other weapon.

But that's not the point. Think about it for a sec: in any fixed amount of space, there's no way you will have "the same amount of ammo" when comparing 16 inch shells to 30mm shells. It's just...not possible. You'll always be able to fit more 30mm than 16in when using the same amount of space. That's just the way it works.

RogueIce wrote:It's called partisan politics for a reason.

It's one of the reasons I don't care to discuss politics IRL much, if at all. The hypocrisy and dishonest tactics used to "win" the argument upset me far beyond my ability to control my temper. Not that the internet is substantially better, but at least here I have more ability to take my time, count to ten, double check, reword things, etc., etc.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:I've actually seen MRAs say you should always secretly record sex so you can prove that when she inevitably claims you raped her to protect her purity you can prove that it was a womanly plot against the poor men and not actual rape.

Here's a shocking idea: maybe you should just avoid sex with people you have that little trust in.

Jung wrote: Here's a shocking idea: maybe you should just avoid sex with people you have that little trust in.

How dare you suggest, sir, that men actually exert a choice and refrain from the option of sex! Thats like, infringing on personal liberty or something equally UnAmerican.

IIRC how those threads go someone would probably go on about bilogy and urges and other self-justifications to protect their right to fuck indiscriminately without consequence.

RogueIce wrote:A thread on SB about why nBSG doesn't use nukes as point defense and as pretty much every other weapon.

But that's not the point. Think about it for a sec: in any fixed amount of space, there's no way you will have "the same amount of ammo" when comparing 16 inch shells to 30mm shells. It's just...not possible. You'll always be able to fit more 30mm than 16in when using the same amount of space. That's just the way it works.

First, this is Cloak and Dagger. I gather he's a bit of a joke amongst the forum for his ideas like some of those others, especially when it comes to milstuff.

Second, this is SB. Theres yet another 'Lets Force chart sci fi' thread on SB that has gotten to the 4th page and not been laughed at. Between that and all the 'nerds put their sci fi expertise at pointing out flaws in fictional stuff' threads, are you really suprised that someone (once again) tries to impose their particular paradigm about how sci fi should work on that forum?

Glass Fort MacLeod wrote:

RogueIce wrote:A thread on SB about why nBSG doesn't use nukes as point defense and as pretty much every other weapon.

But that's not the point. Think about it for a sec: in any fixed amount of space, there's no way you will have "the same amount of ammo" when comparing 16 inch shells to 30mm shells. It's just...not possible. You'll always be able to fit more 30mm than 16in when using the same amount of space. That's just the way it works.

First, this is Cloak and Dagger. I gather he's a bit of a joke amongst the forum for his ideas like some of those others, especially when it comes to milstuff.

Second, this is SB. Theres yet another 'Lets Force chart sci fi' thread on SB that has gotten to the 4th page and not been laughed at. Between that and all the 'nerds put their sci fi expertise at pointing out flaws in fictional stuff' threads, are you really suprised that someone (once again) tries to impose their particular paradigm about how sci fi should work on that forum?

No. But seriously, this isn't like "oh rings when Alderaan blows up" or one of those things that's a matter of some opinion/debate/speculation like FTL speeds, gigatons, etc. This is like...basic stuff. 16 inches is way more than 30 millimeters, so how could you say you can fit in the same amount of ammo? It just...boggles the mind.

Oxymoron wrote:Anyway, you know, after having watched a number of documentaries on WW2, I'm getting irritated at how overwhelmingly the attention is turned on the American perspective on things.

Sure, they're the one who won in the end, but most of the fighting and the dying, as far as I know, was done on the Eastern Front, and you don't often see documentaries looking at things through the perspective of the Russians, the Japanese, the Italians, or, god forbid, the Germans.

Or how about French documentaries on the period almost always end up being the same old tales about the Resistance, while neglecting all the actual fighting De Gaulle's forces did on all fronts during the war. It's always "The Fall of France" and "The Occupation", always the same old stuff...

It's mostly an issue of marketing and audience expectations.

For things like documentaries, which are more like historitainment (TM) people expect history to conform to expectations. While there is a niche for the docos you described*, the ones with better known material will appeal to more people, and bring in more money.

This is why the History Channel became the Hitler Channel. World War II is a strong historical brand. It has clear heroes, villains, and a somewhat happy ending. It's a war the whole family can enjoy in front of the TV.

*Russia's War: Blood on the Snow is one of the best WW2 docos ever.

RogueIce wrote:No. But seriously, this isn't like "oh rings when Alderaan blows up" or one of those things that's a matter of some opinion/debate/speculation like FTL speeds, gigatons, etc. This is like...basic stuff. 16 inches is way more than 30 millimeters, so how could you say you can fit in the same amount of ammo? It just...boggles the mind.

I think you're taking the analogy a bit too literally. The 16" rference is an analogy for C&D's nuke obsession, in the context that 16" on a fighter would be ridiculous amounts of overkill. In any case, C&D's little bizarre theory is basically 'nukes are more powerful, therefore better, and there can not POSSIBLY be any other considrations other than raw firepower that matter, so it makes no sense to use conventional warheads when you have nukes.' This is pretty standard logic for this type of thinking: 'Things make sense this way because I think they do, so if X fiction does not work that way it is silly.' This is the same logic driving tank vs mech debates (GUNDAMS WORK ON RULE OF COOL) or various 'biggaton' counterarguments ('if they had HUEG YIELDS they wouldnt need ground forces, military troops would need to be power armoured supersoldiers ot survive a nuclear battlefield, etc.' - think of how often Darksaber gets brought up as 'irrefutable' proof against the ICS.)

Overall his silly notion of 'more power = better' is pretty bizarre. Nukes can carry more raw power, but unless you shape charge them (and that can involve some pretty hefty tradeoffs orion-style) you're wasting alot of energy unless you basically get a contact detonation. A chemical warhead may not be as RAW POWER but it can be made much more effective through various ways (Shaped charges and Explosively formed penetrators) and could be -in the right context - just as effective.

Oxymoron wrote:Anyway, you know, after having watched a number of documentaries on WW2, I'm getting irritated at how overwhelmingly the attention is turned on the American perspective on things.

I can see this, especially how the European and Pacific theaters are treated as two parts of the same war as a matter of course, even though heavy US involvement is one of the few common traits between them. Most of the European powers probably wouldn't have been involved in the Pacific at all if it weren't for their colonial holdings.

I'm also of the opinion that Russia doesn't get nearly enough credit in American media. The Soviets did way more to break the back of the Nazi war machine than anyone else.