Oh, yeah and Blatter got re elected. 4 more years! (Remember this was a FIFA thread!? :D )
Posts made by KillaCoder
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
I don't believe he changed, no. He couldn't ever use them though, in the same way North Korea can't ever use their WMDs without getting smashed.
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
But they're not, so it's ok for them to murder people and take slaves.
You still refuse to tell me how Europe could help stop them. Tell me how we could help. You tell me we should help and how shit we are for not helping, but you repeatedly refuse to say what, SPECIFICALLY, we should do. Invade with 10,000 troops? 100,000? Help you guys bomb them (cos that ain't stopping them)? Go back in time and kill Sykes and/or Picot? What? What do you want us to do? -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Oh 1980s Saddam = scary. It was great that America kicked his ass in 1991. No arguments about that.
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Isn't that better than the constant fighting that otherwise goes on there?
Yes, definitely. But it's unclear if what worked in very clearly defined nation states Germany and Japan would work in Iraq (3 former ottoman provinces, 1 Sunni, 1 Shia, 1 Kurd, all lumped together and hating each other) with large Sunni powers (Saudis and friends), Shias (Iran and friends), and other Kurds (Turkey and elsewhere agitating for their own state including the Iraqi Kurds) all influencing parts of Iraq and it's people. AND add in the craziness in Syria, which was definitely going to spill over.I don't know. If you guys were willing to stay in Iraq, maybe things could be better there. But maybe they'd look roughly the same, with thousands more dead Americans too. I genuinely don't know.
Moving away from "what ifs", all I can say is that no one has given me any specific reason why bombing now is a good idea. It's not stopping ISIS and it is hurting civilians. So I just don't see the logic.
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
@KillaCoder said:
I disagree about winning in Iraq. But maybe I just have a different definition of winning. Did you want to leave troops there forever like Germany and Japan?
When was the last time anyone invaded (or got invaded by) either of those countries?
I don't really understand the question. Sorry. I guess, you are saying keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely was the answer? -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
@KillaCoder said:
Learn to read and stop editing out 90% of what I say, and you won't be so confused.
Learn to quote, and read what other people say. Maybe you'll get similar treatment. If you don't, it's pretty unlikely that you will.
Fuck off, I clicked quote and that's what Discourse spit out. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
@KillaCoder said:
Bombing the Middle East isn't risky. There's no one to stop you. It's just pointless.
Saving lives is pointless.
Tell me how dropping bombs saves lives in this case. You are bombing ISIS (and civilians as collateral damage) and it's not stopping them. If anything, standing up to you guys is giving them street credit and attracting more fighters.
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
They are comparable in that we could be killing more of the enemy than we are, and that would change things, like it did then. I thought this was pretty simple. No doubt you thought the same thing about Iraq 10 years ago, but we won that war and had the country relatively pacified. If we'd stayed, it would be a whole lot better than it is now.
Maybe you think I'm saying we should only be bombing or something? That's the only thing that makes sense to me here.
Industrial war between the national armies of global powers isn't comparable to fighting irregular forces that can hide in the local population. If ISIS was a nation state with an economy, industry, regular troops in uniform, etc, you'd win in a week, and I'd cheer you on.I disagree about winning in Iraq. But maybe I just have a different definition of winning. Did you want
to leave troops there forever like Germany and Japan?Do you really believe this?
Yes.
@boomzilla said:I feel like IHBT here, but I know there are plenty of people who think War Is Never The Answer and that Violence Never Solves Anything, so I can't be sure.
War is often the answer and violence can solve things, I just don't see how it's accomplishing anything in this case. Shia and Sunni will still hate and want to slaughter each other, Kurds will still want their own state and be willing to fight for it, ISIS will still murder people. I don't see how adding American bombs to the mix helps, and I don't think either you or blakey have told me either, beyond a vague "it helps". -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
@KillaCoder said:
The modern day shenanigans CAN be stopped.
If we can help, then let's help. We can't, though.
So it can or can't?
Why don't you go figure out what the fuck you're talking about, then come back, ok?
The first post was about what America is doing. That can be stopped. Just stop bombing for no reason.
The second post was about the Muslim civil war (Sunni vs Shia). That can't be stopped by outsiders.
Learn to read and stop editing out 90% of what I say, and you won't be so confused.
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
We had this same problem for a while with the Nazis and the Japanese. For a while.
Don't talk shit, you know there's a pile of reasons the situations aren't comparable in the slightest. This isn't an industrial war between nations we are talking about.Clearly the best thing is to put our fingers in our ears and hope for the best. I see your point.
Yes, that's better then bombing the Middle East for the 7 billionth time and killing more civilians. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Yes. We should have stayed longer. They weren't ready to be left on their own.
Western man's burden eh? How about not going at all?The idea that you think that I think that is kind of funny. I don't think it'll all just stop and be nice, just that it's better than the alternative.
Fair enough. I disagree.You know how the guys were [currently] bombing want to take all sorts of shit over by force and then bring about the end of the world? We're making it harder for them to do that.
You shouldn't have created them in the first place. Bombing them now isn't stopping them and can't stop them. Pure air power can never stop ground forces. They also have support from the Sunni powers, Saudi + Qatar + Gulf states. They are the frontline against the Shia forces of Iran and Iraq. As I said, religious civil war. It's nice to think that a few hundred bombs could stop this war. It won't though.Yes, we should never do anything risky. All us US Americans should burn our cars because we kill so many people because of them.
Bombing the Middle East isn't risky. There's no one to stop you. It's just pointless.Yeah, the world would be so much better with Saddam out there free to go about his business (the way things were heading prior to the invasion).
Saddam was a lame duck. You guys destroyed his armies in 1991. He had no WMDs. He was just a tinpot dictator. He was an evil person but he kept the 3 parts of Iraq (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd) from total meltdown. Now he's gone, the meltdown happened, and it's spread to half a dozen other countries at least. Iran and Saudi's are having their religious war. I truly believe the world WOULD be better with Saddam still around, evil bastard though he was. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
I can't edit-out text that's not there.
Post 31 - I wrote "If it was possible to fire a missile through some dictators window and have an overnight improvement in democracy, freedom, and human rights, I'd be all for it."Kindly read more carefully ;)
Of course not; it might require effort. Getting off your bony ass and doing something. Can't have that.
It's remarkable that you STILL won't say what that "something" actually IS. If we can help, then let's help. We can't, though.Who is "them"?
Every Middle Eastern country and group you're bombing.When ISIS enters a city, they sell a significant percentage of the population into sex slavery, then murder a significant percentage of the remainder in cold blood.
If our bombs prevent ISIS from entering a city, we're saving hundreds of lives.
Your bombs don't stop them. You are bombing them right now and they are still taking cities and territory.You're writing this post as if "the Middle East" is a single house with a single guy in it. We're not bombing "the Middle East". We're not bombing "them". The weapons we are using are specifically dedicated to saving lives.
Right now it kind of is all one big mess. Iraq and Syria are no longer countries, ISIS has declared itself a nation, the Iranian soldiers are in half a dozen different countries, the Saudis are bombing Yemen, the Americans are bombing Iraq, the Qutaris are supporting Syrian militias... it's pure chaos, and can't be distilled down to any sort of straightforward explanation.Right; so let's see the UK and France get in there and clean up their mess. Why is the US doing all of the work?
How would they clean it up? It's impossible. The US tactic of bombing isn't making the region safer or solving any problems.You don't know that.
Yes I do, a huge amount of these guys are former Baath party and army.What about the ones who would be dead if the US hadn't fought of their enemies? Do those civilians get a say at all?
Far less people died in Saddam's Iraq compared to the chaos afterwards. I'm not defending Saddam, just saying more people would be alive with him still in control of a stable Iraq.Where the fuck are you from? What are they brainwashing you with, that you come in here and repeat this shit to us? Goddamned, man.
Ireland. No one brainwashed me, I just read a lot of history books and current events. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
I've already clearly demonstrated that the UK and France after WWI fucked the region up far more than the US ever has.
Agreed, that was 100 years ago though and can't be stopped. The modern day shenanigans CAN be stopped. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Is that honestly all you think is happening?
I have a serious question: are you 14 years old? Because you're displaying the general knowledge of world events of a 14-year-old. There's no way you're an adult.
I am an expert in this matter ;) -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Are you saying that ISIS invading Iraq is a civil war?
No, I'm saying Sunni vs Shia is the civil war.
Shia: Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, etc vs Sunni: Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, ISIS, etc. It's a regional religious civil war and there's no chance in hell of westerners stopping it. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Yeah, uh. That chaos is the result of ISIS in the first place.
ISIS wouldn't exist without the US invasion of Iraq, setting up a Shia gov and militias, and support for Syrian rebels. ISIS = Syrian rebels + Saddams former soldiers and officers + ordinary Sunnis oppressed by Shia gov.How about defending an ally against a hostile incursion by a foreign army? How does that rate on your "gee whiz" meter?
Oh and again, we're imperialist oil stealers. I guess that explains why all that Iraqi oil is under US contr-- oh wait, it's all under local control? Well surely in Afghanistan we took control of the country's oil produ-- we didn't? Oh.
Goddamned this fucking lie will not go away. What does the US need to do? Run ads on the side of buses?
The "gee whiz democracy" and "evil Imperial oil stealers" were two examples of the extreme narratives that get peddled about. They were examples of how the narrative, no matter how silly, doesn't really matter to the dead civilians. They're still dead. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
No reason?
I think this conversation might be hopeless.
You still haven't explained how bombing the Middle East helps anyone.A.k.a. "Got ours, fuck everybody else."
How noble of you.
You edited out the rest of my post where I said we SHOULD help, if we can. We can't though. And you haven't explained how bombing them more would help.The situation that created the war only exists because France and the UK (by signing contradictory treaties with local leaders, then resolving the conflicts by reneging on all the promises contained within) fucked-over the region after WWI. The power vacuum was the overnight dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. The US wasn't involved in that shit. On the contrary; we founded the League of Nations to prevent that exact shit from happening again. (It didn't work, but the point is: we're trying.)
Agreed, that was evil.This is so myopic it boggles my mind.
Ok. It's true though. Dead civilian people don't care that you had the best of intentions when you killed them. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
For giving you the luxury of not needing to worry about this stuff.
Oh, no, that's no luxury. We had zero reason to fear intact Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. We do have reason to fear ISIS and the regional. You guys fucked things up horribly, you don't get credit for attempting to fix it. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Why is it obvious that we can't do anything to stop these civil wars?
Because there are centuries old ethnic (Arab vs Persian), religious(Sunni vs Shia), nationalist (Kurds want their own state), tribal (still a very important concept in Iraq, not sure about elsewhere), economic (self explanatory) differences.The idea that if Western folks bomb enough buildings, kill enough people, and/or occupy enough land, it'll all just stop and be nice, is ludicrous.
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
You apparently can't tell the difference between conquest and the sorts of wars the US has had over the last century or so.
The difference in motivations for the wars are irrelevant to their results though. If the result is hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and a region in chaos, it really doesn't matter what the intentions were. Whether you were invading as the gee whiz good guys spreading democracy, or the evil imperialist oil stealers, the outcome was the same.Yes, that's obvious.
So why advocate more invasions and war, if it's obvious we can't do anything to stop the Muslim civil wars?
@boomzilla said:I guess if you think that nothing that happens there matters or can affect you...
I never said that though, did I?You're welcome.
For what? -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Haven't we stuck them all in asylums already?
Close enough:"Jean-Christophe [the current Prince Napoleon] has worked and lived in New York City as an investment banking analyst for Morgan Stanley and in London as a private equity associate for Advent International."
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
For very different reasons. Your inability to understand that furthers my understanding.
Yeah I actually don't understand this sentence. Mind explaining?What, the millenia so far haven't been enough?
Apparently not.And you're obviously willing to let that shit spill over into other parts of the world so you can keep your hands clean. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be limits, but I'm not impressed with this sort of sophistry, either.
I just fail to see how Westerners interfering in a Muslim civil war across the entire Middle East can help in any way? Apologies for the absurd image, but would an army of 100,000 Hindu soldiers have been able to stop the Catholic vs Protestant wars of Europe? Or would they have just made everything crazier and more chaotic? I don't see what we could do except defend our own lands, those of our friends and allies, and accept as many refugees as possible. "Keeping our hands clean" isn't the concern so much as "what good will getting them dirty do?"We gave our nuke arsenal to elitist tea-sippers and chronic flag wavers?
Christ, we're fucked.
Eh, they still have descendants of Napoleon knocking around. They'll be fine :P -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
I guess this is a big part of why you guys are useless.
I'm glad we're useless at that. We were very "useful" at invading and killing for hundreds (thousands?) of years.I'm delighted that's over, for the most part. (Britain and France still have the post colonial itchies from time to time, it seems) -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Well the "do absolutely nothing at all times forever" European strategy doesn't seem superior to my eyes.
Doing nothing is better then bombing and killing for no reason, I think. We're secure enough from outside threats, we have UK and French (lol) nukes to deter Russia or whoever, and we are basically quite happy with the whole "peaceful prosperity" thing we got going on.The natural reaction when seeing awful things is to demand "something must be done!" But that "something" has to logically improve the situation. If it just makes things worse, it shouldn't be done. If it was possible to fire a missile through some dictators window and have an overnight improvement in democracy, freedom, and human rights, I'd be all for it.
But knocking out dictators like the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad (not dead but lost control of most of his country) doesn't lead to that though, it just leads to chaos where the strongest, craziest and most brutal people try and seize power and resources. Scores are settled, vengeance is unleashed. More people have died since those countries were "freed" by America then in the previous multiple decades of dictator rule.
Unfortunately, I think the Middle East simply needs to suffer through it's own version of Europe's centuries of religious wars, genocides, and hatred before they emerge out the other side into democracy, on their own terms.
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
ISIS coalesced out of anti-Assad Syrian rebel groups, whom you guys supported, the remnants of Saddam's army, which you guys disbanded, and the oppressed Sunni minority in Iraq, whose oppressors (Shia government and militias) you guys set up. I would agree they are a problem, but one that wouldn't exist without you guys' initial crazy schemes.
"We're Europe! Fuck human rights!" - as if bombing the Middle East for the 7 billionth time will improve anyones rights?
-
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Hey PRO-TIP: if you Euro-weenies would go in to take care of the problem first, you'd be able to take care of it however you like.
The "problems" you guys attempt to solve with bullets and bombs? We wouldn't consider them "problems" at all, I would think. Maybe Britain would.If you sit on your bony European asses until the US gets involved, then expect the US to solve it how we like.
Sure, just don't act surprised when 9/11-2 happens. -
RE: Acquiescence
a point well made
Literally! It comes from fencing. The other guy gets past your guard and touches you with the point of his foil, you say touch (touche in French) to acknowledge his achievement. -
RE: FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
Next time some European accuses the US of acting like the "world police",
Acting like "world police" is fantastic, when it's ACTUALLY your police. Hammer those crooks!
When ye act more like the "World Police" from the movie and blow shit up, that's a little less welcome ;)
-
RE: My new 4k monitor-- God I wish I had taken notes while setting up this thing
I think 1 outta 4 games I tried would actually work as I'd
expecthope in fullscreen.That fullscreen windowed thing is definitely best but I don't think I had it on the games I was trying.
I mean, I know it SHOULD work, I know it DOES work for others, but for SOME goddamn reason, it was just crapping out on me. That goes back to the "hating computers" thing. I could see no logical reason what was going wrong. Just have two different things filling two different screens!
-
RE: My new 4k monitor-- God I wish I had taken notes while setting up this thing
I should possibly try again. The monitor is still sitting there doing nothing... dunno if I want to back to that misery though :P
-
RE: My new 4k monitor-- God I wish I had taken notes while setting up this thing
I hate computers.
Yeah, me too. I set up my gaming PC in my living room, using my tv as a display. Last year, during the soccer World Cup, I got the bright idea that I'd hook up a monitor too, so I could game on one screen and watch footy on the other.The amount of heartache just trying to get two fullscreen programs working on two different screens...
Meanwhile my roommate just streams stuff on his iPad when he's playing games. I'm tempted to get one, honestly. At least it'll ****ing work!
-
RE: Memory-holing: Now here on DailyWTF! Abusive mods ahoy!
Yeah, and the tantrum half is getting fucking old already. Much older than the random furry lesbian thing in my book.
I dunno, I think his rants and tantrums usually have some sort of point or grain (or more) of truth.Not that it affects me at all, but I definitely scroll past/leave threads where the whole "I'm a badger lol" thing happens. So I get why it'd bore/enrage Blakey.
-
Moving stuff over the goal posts
Not sure about you
Weirdest thing to chuck over those goalposts. Hence ... huh, there's another emoticon. I guess one just wasn't enough! -
RE: Vote of No Confidence
@KillaCoder said:
I just don't understand why everyone can't just be given access to the whole program.
So everyone should be an admin?
Oh come on, you know that's not what I mean...
-
RE: Timeless Lessons from Greybeards, or, Get Off My Lawn!
Ew, compiler bugs. Never run into one, or maybe I have. Wouldn't even occur to me as a possibility.
-
RE: Vote of No Confidence
Because every person who comes by should be able to post anything and edit anything and delete anything. You're just drawing the lines at a different place. I'm not saying you're wrong for doing so, but I am saying that claiming this is "creepy" or similar isn't right.
Well that ain't fair. Limits based on logic, account integreity and security have nothing to do with the "social engineering" side of Discourse... -
RE: Vote of No Confidence
@KillaCoder said:
Not so much this minor example, but more the general idea of the computer dictating use to the human users, rather than humans giving instantly obeyed orders to the computer.
This is getting silly. It's just people reacting to incentives like they always do.
But the functionality of the program shouldn't be walled off as an "incentive" for good behavior (as defined by the computer/developers/"game master"). That's basically my entire point. I just don't understand why everyone can't just be given access to the whole program. This whole system of ranks and privileges and jumping through hoops and deciding who deserves what functionality is what creeps me out.I wonder if this trend will continue. I wonder in 5 years will Facebook seal off the "Create Event and Invite Friends" functionality if I haven't share enough status updates or liked enough business or musician pages. That'd be a really negative trend if it DID occur, I think.
Anyway, I'll shut up now, you guys are clearly mostly ok with how things work and it's your community.
-
RE: Vote of No Confidence
Agreed. I don't know why we need to have this discussion again.
Because it's interesting? The functionality of Discourse is buggy but will get better in time, these are like core philosophical ideas behind it though.If it's boring and dumb I can shut up though :P
-
RE: Vote of No Confidence
@KillaCoder said:
The software is functioning as intended, but the intentions were creepy and crazy.
I genuinely think that trying to social engineer a community of humans with automated computer rules is very creepy. Presenting hoops to jump through and rewards for doing so and (what I consider to be) punishments for not doing so, gives me (scientific term) heebie jeebies. Not so much this minor example, but more the general idea of the computer dictating use to the human users, rather than humans giving instantly obeyed orders to the computer.I'm not getting emotional or extreme about it. I just find it very interesting, both the intentions behind it and you guys reactions to it, and I wonder if this type of thing could become more common in future.
-
RE: Vote of No Confidence
All non-trivial software impose arbitrary rules on how you use it.
I don't think the rules should or need to be arbitrary though. I think they should make sense with regard to the problem being solved. I don't see any logical link between giving likes and parts of the site appearing/disappearing.Because they created the requirements specification for the software. We may argue whether they did a good job at requirements engineering, but that is another discussion. The host of this forum chose Discourse, and the thereby implied set of rules, for us to play in.
I just don't understand how you guys are ok with that though. I mean, I get shrugging and accepting the crap you can't change. But ye don't even seem to consider it crap. I won't waste our time further since we clearly disagree. But I could never consider software that yells "Jump!" and expects the user to respond "How high!?" to be good. -
RE: Vote of No Confidence
No. I just like to argue with you.
Fair enoughHe did not "lose" access. He took an active decision to drop the access.
He had access but the software took it away. He never chose to drop it. He was never asked. That isn't an active decision.No. The software should jump through hoops to satisfy all stakeholders.
No it shouldn't, not if the stakeholders are creepy and their "satisfaction" depends on forcing unwanted things on others.I'm sure there are Facebook users who would love the ability to prowl through other folks private photo albums. The software should not satisfy them.
This includes each individual user but also, in this case, the "game master" that decides under which rules we are allowed to conduct civilised discussions.
If you're ok with a literal "master" whose arbitrary rules cause parts of the software to appear and disappear on a whim, then we'll never agree. That sounds cloud cuckoo land, properly insane to me.This means that there is sometimes a tradeoff between the requirements and behaviour of different users. Since not all stakeholders are created equal, the requirements of the game master weighs more than the requirements of one individual user.
Who is the "game master"? Why does he/she/it exist? Why are they more important? Why are the actual users of a simple discussion forum subject to the whims of some shadowy "master"? Why is their word law?
@Mikael_Svahnberg said:This has nothing to do with the software being in the way of the users [...] in this particular case the software functions as intended.
The software stops him accessing his own threads.
The software is functioning as intended, but the intentions were creepy and crazy.Discourse should just let people use this forum as they want. Stop trying to force and manipulate people to jump through hoops because "Discourse knows best".
-
RE: Vote of No Confidence
On a less serious note, your perspective is wrong. The additional access is a reward for actively participating in the "Civilised discussion. On the internet." game. If I follow your argument to the extreme, I can claim that I am being "punished" since I am not president of the US even if I have never participated in any election campaign.
He lost access to his own threads. That's a punishment.It'd be more like you were president, and then got removed from office due to arbitrary reasons that had nothing to do with your job performance. (I'm sure there's a Clinton impeachment + "job" joke in there somewhere...)
Even not having access to the lounge feels a bit wrong to me, though a much grayer area I admit. A user should never have to jump through hoops to satisfy software. The software should jump through hoops to satisfy the user.
Do you honestly give a **** if Blakey likes things or not?
-
RE: Vote of No Confidence
He's not being punished; he's merely not being rewarded.
A reward would be something new and extra. That's not what "liking" gets you. Instead, you lose access to things you already had. That's a punishment, in my book. And I don't know why folks think that's ok.Who actually gives a **** if this dude likes posts or not? Why is the software set up to try and force him to?
-
RE: Vote of No Confidence
About what? I maintain that he's wrong. He can absolutely ignore the feature. I seriously wish he would. Instead he whines about how ignoring the feature has other consequences. He has some sort of grudge against the feature.
That sealing off part of the site because he doesn't want to use a totally unrelated feature is wrong, and a creepy example of software trying to manipulate it's users.
He doesn't want to use likes, he shouldn't have to use likes, and he shouldn't be punished for not using likes.
Software should serve it's users, not force them to jump through hoops. I think that's genuinely hostile design.
In the ideal case, he could ignore the likes feature (as he wishes), you could use the likes feature (as you wish), and neither of you would be punished or sealed off from anything. No one would have to argue who was right, since you both would have the freedom to use likes or not, as you wished.