- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 21,005
- Reaction score
- 2
Can you link me to people saying that? I haven't seen anyone say we should depose Putin or hurt Russian civilians.
600 Russian Troll/Bot Accounts Tweeting #guncontrolnow
- Thread starter luckyshot
- Start date
Can you link me to people saying that? I haven't seen anyone say we should depose Putin or hurt Russian civilians.
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 21,005
- Reaction score
- 2
WWI literally changed all of history forever. WWII was an aftereffect.
How are you on a political discussion board if you don't know why nobody has put sanctions on America? Serious question.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
Nonsense. The allies could have easily lost ww2. Stop talking nonsense. That created the world order we have now and then America "winning" the cold war. Which of course can also be traced back to 1911 too right? lol. Everything revolves around 1911. Butterfly effect still going.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
- Messages
- 35,945
- Reaction score
- 4,933
Please don't hurt Putin!
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 21,005
- Reaction score
- 2
I cannot believe I'm reading these opinions. This is like someone who doesn't know there are primary colours discussing Da Vinci.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,949
- Reaction score
- 1,331
Facepunch did a shitpost about drones. But Seaside has been accusing everyone of it so . . .
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
If I had a test and was asked the question, "how did the US achieve its current standing in the world?", instead of writing an essay I would just write "1911". Aced that test.
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 21,005
- Reaction score
- 2
Facepunch did a shitpost about drones. But Seaside has been accusing everyone of it so . . .
Lol I've seen his drone posts. I thought he was referencing Hillary and Assange.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
Why don't you take on my arguments? Tell me how 1911 made the Russians lose the Cold War. lol. You have kept referring to my ignorance, well satiate it by actually responding. Lazy fuck.
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 21,005
- Reaction score
- 2
Your teacher would be happy you were smart enough to know that there was a global event in 1914 that basically removed the abilities of the leading world powers to finance a second world war, leaving one nation to rise above then as a leading financial superpower.
You need to read more history books. Not many historians disagree that WWI is entirely responsible for the world as we know it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
That is nonsense. How can something that happened 100 years ago swallow up all causality to the present day? Utter nonsense. Where has my history been wrong? You are acting like the world has been static since 1911 and nothing since then has happened that matters or changed that course. Fuckin please. Without all the shit after America is not where it is now. Period. Fact. 1911 was not the fuckin Big Bang and end of the universe at the same time. It was neither.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
Arriving at this conclusion we can reply directly and positively to these two essential questions of history:
(1) What is power?
(2) What force produces the movement of the nations?
(1) Power is the relation of a given person to other individuals, in which the more this person expresses opinions, predictions, and justifications of the collective action that is performed, the less is his participation in that action.
(2) The movement of nations is caused not by power, nor by intellectual activity, nor even by a combination of the two as historians have supposed, but by the activity of all the people who participate in the events, and who always combine in such a way that those taking the largest direct share in the event take on themselves the least responsibility and vice versa.
Morally the wielder of power appears to cause the event; physically it is those who submit to the power. But as the moral activity is inconceivable without the physical, the cause of the event is neither in the one nor in the other but in the union of the two.
Or in other words, the conception of a cause is inapplicable to the phenomena we are examining.
It would be a mistake to think that this is ironic—a caricature of the historical accounts. On the contrary it is a very mild expression of the contradictory replies, not meeting the questions, which all the historians give, from the compilers of memoirs and the histories of separate states to the writers of general histories and the new histories of the culture of that period.
The strangeness and absurdity of these replies arise from the fact that modern history, like a deaf man, answers questions no one has asked.
If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement of humanity and of the peoples, the first question—in the absence of a reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible—is: what is the power that moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriously replies either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books.
All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is not what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a divine power based on itself and always consistently directing its nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking about Napoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown the connection existing between these men and the movement of the nations.
If instead of a divine power some other force has appeared, it should be explained in what this new force consists, for the whole interest of history lies precisely in that force.
History seems to assume that this force is self-evident and known to everyone. But in spite of every desire to regard it as known, anyone reading many historical works cannot help doubting whether this new force, so variously understood by the historians themselves, is really quite well known to everybody.
-Tolstoy War and Peace.
(1) What is power?
(2) What force produces the movement of the nations?
(1) Power is the relation of a given person to other individuals, in which the more this person expresses opinions, predictions, and justifications of the collective action that is performed, the less is his participation in that action.
(2) The movement of nations is caused not by power, nor by intellectual activity, nor even by a combination of the two as historians have supposed, but by the activity of all the people who participate in the events, and who always combine in such a way that those taking the largest direct share in the event take on themselves the least responsibility and vice versa.
Morally the wielder of power appears to cause the event; physically it is those who submit to the power. But as the moral activity is inconceivable without the physical, the cause of the event is neither in the one nor in the other but in the union of the two.
Or in other words, the conception of a cause is inapplicable to the phenomena we are examining.
It would be a mistake to think that this is ironic—a caricature of the historical accounts. On the contrary it is a very mild expression of the contradictory replies, not meeting the questions, which all the historians give, from the compilers of memoirs and the histories of separate states to the writers of general histories and the new histories of the culture of that period.
The strangeness and absurdity of these replies arise from the fact that modern history, like a deaf man, answers questions no one has asked.
If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement of humanity and of the peoples, the first question—in the absence of a reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible—is: what is the power that moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriously replies either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books.
All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is not what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a divine power based on itself and always consistently directing its nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking about Napoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown the connection existing between these men and the movement of the nations.
If instead of a divine power some other force has appeared, it should be explained in what this new force consists, for the whole interest of history lies precisely in that force.
History seems to assume that this force is self-evident and known to everyone. But in spite of every desire to regard it as known, anyone reading many historical works cannot help doubting whether this new force, so variously understood by the historians themselves, is really quite well known to everybody.
-Tolstoy War and Peace.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
And beneath each of these faces a memory. And in place of what we were told had been forged into a collective memory, a thousand memories of men who parade their personal laceration in the great wound of history.
That's the way the breakers recede. And so predictably that one has to believe in a kind of amnesia of the future that history distributes through mercy or calculation to those whom it recruits: Amilcar murdered by members of his own party, the liberated areas fallen under the yoke of bloody petty tyrants liquidated in their turn by a central power to whose stability everyone paid homage until the military coup.
That's how history advances, plugging its memory as one plugs one's ears. Luis exiled to Cuba, Nino discovering in his turn plots woven against him, can be cited reciprocally to appear before the bar of history. She doesn't care, she understands nothing, she has only one friend, the one Brando spoke of in Apocalypse: horror. That has a name and a face.
I'm writing you all this from another world, a world of appearances. In a way the two worlds communicate with each other. Memory is to one what history is to the other: an impossibility.
Legends are born out of the need to decipher the indecipherable. Memories must make do with their delirium, with their drift. A moment stopped would burn like a frame of film blocked before the furnace of the projector. Madness protects, as fever does.
-Sans Soleil
That's the way the breakers recede. And so predictably that one has to believe in a kind of amnesia of the future that history distributes through mercy or calculation to those whom it recruits: Amilcar murdered by members of his own party, the liberated areas fallen under the yoke of bloody petty tyrants liquidated in their turn by a central power to whose stability everyone paid homage until the military coup.
That's how history advances, plugging its memory as one plugs one's ears. Luis exiled to Cuba, Nino discovering in his turn plots woven against him, can be cited reciprocally to appear before the bar of history. She doesn't care, she understands nothing, she has only one friend, the one Brando spoke of in Apocalypse: horror. That has a name and a face.
I'm writing you all this from another world, a world of appearances. In a way the two worlds communicate with each other. Memory is to one what history is to the other: an impossibility.
Legends are born out of the need to decipher the indecipherable. Memories must make do with their delirium, with their drift. A moment stopped would burn like a frame of film blocked before the furnace of the projector. Madness protects, as fever does.
-Sans Soleil
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 21,005
- Reaction score
- 2
We live in the shadow of WWI. it literally obliterated the concepts of violence, war and peace that humans have understood for over 10 000 years. Everything that followed since then has been under these new rules of humanity. Read some goddamn books please.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Messages
- 47,435
- Reaction score
- 20,857
Welcome to the world where not swallowing bullshit just because it comes from your side means you're a dyed in the wool member of the opposition.
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 22,616
- Reaction score
- 0
i dont know anyone "calling for blood" against russia.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2013
- Messages
- 13,380
- Reaction score
- 5
guns? thats for peasants. I prefer Death Stars, its the only way to keep the local systems in line.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2018
- Messages
- 2,462
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd prefer a gun in this instance.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2013
- Messages
- 13,380
- Reaction score
- 5
take your shot best not miss
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2016
- Messages
- 34,002
- Reaction score
- 0
So the Russians are doing what our media does everyday?
The outrage!
Done for profit motive.....cool
Done by Russians......cold war 2
Wait, what if the Russians are doing it for profit motive?
The outrage!
Done for profit motive.....cool
Done by Russians......cold war 2
Wait, what if the Russians are doing it for profit motive?
