The_Terrible_Humbaba

The article says:

Eyewitnesses tell Asharq that beside the disguised troops, other special forces snuck into the Nuseirat camp inside an aid truck. The IDF has denied using humanitarian transports for the operation.

From the link you posted, it seems this would still be a war crime if it's true, unless I'm misinterpreting the text:

Ruses of war are permitted. Warships and auxiliary vessels, however, are prohibited from launching an attack whilst flying a false flag and at all times from actively simulating the status of protected vessels such as hospitals ships, small coastal rescue craft or medical transports.

I assume the aid truck they were using would qualify as an "auxiliary vessel", and they were using it to impersonate "medical transport".

Off course, that's fair. This was a while ago, but I believe my point was more generally about whether to rename an existing popular application. I think it's commendable that you make that effort to protect the kids you work with.

Plenty of words have multiple meanings, but I rarely think of them when I'm using a word to mean a specific thing. I know the meanings of gimp, but I never think of them when using GIMP; perhaps because it's capitalized and I always assumed it stood for something (and it does).

But anyway, and more importantly than that, what you describe is a problem that you might run into with any word.

A small subset of the world population can view it as an insult, but for the vast majority it means nothing. Sort of like the word "negro" in Spanish, which some English people take offense to when they hear it. I even searched "gimp" in 3 different search engines, and the first 2 to 5 results were always the GIMP. Most people have no other concept for the word.

Let me put it this way: you say you'd favor Kira, but how do you know that there aren't some kids in Egypt, or Russia, or someone else in the world, that take offense to the word "Kira"?

It wouldn't be you, it would just be another person with the same memories that you had up until the point the copy was made.

When you transfer a file, for example, all you are really doing is sending a message telling the other machine what bits the file is made up of, and then that other machines creates a file that is just like the original - a copy, while the original still remains in the first machine. Nothing is even actually transferred.

If we apply this logic to consciousness, then to "transfer" your brain to a machine you will have to make a copy, which exist simultaneously with the original you. At that point in time, there will be two different instances of "you"; and in fact, from that point forward, the two instances will begin to create different memories and experience different things, thereby becoming two different identities.

My favourite "broken telephone" (or whatever you wanna call it) scene.

I think the only context you need is that Nick and Cece work in the same bar, and Nick is talking about potentially adding a popcorn machine to the bar (he is against it), but Jess thinks Cece is in love with Nick and that's what she is talking about. Also, Wiston (first guy you see) is just making stuff up for a reason I can't remember.

Ah, I did not know that, I always pictured Cyrodill as just medieval Europe inspired, including the more temperate climate.

So if lore is not explicitly stated, it is bad, becapse of guess work, unless it’s in TES, because then it sparks “fan theories”

I never said DS lore was "bad", I just said it wasn't really that deep, because most of it was based on guess work from fans and YouTubers who need a reason to keep making videos. I like DS, and I've played the whole trilogy, including DLCs, but a lot of the "lore" is actually fan fiction. Then I said that in comparison, TES is much deeper - or more "expansive"/"developed", if you prefer those terms - while also offering room for fans theories. That's all.

Basically, learning DS lore is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle that is missing most of the pieces, whereas learning ES is like reading history books, which can never give you all the answers.

Some people will like one or the other more, for different reasons; but I'd say TES lore is definitely deeper, since it has a lot more to dig into.

Most of what people call DS's lore is made up of complete guess work from the fans, and pretty much everyone you ask will have a different idea of the lore. Even the YouTube DS lore masters will contradict each other on a lot of things, or have a different version of the events.

It's perfectly fine for people to enjoy that, but it's definitely not as deep as people make it seem.

As for ES, the lore is actually quite deep and has been developed for a lot longer than DS lore. As a couple of examples, you have Pelinal Whitestrake and the Dwemer, the latter of which is also the subject of a lot of speculation and fan theories. Just between those two, and not counting fan theory and speculation, you probably have more lore than in all of Dark Souls.

Not the person you replied to, but in my opinion was Oblivion was pretty good, but not as good as Morrowind. Compared to MW a lot of things felt dumbed down (i.e. beast races can wear shoes, no armour/clothes layers, no spear, etc.), and although I ~~don't~~ think there's much they could do to make the environment more interesting, ~~since the setting is what it's meant to be~~, the dungeons felt incredibly boring and repetitive.

However, I did quite like the story - especially how you are not a chosen one, which is rare for such games - and I thought a lot of the quests were pretty interesting, arguably at MW's level or better (there are definitely some exceptions*). The Dark Brotherhood quest line especially, which is not present in MW, and is much better than Skyrim's DB quest line.

*I will also add something that I hated: despite not being a chosen one story, it allowed you to be the head of all guilds, resulting in a quest where you may have to steal something from yourself.

I don't mean to imply that you are inherently wrong, but when people mention violent revolution, I am always reminded of this excerpt from in the "Afterword" of Emma Goldman's "My Disillusionment in Russia":

Applied in practice it means that the period of the actual revolution, the so-called transitory stage, must be the introduction, the prelude to the new social conditions. It is the threshold to the NEW LIFE, the new HOUSE OF MAN AND HUMANITY. As such it must be of the spirit of the new life, harmonious with the construction of the new edifice.

To-day is the parent of to-morrow. The present casts its shadow far into the future. That is the law of life, individual and social. Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society. The means used to prepare the future become its cornerstone. Witness the tragic condition of Russia. The methods of State centralization have paralysed individual initiative and effort; the tyranny of the dictatorship has cowed the people into slavish submission and all but extinguished the fires of liberty; organized terrorism has depraved and brutalized the masses and stifled every idealistic aspiration; institutionalized murder has cheapened human life, and all sense of the dignity of man and the value of life has been eliminated; coercion at every step has made effort bitter, labour a punishment, has turned the whole of existence into a scheme of mutual deceit, and has revived the lowest and most brutal instincts of man. A sorry heritage to begin a new life of freedom and brotherhood.

It cannot be sufficiently emphasized that revolution is in vain unless inspired by its ultimate ideal. Revolutionary methods must be in tune with revolutionary aims. The means used to further the revolution must harmonize with its purposes. In short, the ethical values which the revolution is to establish in the new society must be initiated with the revolutionary activities of the so-called transitional period. The latter can serve as a real and dependable bridge to the better life only if built of the same material as the life to be achieved. Revolution is the mirror of the coming day; it is the child that is to be the Man of To-morrow.

You ignored most of what I said, cherry-picked things, and even then had to leave out context and use vague language to make your argument seem anything less than insane.

The rise of the Nazis before WW2 was definitely partly caused by the imposition of the allies after WW1.

You mean economic sanctions? Around the same time that Germany was suffering from those economic sanctions and Hitler was rising to power, the world was going through The Great Depression, and by the time Hitler rose to power Germany's economy was already improving. And even you are aware enough to use the word "partially" in that sentence. More on this towards the end (*).

They write the history books after all.

That's an argument made by people who don't know history and have nothing to back their claims. I really would not be shocked if you tried to claim the Holocaust wasn't real, next.

They still killed about 8% of the total German population during WW2.

I'm not gonna bother to check that number because 8% of the population of a country being killed during a war is not a genocide, and not even an inherent attempt at one. What the Nazis did to the Jews, and what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, that is genocide. Push them away from where they live, close them off in ghetto's or walled compounds, and slowly kill them off. That's how the Holocaust started too, before they moved to concentration camps and gas chambers.

Almost 50% of German casualties during WW2 were civilians…

Firstly: According to this, about 2.25M civilians were killed during expulsions, and 500K Germans were killed by strategic bombing, but it does not specify how many are civilian. Even if we assume 100% of those are civilian and say the number of civilians casualties is 2.75M, that still only makes up 39% of the German death toll. That "almost" is certainly doing a lot of work there, for someone complaining about reality.

Secondly: How many civilians do you think make up the Palestinian death toll when they indiscriminately (and sometimes purposefully) bomb civilian areas? Israel has purposefully bombed civilian targets; 4 in 10 killed in Gaza are children; just in 2023 22K Palestinians were killed.

Finally: That still doesn't cover the important part you ignored, which is that no one is defending the bombing of German civilians during WW2, (*) and most people acknowledge the sanctions on Germany after WW1 were too harsh. Meanwhile, you are actively defending the ongoing killing of innocent civilians, and the genocide that has been ongoing for decades. Even if (and this is a giant fucking if) you were right in your comparison, you are merely arguing against yourself, because most people are not okay with any of those things.

You are somehow both (1): trying to equate Nazi Germany to Palestine, when Israel is the one doing to Palestinians what Nazi Germany was doing to the Jews, and (2): at the same time, purposefully or not, trying to victimize and justify the fucking Nazis.

I'm pretty sure we're not far from this conversation straying into Holocaust denial, either by you or someone else coming in here, so I'm leaving this convo permanently. I hope neither you nor your loved one ever get bombed because of people living in your general area; peace.

Firstly, the first and only rule of the instance you are commenting on is "be nice", but you couldn't even do that for one comment. Why are you even here? It's like going to a place whose sole purpose is having somewhere where there isn't rubbish on the floor, and throwing something on the ground as soon as you set foot in the area.

Secondly,

This situation and WW2 are not remotely the same thing. And no historian would call what the allies did to the Germans "genocide", because it wasn't. What Israel is doing has been. And it will be remembered as such. Just some differences:

• They don't hold even remotely the same kind of power and influence over the people in their region. The Nazis were given power through legal elections, Hamas was not. And Hamas is only in control in Gaza, not in the West Bank, where Palestinians still suffer at the hands of Israel.

• The existence of Hamas is a direct consequence of what Israel has been doing for several decades; this conflict did not just start last year. There was not an ongoing genocide of Germans before WW2, and it's not how the Nazis came about.

• WW2 was a war being fought between mainly armed soldiers, and people do not defend or support the bombing and killing of civilian targets, nor were they the primary targets. Israel has bombed and killed Palestinians indiscriminately, and that is what you are defending.