Comments by "Crazy Eyes" (@CrizzyEyes) on "The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters"
channel.
-
63
-
46
-
34
-
33
-
29
-
Heinlein's novel doesn't really depict Fascism. The idea of a hardcore meritocratic state in which you must serve in the military to vote seems ghastly to us now, but strictly speaking, it simply isn't Fascism, just an idea that could potentially coexist with Fascism. Heinlein toys with the idea because he was frustrated with genuinely awful decisions made by civilians in our government during the Cold War, and had served in the military himself.
Fascism is kind of a flash-in-the-pan ideology that has little to no relevance today, because it is by its very origin a reaction to Communism. However, the things that Fascist states had in common were:
- a body of voters who are completely desperate and faced with choosing between radical ideologies in the wake of a weak sitting government before the Fascists arrive
- a call back to the most glorious period in that nation's or people's history and a claim to be able to return to that former glory
- seizing the means of production, not unlike Communism, to both modernize and control industry (remember, Fascism was relevant when most of Europe still needed to industrialize, badly, especially Italy)
- blaming a specific group of people for most if not all of the woes the nation currently faces (again, not unlike Communism)
- and of course, totalitarian control of the government
Helldivers depicts a government much closer to Fascism than Starship Troopers. However, my personal theory is that it is a plutocracy run by defense and arms contractors that manufacture reasons to go to war to perpetuate their own profits. It explains why the government seems to wage war so inefficiently; it's like the mistakes and ulterior motives that came up with the F-35 taken into overdrive, and put in control of the entire human species for a few hundred years.
29
-
25
-
22
-
18
-
18
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@DJWeapon8 I think you're giving the people who make these diversity casting decisions too much credit. They aren't actually principled. In truth they don't give a damn about representation, the struggles of the oppressed, intersectional politics and so on and so forth. They think "Oh let's just make a Black Elf guy. Black people like that sort of thing, we'll get posts on Twitter." That is literally as deep as it goes, and for the life of me I cannot fathom why anyone would celebrate laziness, regardless of ethnicity or political stance.
Imagine a scene where the writers, director(s) and perhaps some of the cast are in a room brainstorming things, then there's a knock on the door and a producer walks in.
"Hey how's the movie coming along? Good? Good, say are there any original characters for this series?"
"Yeah we've got an elf guy who marries a human woman, you know, to give a more grounded perspective on the plot events"
"Hey sounds great. You should make him Black."
"Sorry?"
"You should make him Black. It will be good for optics. I've got another meeting to run to so I'll see you all later. Keep making the magic!" finger guns
As far as I'm aware this is how a staggeringly high number of terrible decisions are made in the creative process. This extends to video games as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cryptonaut1435 There's a dump truck of stuff if you want it laid out for you explicitly.
From a government's perspective, having more homosexuals in your country is objectively bad. Even in our society, which makes conscious efforts to improve homosexual acceptance year over year, homosexuals are more likely to have mental health issues. Their relationships are more likely to suffer from abuse. They suffer from physical health, too -- the vaginal canal is naturally adapted to help prevent some STDs, but the anal cavity, which often bleeds and isn't designed for sex, doesn't. Not to mention the repeated act of anal sex causes irreversible trauma over time. You could always choose to abstain, but again, this can contribute to a worse state of mental health. The mental health issues are a vicious cycle -- mentally ill people are more likely to abuse one another, which causes more issues. And I have not even touched on the fact that they can't reproduce, which is fatal for a nation if it reaches critical mass. The majority of people aren't even homosexual and we still suffer from massive issues with birth rates.
Furthermore, in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to show that homosexuality can be caused by nurture and environment, not just nature or processes in the womb. So it naturally follows that encouraging acceptance or even glorifying homosexual relationships for children isn't productive for a society, on either a micro or a macro level. If you're homosexual and you approach the issue objectively, you're left with a serious choice: either accept that you have a problem, which is a serious blow to your self-worth as you accept that you are on a path to "inferiority" (not unlike a bulimic or obese person with self-esteem issues for example) or you deny/don't care about the problems and accept yourself, which raises your self-esteem but renders you blind to the issues with the lifestyle. Either way you are at significant risk of mental health problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1