DOOM: ETERNAL's Unapologetic Western Masculinity

[Hawki]

Id Software made games where Nazis where their race policies were front and center and worked with the KKK.

Actually, Machine Games did. Id didn't develop the recent Wolfenstein games, so Id is free to have its own messages in its own games.

Not that I think it's equating refugees to demons, but it wouldn't technically be a reversal from Wolfenstein if it was.

The only parody going on is the UEC being so greedy that it lets literal demons onto Earth to make money while spewing out corporate mouthspeak to try and BS people. You know. The same thing that happened in the last game.

Actually, I have to disagree there too.

The UAC wasn't "greedy" in Doom 2016, it was using argent energy to provide power for Earth. I'm sure it was paid handsomly for that, but energy is a global need. The Doom Slayer thoughtlessly destroying the conduits likely doomed millions - you could argue that it was to save billions, but robbing a planet of its energy source is going to have reprecussions.

Likewise, the PA. I also doubt it's the UAC trying to BS people, at least in the sense of them being, again, greedy. It struck me as either demons having somehow hijacked the system, or corrupted UAC members doing it. You don't make money when everyone's dead.

People have more reasons than not to hate on 'whitey'. They keep causing problems.

You do realize that logic could be applied to any group, right?

Islam keeps causing problems for instance, and it's causing problems across at least three continents. Doesn't mean we should start saying "we have more reasons than not to hate Muslims," because it's a gross oversimplification of the problem Islamism/Washabism presents.

How about you start overthrowing politicians that cause mass Yemeni starvation through blockading their ports and throwing guns at Saudis before pretending that people might not appreciate the political dimensions at the 'homefront' for good reasons?

It's the Saudis who are blockading Yemen, so I doubt any of us are going to overthrow them anytime soon.

Also, if you're referring to the US selling arms to Saudi Arabia, that's true, but the majority of outside influence in Yemen is coming from Middle Eastern countries, not to mention the presence of groups such as ISIS.

Second: WTF does "Western Masculinity" even mean in this day and age?

I really have no idea.

I mean, is Doom "masculine?" Well, yeah, sure, but I don't get what's "Western" about it. Killing demons isn't exactly something that only Westerners could get behind.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You do realize that logic could be applied to any group, right?

Islam keeps causing problems for instance, and it's causing problems across at least three continents. Doesn't mean we should start saying "we have more reasons than not to hate Muslims," because it's a gross oversimplification of the problem Islamism/Washabism presents.

His argument was a gross simplification. This is why I alluded to the fact that clearly white groups of people also have problems with Whitey right underneath.

It's the Saudis who are blockading Yemen, so I doubt any of us are going to overthrow them anytime soon.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-10-14/us-involvement-yemen-war-just-got-deeper
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/20/carrier-intercepts-iranian-arms/26082755/

Also, if you're referring to the US selling arms to Saudi Arabia, that's true, but the majority of outside influence in Yemen is coming from Middle Eastern countries, not to mention the presence of groups such as ISIS.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/13/house-yemen-civil-war-authorization-244868
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/banned-by-119-countries-u-s-cluster-bombs-continue-to-orphan-yemeni-children/

To quote....

Researchers from Human Rights Watch identified the shell casings in photographs taken by The Intercept as a U.S.-made cluster bomb. The serial number documented in the photographs also begins with the five-number "commercial and government entity" (CAGE) code 04614 - indicating that the weapons were produced in the United States, by the Rhode Island-based company Textron Systems.

Saudi Arabia began bombing Yemen in March 2015, seven months after Houthi rebels overran the capital city Sanaa and deposed the Saudi-backed leader, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi. The U.S. has been a silent partner to the war ever since, supplying targeting intelligence, flying refueling missions for Saudi aircraft, and authorizing more than $20 billion in new weapons transfers. Since the beginning of his administration, President Barack Obama has sold $115 billion in weapons to the Saudis, more than any of his predecessors.

Saudi Arabia is dependent on the U.S. in its bombing campaign, explained Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and 30-year CIA officer, at an event in April. "If the United States and the United Kingdom, tonight, told King Salman [of Saudi Arabia] 'this war has to end,' it would end tomorrow. The Royal Saudi Air Force cannot operate without American and British support."

In short, no...

Let me remind you ... weapons banned by every country in the world barring the U.S., Russia and Saudi Arabia...

Even if you strip out war crime inducing weapons the U.S. will gleefully sell to Saudi Arabia ... even then, clearly U.S. backing is the principle agent and influence outside its direct actors. That isn't even a pointin contention. It is fucking ridiculous what the U.S. has provided to allow this atrocity, either directly or indirectly.

And yeah ... shit like that tends to make people angry. Funny that.

 

[Hawki]

In short, no...

None of your posts really disproves my statement. I never claimed that the US wasn't providing arms to Saudi Arabia, but, if you want a full list of supporting factions, here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Yemeni_Civil_War

And some other links:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/key-facts-war-yemen-160607112342462.html (details other factional involement)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423 (details the Suni/Shia split)

While the US undoubtedly has an influential role, and more than other countries, the escalation of the conflict can't be pinned solely on it.

The Yemeni Civil War started as a Suni/Shi'a conflict, and it's become a proxy war between regional powers. The US deserves some of the blame for that, but other parties such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are also culpable.

As for the blockade, again, you're right in that the US has a presence, but Saudi warships had set up a blockade a year before US ships arrived.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

None of your posts really disproves my statement. I never claimed that the US wasn't providing arms to Saudi Arabia, but, if you want a full list of supporting factions, here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Yemeni_Civil_War

And some other links:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/key-facts-war-yemen-160607112342462.html (details other factional involement)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29319423 (details the Suni/Shia split)

While the US undoubtedly has an influential role, and more than other countries, the escalation of the conflict can't be pinned solely on it.

The Yemeni Civil War started as a Suni/Shi'a conflict, and it's become a proxy war between regional powers. The US deserves some of the blame for that, but other parties such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are also culpable.

As for the blockade, again, you're right in that the US has a presence, but Saudi warships had set up a blockade a year before US ships arrived.

None of which counteracts my argument. The fact of the matter is the Saudis would not even be able to prosecute this war if not for American and British backing. And suddenly you're expecting people to actually give a shit when one person in hundreds of thousands decides to drive a truck over pedestrians in London? Really? After they do shit like this?

Once again, British and U.S. involvement in this war far and away exceeds anything these bit players you're talking about. Once again, the Saudis would have lost even if all they had was arms shipments and nothing else. The Saudis required that British and U.S. presence, because a bunch of rebels with 50 year old Iranian hand-me-downs camouflaged in a mountain range were outperforming U.S. made tanks fresh off the assembly lines run by Saudi tank crews who didn't know the first thing they were doing. So many oftheir tanks were taken out purely because they didn't have an infantry screen. You had rebels literally ran up behind them and planted explosives by hand to immobilize them ... and manage to escape alive.

And the reasoning is simple ... Houthi rebel sections elect their leaders within the section. Those section leaders choose platoon leaders, those platoon leaders choose their company leaders ... so you ended up with a system of trained combatants knowing who exactly they want to lead them into an engagement. It's not the perfect system but it is certainly better than anything in the RSAAF that was basically run like everything else in Saudi Arabia ... whoever is best mates in the House of Saud.

To put it plainly, Saudi Arabia couldn't fight a war to save itself.

Once again, this war would end tomorrow if British and U.S. governments simply refused to render support. They didn't. And even pretending as if these factional groups come close to the support the British and U.S. have vested in Saudi Arabia's imperialist war machine is flat out wrong.

See, 'arms shipments' is usually measured in billions of dollars. Bank-rolling a war is measured in hundreds of billions and that is precisely what has happened.

 

[Hawki]

None of which counteracts my argument. The fact of the matter is the Saudis would not even be able to prosecute this war if not for American and British backing.

Highly doubtful. And even if it was true, the war pre-dates Saudi involvement.

And suddenly you're expecting people to actually give a shit when one person in hundreds of thousands decides to drive a truck over pedestrians in London? Really? After they do shit like this?

Who does shit like what?

People would be killed in terrorist attacks in London regardless of Yemen.

Once again, British and U.S. involvement in this war far and away exceeds anything these bit players you're talking about.

All those "bit players" are the ones with troops on the ground.

Once again, the Saudis would have lost even if all they had was arms shipments. The Saudis required that British and U.S. presence, because a bunch of rebels with 50 year old Iranian hand-me-downs camouflaged in a mountain range were outperforming U.S. made tanks fresh off the assembly lines run by Saudi tank crews who didn't know the first thing they were doing. So many oftheir tanks were taken out purely because they didn't have an infantry screen. You had rebels literally ran up behind them and planted explosives by hand to immobilize them ... and manage to escape alive.

And the reasoning is simple ... Houthi rebel sections elect their leaders within the section. Those section leaders choose platoon leaders, those platoon leaders choose their company leaders ... so you ended up with a system of trained combatants knowing who exactly they want to lead them into an engagement. It's not the perfect system but it is certainly better than anything in the RSAAF that was basically run like everything else in Saudi Arabia ... whoever is best mates in the House of Saud.

To put it plainly, Saudi Arabia couldn't fight a war to save itself.

True, but that doesn't mean the war would end if Saudi Arabia pulled out.

Once again, this war would end tomorrow if British and U.S. governments simply refused to render support. They didn't. And even pretending as if these factional groups come close to the support the British and U.S. have vested in Saudi Arabia's imperialist war machine is flat out wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict

Nup.

If the US and allies stopped today, the war might wind down, but it wouldn't end the regional power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran, nor would it mean the factions already in Yemen would stop fighting.

Edit: I should specify that:

-The Houthis would still want their own state.

-The STC would still want their own state.

-Ansar Al'Sharia, Al'Queda, and ISIS would continue to operate in large swathes of the country.

-The Hadi-led government would still want to keep the country together.

See, 'arms shipments' is usually measured in billions of dollars. Bank-rolling a war is measured in hundreds of billions and that is precisely what has happened.

Saudi Arabia has the money to purchase those weapons in the first place.

If someone sells a murderer a gun, it's the murderer that's still primarily guilty.

Also, the selling of weapons isn't just at the hands of the US - Iran's guilty as well for instance, just arming the other side.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Highly doubtful. And even if it was true, the war pre-dates Saudi involvement.

Assuming you mean the Yemenis ousting a Saudi backed regime? True ... but then again, they could have stayed home.

Who does shit like what?

People would be killed in terrorist attacks in London regardless of Yemen.

Of course they would have... what's more questionable is why the hell they're willing to do so.

All those "bit players" are the ones with troops on the ground.

And? Putting aside that the U.S. and British are actually providing personnel for the conducting of the campaign... and air strikes. And assisting the blockade. And putting boots on the ground.

True, but that doesn't mean the war would end if Saudi Arabia pulled out.

Of course it would have. The Yemeni conflict would have been civil in nature. The Houthis were in a commanding role over more population centres, including the capital. It's just not the sort ofgovernment that Saudi Arabia wanted to see.

Nup.

Yup.

If the US and allies stopped today, the war might wind down, but it wouldn't end the regional power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran, nor would it mean the factions already in Yemen would stop fighting.

But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing de-escalation in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia has the money to purchase those weapons in the first place.

Not in the bulk they needed. Oh no, there's a handful of countries that they needed that materiel from.

If someone sells a murderer a gun, it's the murderer that's still primarily guilty.

That would be fine if they were just buying guns.

Also, the selling of weapons isn't just at the hands of the US - Iran's guilty as well for instance, just arming the other side.

And? Once again, a drop in the bucket in comparison to the hardware the Saudi's are buying. Precisely because Iran isn't even making whatever the Saudi's are buying, and the Russians wouldn't sell it to them anyways. To put it plainly, the Houthis had largely already won their war and they weren't going to be buying multi-role fighters, MBTs or cluster bombs.

 

[Hawki]

Of course they would have... what's more questionable is why the hell they're willing to do so.

Because the Qa'ran demands they do so (or, rather, theirs is a fundamentalist interpretation of it.)

And? Putting aside that the U.S. and British are actually providing personnel for the conducting of the campaign... and air strikes. And assisting the blockade. And putting boots on the ground.

There's reportedly less than 1000.

Of course it would have. The Yemeni conflict would have been civil in nature. The Houthis were in a commanding role over more population centres, including the capital. It's just not the sort ofgovernment that Saudi Arabia wanted to see.

In the same sentence, you claim that the war would end, then say "the conflict would have been civil in nature," and go on to explain why.

But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing de-escalation in Yemen.

No, you were claiming that the war would end if all foreign powers left. You outright quoted someone saying that the war would end if the US and UK stopped supporting the Saudis.

It wouldn't. At all. It would leave Yemen fighting a four-way civil war.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I fully admit I screwed up on who deved what game...but the UAC wasn't greedy? The people who were fracking Hell weren't greedy? O...K. You know, maybe I would buy the whole Doomslayer doomed millions of people thing if it wasn't for how utterly indifferent the UAC is to the loss of human life. Like the canned recordings in DOOM 2016 where they tell people who are about to be possessed how this will help the company with research, the human sacrifices, or them capturing Demons to turn into weapons (yeah I don't think giving the Cyberdemon his rocket launcher arm was for the survival of the species. Seriously man, the UAC was channeling Weyland-Yutani). Oh. And humanity needed Hell? Question. Did the sun burn out? I don't think so. So why not solar power?

And even if they weren't greedy, they were arrogant. Samuel Hayden knew what happened to the Night Sentinels, he knew what Hell could do to worlds if so much as one person opened the gate for them, and he went and decided that stealing energy from them was a good idea. And the demons being the ones who spewed that stuff over the intercoms is an argument with some merit, until the Phobos mission where corporate is directly telling the humans to let the demons in.

Dude, Doom is a lot of things. Subtle when it's taking the piss out of something though? No.

 

[Hawki]

I fully admit I screwed up on who deved what game...but the UAC wasn't greedy? The people who were fracking Hell weren't greedy? O...K. You know, maybe I would buy the whole Doomslayer doomed millions of people thing if it wasn't for how utterly indifferent the UAC is to the loss of human life. Like the canned recordings in DOOM 2016 where they tell people who are about to be possessed how this will help the company with research, the human sacrifices, or them capturing Demons to turn into weapons (yeah I don't think giving the Cyberdemon his rocket launcher arm was for the survival of the species. Seriously man, the UAC was channeling Weyland-Yutani). Oh. And humanity needed Hell? Question. Did the sun burn out? I don't think so. So why not solar power?

And even if they weren't greedy, they were arrogant. Samuel Hayden knew what happened to the Night Sentinels, he knew what Hell could do to worlds if so much as one person opened the gate for them, and he went and decided that stealing energy from them was a good idea. And the demons being the ones who spewed that stuff over the intercoms is an argument with some merit, until the Phobos mission where corporate is directly telling the humans to let the demons in.

Dude, Doom is a lot of things. Subtle when it's taking the piss out of something though? No.

Okay, I can't remember all the details, but from what I recall, it's a case of:

-Earth needs energy

-UAC finds energy on Mars

-UAC sells energy

That's generally how energy supply works. Course the UAC becomes a cult as a result, but there's no mention of monopolistic practices or gouging customers.

As for solar power, that's a moot point. We have no idea of how effective solar would be in the 22nd century, and we can't tell how argent energy stacks up against it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Because the Qa'ran demands they do so (or, rather, theirs is a fundamentalist interpretation of it.)

So does the Bible. Hell, martyrdom is basically the easiest way to get out of purgatory. What actively doesn't assist is radicalizing people by murdering their family members.

There's reportedly less than 1000.

And? You seem to be under the assumption air strikes against ground targets isn't effective. Anti-regime forces in Syria would like to disagree with you. Which is kind of problematic when the Saudis couldn't prosecute that type of war without the extensive force multiplication role the Americans and Brtish bring to the table.

Quite clearly they would simply haemorrhage soldiers and materiel trying. Because that's exactly what happened to them when the UK and U.S. were not directly assisting them.

In the same sentence, you claim that the war would end, then say "the conflict would have been civil in nature," and go on to explain why.

So the solution is to assist an imperialist power mass murdering innocent people?

Wow ... it's almost as if in the same sentence you've pretty much argued my point for me.

No, you were claiming that the war would end if all foreign powers left. You outright quoted someone saying that the war would end if the US and UK stopped supporting the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia quite clearly would have lost the war if they decided to fight a conventional fight without American or British assistance. This is a fact.

It wouldn't. At all. It would leave Yemen fighting a four-way civil war.

Of which is still better than a Saudi orchestrated mass murder and imperialist puppet government. The people rebelled for a reason. Also, once again ... still better than the atrocities the Saudi have committed with Western backing.

Plus I sure as shit trust the Houthis to destroy Wahhabists than I do the RSAAF.

 

[Hawki]

So the solution is to assist an imperialist power mass murdering innocent people?

Wow ... it's almost as if in the same sentence you've pretty much argued my point for me.

Except your original point was that the war would end if external forces pulled out. Now you've shifted to it being "more civil."

We're only agreeing now because the point you're making has changed.

Saudi Arabia quite clearly would have lost the war if they decided to fight a conventional fight without American or British assistance. This is a fact.

Which, even if it is fact, doesn't mean the war would end.

Again, you've shifted the goalposts.

Of which is still better than a Saudi orchestrated mass murder and imperialist puppet government. The people rebelled for a reason. Also, once again ... still better than the atrocities the Saudi have committed with Western backing.

Plus I sure as shit trust the Houthis to destroy Wahhabists than I do the RSAAF.

https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1193661/human-rights-coalition-documents-houthi-atrocities-against-5000-civilians-2017

Because, y'know, the Houthi rebels are absolute angels...

Houthis have more in common with Wahabists than you might believe.

Now, on another topic, if you're saying that the war would de-escalate if Saudi Arabia pulled out, then congrats, I agree, and we can stop derailing the thread (on the condition that all the other powers pull out as well).

If you still want to argue the original point that the war would magically end if Saudi Arabia pulled out, then, no. I disagree. It might wind down, but the issues would remain. At the least, it might be better if external powers pulled out, because it would make it easier to get aid into the country. On the other, if Yemen falls to the terrorist factions I listed above, then, yeah...

Maybe we're looking at a three state solution? I don't envy anyone living under the Houthis, but at least it might at least function.

 

[Erttheking]

I fully admit I screwed up on who deved what game...but the UAC wasn't greedy? The people who were fracking Hell weren't greedy? O...K. You know, maybe I would buy the whole Doomslayer doomed millions of people thing if it wasn't for how utterly indifferent the UAC is to the loss of human life. Like the canned recordings in DOOM 2016 where they tell people who are about to be possessed how this will help the company with research, the human sacrifices, or them capturing Demons to turn into weapons (yeah I don't think giving the Cyberdemon his rocket launcher arm was for the survival of the species. Seriously man, the UAC was channeling Weyland-Yutani). Oh. And humanity needed Hell? Question. Did the sun burn out? I don't think so. So why not solar power?

And even if they weren't greedy, they were arrogant. Samuel Hayden knew what happened to the Night Sentinels, he knew what Hell could do to worlds if so much as one person opened the gate for them, and he went and decided that stealing energy from them was a good idea. And the demons being the ones who spewed that stuff over the intercoms is an argument with some merit, until the Phobos mission where corporate is directly telling the humans to let the demons in.

Dude, Doom is a lot of things. Subtle when it's taking the piss out of something though? No.

Okay, I can't remember all the details, but from what I recall, it's a case of:

-Earth needs energy

-UAC finds energy on Mars

-UAC sells energy

That's generally how energy supply works. Course the UAC becomes a cult as a result, but there's no mention of monopolistic practices or gouging customers.

As for solar power, that's a moot point. We have no idea of how effective solar would be in the 22nd century, and we can't tell how argent energy stacks up against it.

Humanity needs energy. *points at sun*. Energy there. Or are you going to try and spin me a yarn about how fracking hell was easier than refining a tech that had been in development since the early 21st century. The only person saying there?s no other way is Hayden, and he?s the type of person who refuses to acknowledge his path could be wrong, see him attempting to frack Hell even though he knew about the Doom Slayer?s world falling. Also no exclusive control? All of the ardent energy goes through the UAC. Sounds pretty monopolistic to me.

 

[Hawki]

Humanity needs energy. *points at sun*. Energy there. Or are you going to try and spin me a yarn about how fracking hell was easier than refining a tech that had been in development since the early 21st century.

We can only extrapolate about the development of solar power, and guessing how easy it is to frack argent energy is applying made-up science, so it's a dead-end conversation.

Also no exclusive control? All of the ardent energy goes through the UAC. Sounds pretty monopolistic to me.

Good point.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Except your original point was that the war would end if external forces pulled out. Now you've shifted to it being "more civil."

We're only agreeing now because the point you're making has changed.

There is a distinct difference between a civil conflict and a war between nations. Prior Saudi and Western actioms, you're talking the worst running battles between belligerents in terms of hundreds of casualties. And more often than not with protracted stays of combat.

Which, even if it is fact, doesn't mean the war would end.

Again, you've shifted the goalposts.

Fine, pedantry. The war would end, civil conflict would still be a thing. No one is arguing Yemen would be a utopia. And casualties would have been significantly less than they are. As well as utter disregard for the mass targeting through systemic starvation attempts by Saudi and Western forces, and total suffering of people, greatly diminished or non-extant alltogether.

Because, y'know, the Houthi rebels are absolute angels...

Houthis have more in common with Wahabists than you might believe.

Yeah, war is awful. Still trumps active starvation tactics of entire cities.

Now, on another topic, if you're saying that the war would de-escalate if Saudi Arabia pulled out, then congrats, I agree, and we can stop derailing the thread (on the condition that all the other powers pull out as well).

If you still want to argue the original point that the war would magically end if Saudi Arabia pulled out, then, no. I disagree. It might wind down, but the issues would remain. At the least, it might be better if external powers pulled out, because it would make it easier to get aid into the country. On the other, if Yemen falls to the terrorist factions I listed above, then, yeah...

Maybe we're looking at a three state solution? I don't envy anyone living under the Houthis, but at least it might at least function.

The Houthi are regularly fighting Wahhabist groups. It was principally their only remaining organized opposition prior Saudi intervention. By undermining the Houthi, it is quite literally only the Wahhabists remaining. And if you sincerely believe the RSAAF are legitimately interested is dismantling Wahhabist factions in Yemen when they are effectively cheap mercenaries to bolster any Saudi puppet leader I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

But on the whole, yes. That's what I'm saying. I would trade for a civil conflict than a war between nations. Particularly one as morally compromising as this one... and what moral good are people expecting to get out of participating?

 

[Erttheking]

We can only extrapolate about the development of solar power, and guessing how easy it is to frack argent energy is applying made-up science, so it's a dead-end conversation.

Fair point.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Spoiler

As horrible as that sounds, what does your family?s plight as activists have to with what?s happening in Europe? Do you somehow approve of the disorder and unrest as a result of what?s been happening there?

What fucking disorder? You do understand that terrorism was a bigger threat in the 60 and 70s do you not?

Furthermore, what are these countries supposed to do with up to millions of people from a third world background?

Because the Filipinos by capita have the largest rate of diaspora in the world due to cyclical, persistent foreign interference. You will find Filipinos across the world for millions of reasons like those my mother's family faced. And all of them have entirely reasonable dimensions for having to suffer that diaspora. They are not being 'impolite' or a 'burden' simply being elsewhere than they are ... because the world put them in the place that would see that happen. And only racist fuckwits could pretend otherwise.

How does anyone think that burden is sustainable let alone manageable, and why do their people deserve it beyond what, an inheritance of past crimes that most are only guilty of by distant association?

Past associations? Fuck off. EDSA is in living memory. It happened when I was alive. Things like NATO carpet bombing Libya out of existence even when Gaddafi de-militarized is only a decade ago. What, you think such things do not have repercussions? Suddenly you had Salafist slave markets by Saudi-backed militia in the streets, and for some odd reason people want to escape that. Can't imagine why.

You don't get to create a problem, and wash your hands of it. Own up to it. Get rid of the politicians that cause it. Then and only then can you pretend as if the discussion of refugees is somehow 'unsustainable'.

People can ignore it all they want, but it doesn?t mean it isn?t a problem [https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/does-germany-have-a-problem-with-criminal-refugees-1.3345325?mode=amp]. That?s just one example from one affected country. I know it?s cool these days to hate on whitey (especially Germans), but chipping away at the established population?s well being out of bitterness or revenge is only perpetuating and exacerbating the problem.

People have more reasons than not to hate on 'whitey'. They keep causing problems. How about you start overthrowing politicians that cause mass Yemeni starvation through blockading their ports and throwing guns at Saudis before pretending that people might not appreciate the political dimensions at the 'homefront' for good reasons?

After all ... the Irish and Basques had pretty good reason to 'hate on whitey' as well.

May it also be pointed out, that people like my mother? We're not the ones committing all the crimes. Infact my mother wasmore often than not subjected to illegal treatment than she had ever have the occasion to cause. Oh, I'm sorry ... inconvenient much? Clearly it was her fault simply being there in the first place

.

The problem is basically two-fold: corrupt leadership and civilian complacency/indifference which enables it. So while some responsibility could certainly fall on anyone with a right to vote, what can be done about the fact that the only candidates to stand a chance of winning are shit? How do you get a population that?s largely been intellectually lobotomised to rise up and fight back?

Answer: when things get shitty enough. The only problem with preemptive action with Europe?s brand of shit and especially America?s, you?re essentially taking on a thousand-headed snake armed with a box cutter. What would need to be done to shift the odds into anywhere near favorable territory involves going cross grain with the bs that?s being shoved down everyone?s throat lately. What can be done when most of a citizenry couldn?t be bothered to comprehend how the 2nd amendment is was their means to protect themselves from a corrupt government.

We are far into the stage of apathy; Europe is undoubtedly farther along than the U.S., but imo a refugee crisis involving thousands along for the ride isn?t quite the catalyst needed to clean house.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Chipping at the established population's well being out of bitterness or revenge

Jeez! Reserve the hateful hot takes for the Religion and Politics forum, please. Like, how resentful one must feel to assume people immigrate just out of spite?

I don?t hate or resent them. I could say some of their actions are pathetic and disgraceful to say the least, but realize it?s only a part of a much larger, more dire problem. These people shouldn?t have to run from their oppressors in this day and age. It would?ve been far more effective and efficient to just give them the means to fight back and help them to figure their own shit out vs letting it spill into more civilized, functional and long-established regions. But that?s a whole other thread topic for why that isn?t allowed to happen.

We clearly haven?t learnt much from history yet.

 

[CaitSeith]

Wolfenstein 2 is pro SJW/feminist. it loose money
DOOM eternal is opposite and its making money.

phobo scene is probably one of the most badass scene i have ever seen.

For a bit of education on basic business practices. Until you actually sell your product, its losing money because you're spending money to produce/distribute it without getting any back from selling it.

That's what pre-orders are for (to make money before selling anything). Still, it has to be an insane amount of pre-orders to make a net profit before a AAA game release, and I'd LOVE to see those crazy numbers!

 

[CaitSeith]

It would've been far more effective and efficient to just give them the means to fight back and help them to figure their own shit

We clearly haven't learnt much from history yet.

That's how ISIS got their weapons (ironically you're pretty much suggesting to repeat errors from the past); but that's a whole other thread for R&P.

 

[Avnger]

It would've been far more effective and efficient to just give them the means to fight back and help them to figure their own shit

We clearly haven't learnt much from history yet.

That's how ISIS got their weapons (ironically you're pretty much suggesting to repeat errors from the past); but that's a whole other thread for R&P.

To be a bit more general, this is pretty much how every rogue Islamic militant group got their funding/arms... We handed over tons of weaponry to the Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan starting in the 80s and still haven't stopped. We just keep switching which groups we give them out to (and then inevitably end up fighting 5-10 years down the line).