• 2 Posts
  • 10 Comments
Joined 2 days ago
cake
Cake day: February 24th, 2026

help-circle
  • This is such awful history; of course it works because it serves the US, but it does blow me away that otherwise well-meaning people continue to parrot it. You don’t have to be a “tankie” to stop spouting this nonsense.

    You’re referring to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. That was a non-aggression treaty, not an “alliance.” The soviets would be pretty foolish to make an alliance with a country whose fascist genocidal leader, hitler, made clear the inescapable need to invade the soviet union in mein kampf.

    You know who else had already made non-aggression pacts with the Nazis before that? The UK, France, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Estonia, and Latvia. You think they were “allied” with the Nazis?

    Hell the Spanish civil war was a proxy war that the soviets had to pull out of to get ready for invasion (much to the ire of western anarchists forever).

    No, man. The soviet position was pretty damned clear: they needed time to mobilize. You think they were mobilizing to deal with…what, Poland? Everyone knew what was happening between the Nazis and the soviets. They still weren’t ready, and got slaughtered.

    Dislike the Soviet Union for other reasons. There are plenty of good ones. This is nonsense.


  • MUME

    I’m jumping into this and it’s very cool; thanks for the suggestion! I think the very-clear shared lore makes it so that it’s not a huge amount of work to get into it (for me anyway), and that consistency means you’re not going to have the weird issue that some of these seem to of clashing archetypes and themes (e.g. a telekinetic alien, a brooding goth gunslinger, and a magical rainbow pony walk into a bar).

    That said, I do think the shared lore may restrict freedom a bit (I don’t know how plausible it would be to work towards making the events of the third age impossible…like leading a peasant revolt in Gondor or something).








  • What’s amazing to me is that regular Canadians are agreeing with this bizarre US policy of trying to get their “allied” countries’ to spend more on their militaries.

    First, that’s ludicrous because the US is the empire, (when they’re not doing the plundering themselves) they garner the vast majority of the benefit of stability and an absence of piracy. Of course they, who reap the benefit, should have to pay the cost. Or don’t, you know, I’m not even convinced that Russia or China have the intention or wherewithal to start invading other countries via the arctic. Maybe they want to claim territory that doesn’t currently belong to anyone, I don’t know. But like…I don’t think either of them is interested in marching an army into Whitehorse.

    Second, what are we gonna do to increase spending? Could it be that we’ll be paying US companies for these weapons? When the gun merchant says “buy guns or else” I don’t think it’s very insightful to do mental gymnastics to justify why “maybe it really would be better for us.”

    Don’t get me wrong, there may be good things too, especially if we focus on domestic manufacturers, and on weapons of defense and resistance (i.e. large quantities of small arms to make occupation by anyone difficult - like the Finns!).

    Instead I’m sure we’re gonna see us buying overpriced U.S. military hardware that will only really be useful helping the US do imperialism (fancy jets and the like).