No, he's just hispanic.

finally got around to playing CTB

here we go...

ugly xD

Meah wrote:

VIBRATING PANTIES

Being on the receiving end of that is one of my fantasies.

Also how do you even put on vibrating panties without knowing?

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

That guy is ugly as fuck

If that guy is ugly as FUCK to you, then you'd probably vomit at 80% of the world... top 5% of people would probably be "average" to you.

silmarilen wrote:

Also how do you even put on vibrating panties without knowing?

its fake

its a "PRANK GONE WRONG" type of channel

MAKING MY GF CUM IN PUBLIC AND NUTTING ALL OVER HER MOMS FACE PRANK

Am I the only one here who thinks Catalonia should not be a country? The thing existed last time in 1137.... the fuck are they basing their shit on?

Aurani wrote:

Am I the only one here who thinks Catalonia should not be a country? The thing existed last time in 1137.... the fuck are they basing their shit on?

if spain continues to ignore the issue, there's going to be riots, and yes this shouldn't even be a country, like it's fucking fine where it is, we don't need a vatican city 2.0

Imagine if every country that existed at one point in history suddenly wanted independence. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still lots of people who want their "culture" turned into official historical borders.

While I don't think the police should've beaten the shit out of the voters, I would definitely agree if they all landed in jail. Threatening a country's borders is how you become a criminal, and criminals belong in jail.

kosovo is serbia

Aurani wrote:

Am I the only one here who thinks Catalonia should not be a country? The thing existed last time in 1137.... the fuck are they basing their shit on?

Cultural identity? Can survive longer than 900 years, even in the absence of official borders. People, in general, are really good at any sort of "us vs. them"-thinking.

Comfy Slippers wrote:

kosovo is serbia

Kosovo existed neither as a separate country at any point in time nor had a different culture from the parent country, so I really see no reason to even discuss its independence. Not that any sane person would want that shit land past the rich resources and the few historical landmarks. If..... if only there was a way to..... remove the people from that land. :thinking:

Railey2 wrote:

Cultural identity? Can survive longer than 900 years, even in the absence of official borders. People, in general, are really good at any sort of "us vs. them"-thinking.

Yeah I know it can, but it's insanity to look back and believe you can revive history. While both Crimea and Catalonia had been kingdoms (or a Khanate in Crimea's case) at one point in history, there is no reason to go back to it if the country it is now a part of is similar enough culturally, don't you agree?
Imagine if every part of today's Germany wanted independence based on the small cultural differences back from the days of the HRE? That would be pretty fucking insane and downright stupid when you look at it both politically and economically.

Crimea should've stayed Ukrainian and Catalonia should stay Spanish, but what does it matter when it's all just politics at work.
There's always some assfags pulling the strings.

ur an assfag sini

That's abuse. I demand a divorce.

It should be noted that Catalonia and some stuff of Spain around it was independent from Spain prior to WW2 when the anarchosyndicalists counteracted the fascists' coup.
I think that's something in the mentality of people that still sets Barcelona and the area around it apart from the north south of Spain by quite a margin.

Most catalonians probably think of the kingdom of Aragon as what Catalonia used to be and it sticked around formally till 1700s

if people want to vote, then let them

even if you think catalonia has little to no historical/cultural presence you should still let them vote regardless of your political stance. because that's what the right of self-determination is for and should always remain as a basic principle

unfortunately, this basic right has been stripped from the catalan people because the ALLMIGHTY and FLAWLESS spanish constitution goes against it. the spanish government simply refuses and won't listen to anything that has to do with catalonia's becoming an independent country, and what happened today with all the voters getting hurt by the police and stuff is the result of catalans growing tired of a lazy state that has done nothing to solve this issue and hasn't tried for 7 fucking years

but 7 years isn't much, you say. look up what happened 80-40 years ago, during the francoist spain. people who thought catalonia should be an independent country would be executed right on the spot. catalan language was completely forbidden. anything related to our culture (which is exactly why people outside get the feeling that we aren't any different from spain, and the current spanish press has done a wonderful job spreading lies and piles of bullshit on that matter) was strictly forbidden. most (if not all) catalan people who lived during that period were forced to act and keep their identity as spaniards, because you know what would've happened to them if they didn't

so yeah, at least people aren't gonna get executed for having different viewpoints now (or so i want to think). and so, catalan people are also slowly realizing how much of a shithole the spanish state is, and how retarded they are for not forbidding anything that happens in the opposite side of the spectrum (can you imagine this picture ever happening in current germany? i certainly don't)

and this is only a couple of reasons as to why people want the independence from spain, i'm not going to go into detail because i'm lazy. but let's just say that catalonia has been INSANELY oppressed during all these years and people are getting fed up with it

The Catalonians aren't actually allowed to vote for independence, it's in the Spanish constitution. It's the same as American states.

Basically, Catalan has no right to hold an illegal referendum for independence, it's essentially an act of rebellion against the Spanish government and will presumably be met with military force

yes, unfortunately there has been attempts to request changes for the constitution to allow such things over the years. you can guess how they went. despite having a fuck-ton of points and arguments which would ultimately prove that an independent catalonia would be WAY better than where it is now, they still turn a deaf ear.

it's pretty pathetic that something like this has to be confronted with police, prosecutors and judges. treating ballot boxes as if they're fucking bombs is borderline stupid in my opinion

Aurani wrote:

That's abuse. I demand a divorce.

i had a dream you gave me the best dicking of my life so nah

So, in your opinion, what would you gain by getting freedom? You'd be weaker both economically and politically, and should any new world-wide wars break out, you can bet your sweet arse Spain would munch you up in a second.

As for the culture, I know there are differences, of course there are, but are they so great that they warrant you having a completely different nation? I think it's just what Railey said about "us vs them".
I mean almost every region in Europe has its own culture and way of life, but it would be insane if they all just took that as a right to proclaim independence.

Currently, the people of Catalonia who want to see it as a nation are nothing but rebels in the eyes of the state, and rightly so. You can't just go around holding illegal votes and shouting how you actively want to compromise the integrity of Spain's borders. That's how you get gunned down, and you don't want that.
There needs to be a more... diplomatic way of solving it that doesn't involve open rebellion.

Hika wrote:

i had a dream you gave me the best dicking of my life so nah

Viva Chile conchetumadre

Aurani wrote:

So, in your opinion, what would you gain by getting freedom?

I'll tell you one big reason why regions want to secede. It's the same sentiment that makes people rally against "the welfare state", they simply don't want to pay for their poorer neighbor.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/327 ... and-spain/
Catalonia has around 16% of the population, 6% of the landmass, but over 20% of the yearly economic output of Spain. On top of that, it appears as if they are the most heavily taxed region. The only big region with more economic output per capita is Madrid, which is not surprising since its Madrid.

Let's see here, the only autonomous region that is comparable in wealth per capita to Catalonia in Spain would be Basque (together with Navarre, which Basque apparently wants to unify with). Hold up, what do we have here? I'm starting to sense a pattern..
But Basque and Navarre are both tiny when compared to Catalonia.

I promise you, if Catalonia was a poor state, depending on the financial aid of Spain, none of this would be happening right now. Cultural identity is not the driving factor here, because in the end there is only one thing that makes the world go round - I let you guess once what it is, but let me tell you that it's certainly not cultural identity.


And yet, all of what you've said about political and economic disadvantages is entirely correct. Sadly, people don't really think like that.

No, you don't understand. The only reason they're so affluent is BECAUSE of Spain. There's way more to a country's economy than "well this region is wealthy so it would remain wealthy even if it was standalone.", and that means we can't just boil it down so easily. Countries don't get formed just for the general border security. The entire reason Aragon (a Kingdom made up of petty kingdoms with Catalonia being one) stopped existing is because among other things, they were facing economic collapse. Castile let them even be an autonomous region, pretty much like Catalonia is today. There is absolutely no reason for Catalonia to ever become its own country, unless other countries/high-influence people are doing something behind the scenes.

Thus we can conclude that the whole argument of "Catalonia is wealthy enough to be its own country" isn't valid unless we dive way, WAY deeper into how it all works.
*insert Bird loves the free market here*

I'm not disagreeing with you here Aurani. I never said that Catalonia is wealthy enough to be its own country, I'm saying that the wealth disparity is most likely a driving factor. If Catalonia was to become it's own country the whole thing would probably collapse spectacularly, but I would still bet a fortune that none of this would have happened if Catalonia was poor and received a bigger cut of the countries tax-income. Obviously there are a million other factors, but I'm telling you this is a big one, if not the biggest one.

And yes, this could have been avoided if they had used the free market more, that's clear as day :V

In that case I apologise, as I misunderstood you. I completely agree there with you!

We need a Bird irl picture to make it an official meme. :V

This concept that consent of your rulers is a prerequisite for self-determination is quite funny. When will people realise that arbitrary rulings of various administrative bodies aren't the source of human rights?

If I was a Catalonian I wouldn't want to be part of Spain either. Spain is a shitty illiberal and corrupt state with a comparable economic freedom index as Mexico.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

The Catalonians aren't actually allowed to vote for independence, it's in the Spanish constitution. It's the same as American states.

Basically, Catalan has no right to hold an illegal referendum for independence, it's essentially an act of rebellion against the Spanish government and will presumably be met with military force

The illiberal left strikes again. You think it's okay to use violence against people who just want to be free.

As he was summed, so he will appear.
Freedom to Bird! The free market must reign supreme!

I guess all that time in Tanzania messed with your brain, bud. :p

I think you're exaggerating a bit, Aurani. The deciding factor in an independent Catalonia's economic development would be the stance of the EU to it. If it was part of the EU right from the start, things might not look so bad. Market and infrastructure are already there so as long as there aren't any major changes to the accessibility of these, I don't think companies would go ahead and rebase their facilities elsewhere just because it is named Catalonia now. The actual politics would matter.

Aside from that I agree with B1rd here on the question of requiring consent from the spanish government (not on the free market thing but hey...).
The law in place that forbids the referendum has nothing to do with human rights and nothing to do with democracy. Its sole role is to conserve the construct called state and it serves no other purpose than that.
Dividing a society can be a viable solution to avoid conflicts and to give people the chance to choose the society they prefer. If pushed forward in a peaceful and constructive way, there is no reason why splitting a country shouldn't benefit both parties in the end. The actual issue is that people don't even bother to talk about problems. Instead we got a polarised superficial battle of dramatic gestures instead. But hey, that is modern democracy where a majority supresses many minorities.

B1rd wrote:

This concept that consent of your rulers is a prerequisite for self-determination is quite funny.

It's all fun and games until you say the same thing to your mom and she takes your computer away.
The same also applies to states in principle, except instead of only having your computer taken away, you also get shot.

What's funny about this, the concept of power? Cause I can tell you it's not funny, and many people get hurt every day because they think that they have rights that are different in nature from the protection they get from their government. But not so. It's all that rights are: A promise and a threat. Like your mom granting you the right to stay up for an hour longer. But only tonight!

B1rd wrote:

When will people realize that arbitrary rulings of various administrative bodies aren't the source of human rights?

Human rights only exist as an idea, that's the thing, they don't exist like anything that's tangible that you could touch or point towards. You've got it entirely backwards. THE ONLY ENTITY that can grant you something as abstract as "human rights" consitently, is the entity that has enough power to force everyone to consistently live as if the idea of human rights existed like something real.

Let's make it a bit more clear using this example: Do Nation-borders exist? I can assure you they do not, not in the sense a tree or an apple exists - when I was hiking in a forest between Germany and Austria, there wasn't a yellow-glowing godly line that stated "this is Germany's border btw". Borders only exist in the sense that a powerful entity (government) forces us to act as if there was this yellow-glowing godly line - in the case of my little hiking-trip with no consequence.

It's the same with human rights. Various administrative bodies ARE a source of human rights. I might even add that they are the most consistent and reliable source of human rights.

Bird and his wild views on the state. While being theoretically plausible, such things would never work in practice and no matter how much he spouts such things, it can't apply as a valid argument.

Rather than asking whether natural rights exist or not, the more pertinent question is whether they should exist. And the answer is yes, people should have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and indeed no one needs those things given to them, they already have them without a government. The alternative is that "might makes right', and the state can legitimately subject people to unspeakable tyranny. It's easy to see who's right here when you advocate for people to be shot for the crime of doing nothing but wanting to be left alone.

B1rd wrote:

Rather than asking whether natural rights exist or not, the more pertinent question is whether they should exist. And the answer is yes, people should have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and indeed no one needs those things given to them, they already have them without a government. The alternative is that "might makes right', and the state can legitimately subject people to unspeakable tyranny. It's easy to see who's right here when you advocate for people to be shot for the crime of doing nothing but wanting to be left alone.

Your "more pertinent question" has no bearing on reality, sadly. The world we live in clearly is one where the state can legitimately subject people to unspeakable tyranny, as they do so frequently. Just ask the people of North Korea. Might does make right (right in the sense of law). You should never forget that. If you do forget it, you might (hah) have to pay for it dearly.

B1rd wrote:

Rather than asking whether natural rights exist or not, the more pertinent question is whether they should exist. And the answer is yes, people should have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and indeed no one needs those things given to them, they already have them without a government. The alternative is that "might makes right', and the state can legitimately subject people to unspeakable tyranny. It's easy to see who's right here when you advocate for people to be shot for the crime of doing nothing but wanting to be left alone.

you're still an idiot lol

The state is just a group of people, and the beliefs of the people that make up that group and the people around it decide what power that group has. Thus it's everyone's moral imperative to stand up for what's right, even under threat of persecution. Otherwise you end up with what happened in the Soviet Union, where everyone's cooperation just made it easier to lead people straight into the gulags. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

B1rd wrote:

The state is just a group of people, and the beliefs of the people that make up that group and the people around it decide what power that group has. Thus it's everyone's moral imperative to stand up for what's right, even under threat of persecution. Otherwise you end up with what happened in the Soviet Union, where everyone's corporation just made it easier to lead people straight into the gulags. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Can you teach me on how you can so politically correct in a way that people will believe me?

Tupsu wrote:

you're still an idiot lol

Oh, hi there.

Off to tuuba with you, Mara.

B1rd wrote:

The state is just a group of free markets, and the beliefs of the free markets that make up the free market and the free market around it decides what power that free market has. Thus it's everyone's moral imperative to stand up for the free market, even under threat of persecution. Otherwise you end up with what happened in the Soviet Union, where no free market just made it easier to lead people straight into the gulags. The free market must be refreshed from time time with the blood of faux free markets.

I entirely agree with you.

I haven't posted in Tuuba for months mate.

Why not? The place needs refreshing.

Mara wrote:

Tupsu wrote:

you're still an idiot lol

Oh, hi there.

don't mind me I'm just here to call bird a dipshit
we miss you at tuuba forums you should come back and try to reinvigorate it some more
maybe run a mafia game or something

I really don't know how to refresh it. I'm clearly not the person for the job, seeing how the another project died on the launch day.

Ha, I hope it dies. Good riddance.

Mara, the guy who runs a discord of 200+ people, but thinks he can't revive a local forum of barely 20.

Come you bum, you can do it!

Mara wrote:

I really don't know how to refresh it. I'm clearly not the person for the job, seeing how the another project died on the launch day.

"well maybe if you didn't try to further split an already small community with another forum" - loosely paraphrased from ipep, 2017
just invite people some more, that was working for a while

Aurani wrote:

the guy who runs a discord of 200+ people

More like about 15. Majority of people are there just for ösy! related news or something and never participate in anything. We're constantly losing members each day since there's nothing interesting to show.

Tupsu wrote:

"well maybe if you didn't try to further split an already small community with another forum" - loosely paraphrased from ipep, 2017

My goal wasn't to split the tuuba's community but simply try to move my own sauna community into forum form. Didn't work.

just use the pre existing forum though, it's not like the comms are that hugely different
I'm sure if you asked nicely you could even get a special snowflake subforum, though I'm not sure why you'd want one

Yeah but they're still there. I'm also there just for 3 people, but I am there - I still count. If they didn't see a reason to be there, they would've left. Fact is, they're all still there, regardless of a reason, and the one holding them all together is you.
You're running the smoothest server I know, with the most interesting things around, so you can definitely not convince me that you can't manage a forum full of ex-osu users.

I do admit that making yet another forum was a pretty...... interesting idea.

I'll think about it, but I am not going to spend any time with any community thing for quite some time. I burned myself pretty hard with constant disappointing results. The discord server needs some cleaning but I really can't bother. Just want to do solo things for a while.

That being said, sauna members won't move to tuuba. I already know that it won't work.

I'd come back any time I got an apology from IppE for deleting my posts.

what is tuuba?

B1rd wrote:

Rather than asking whether natural rights exist or not, the more pertinent question is whether they should exist. And the answer is yes, people should have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and indeed no one needs those things given to them, they already have them without a government. The alternative is that "might makes right', and the state can legitimately subject people to unspeakable tyranny. It's easy to see who's right here when you advocate for people to be shot for the crime of doing nothing but wanting to be left alone.

Oh Jesus you're actually spouting molyneux talking points.

2 counter arguments; one being that you suggest all people can pursue life, liberty and happiness without a state existing. This doesn't take unfair discrimination into account at all- your statement would be a lot more accurate in some utopia where nobody is unfairly treated.

Secondly, without a government to provide people safety, the world would very quickly become "might makes right" anyway. There's no avoiding it- at least there's structure when governments are ruling instead of whoever had the best weapons and most soldiers.

additional note: libertarianism and the desire for borders to exist aren't exactly compatible unless you're a xenophobe

B1rd wrote:

Thus it's everyone's moral imperative to stand up for what's right, even under threat of persecution. Otherwise you end up with what happened in the Soviet Union, where everyone's cooperation just made it easier to lead people straight into the gulags.

Please for the love of god don't speak about the Soviet Union when you have no idea what you are talking about lmao

B1rd wrote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

very original

Yes, I know a thing or two about the Soviet Union.

And no, I don't consider discrimination to be intrinsically bad and I don't consider so-called unfair discrimination to be anything but an subjective judgement that should not be the basis for any laws.

We weren't talking about anarchism, we were talking about natural rights. If you want to debunk the theory of voluntaryism, you'd better come up with a better argument than the tired old assertion that it would instantly devolve into a society where might makes right.

And lastly, there are a number of prerequisites you need to satisfy before you "open borders", so to speak. Getting rid of borders without changing anything else is as good an idea as getting rid of the police force without changing anything else.

Just fuck already.

I'm still wondering why this thread have so many page

thats fucking gay

I don't have the feeling that anyone wants to discuss this matter, instead you're just all baiting B1rd and telling him, he's stupid.
Or I'm on everyone's ignore-list.

Let's look at it this way:
If you try to discuss something with someone and you have thoughts on the matter that are seriously, SERIOUSLY far off from the other person's point of view, there is no reason to discuss it any further. Lack of proper knowledge on the matter means you will NEVER be able to bridge that big of a gap and the discussion is always going to end up with someone going ad hominem.
The only reason to ever continue a discussion is if the other person's point of view is in the same ballpark, but you can't agree on certain intricacies of the matter being discussed.

So, if someone doesn't answer your post or anyone else's for that matter, know that it is because the person simply recognised how it will ultimately end for both parties.

As for Bird - he is far, far from being stupid. I know that the lad has much in him, but sometimes he just comes off as too crude.
The first thing he said when he dropped in was "soviet union" and of course you're going to make fun of it. On top of it, he's known for his free market meme, so some free jokes at his expense must be made, regardless if he's right or wrong about something.

Aurani wrote:

Let's look at it this way:
If you try to discuss something with someone and you have thoughts on the matter that are seriously, SERIOUSLY far off from the other person's point of view, there is no reason to discuss it any further. Lack of proper knowledge on the matter means you will NEVER be able to bridge that big of a gap and the discussion is always going to end up with someone going ad hominem.
The only reason to ever continue a discussion is if the other person's point of view is in the same ballpark, but you can't agree on certain intricacies of the matter being discussed.

So, if someone doesn't answer your post or anyone else's for that matter, know that it is because the person simply recognised how it will ultimately end for both parties.

Very true post, here

So you still discuss with B1rd but not with me. This does not make much sense either when you were honest with what you wrote because I don't think I'm farther from your point of view than B1rd is.

Are you referring to Daddy or me? If it's me, I actually believe your statement couldn't be farther from the truth. Bird's point of view is quite far away from mine in most cases, but the reason I like discussing things with him is because of our great relations. I know he will never go for a cheap shot when I'm involved and I respect him for that.
As for you.... what gave you the idea that I wouldn't discuss things with you? I just skipped your post yesterday because I didn't feel in the mood to be discussing it anymore, and then it all turned into a memefest.

If that post wasn't aimed at me, forget what I said. :p

Problem with people who have radically different views than you is that they have fundamentally different presuppositions about the world. The other day I had a leftist tell me, honest-to-God, that hierarchies don't exist without Capitalism and CEOs aren't any more competent than your average worker.

But regarding what was said in this thread, I'm wondering if Vipper is going to just wiggle out of backing up his unprovable assertions, like how I don't know what I'm talking about regarding the Soviet Union.

B1rd wrote:

Problem with people who have radically different views than you is that they have fundamentally different presuppositions about the world. The other day I had a leftist tell me, honest-to-God, that hierarchies don't exist without Capitalism and CEOs aren't any more competent than your average worker.

But regarding what was said in this thread, I'm wondering if Vipper is going to just wiggle out of backing up his unprovable assertions, like how I don't know what I'm talking about regarding the Soviet Union.

Talking about unprovable assertions, do you think that a society without leadership could stabilize itself with nothing but the free market?

Oh Railey my dear boy, do I love you so tenderly, but the free market is never gonna allow me to see you...

Railey2 wrote:

Talking about unprovable assertions, do you think that a society without leadership could stabilize itself with nothing but the free market?

You could have a society without any centralised governing body based on the underlying principle of the NAP.

B1rd wrote:

But regarding what was said in this thread, I'm wondering if Vipper is going to just wiggle out of backing up his unprovable assertions, like how I don't know what I'm talking about regarding the Soviet Union.

Your post suggested that people were just idly cooperating with Stalin's regime and giving his dictatorship more power, but that's completely lacking the context of his repressive government. People informing on their friends and such were only doing so because they themselves were threatened- similar to what happened in Nazi Germany where informing on Jews was highly 'encouraged'.

Besides, plenty of people would actively try and hide things from the state in the Soviet Union too, although it's hard to get any meaningful statistics- it certainly wasn't a case where everybody simply cooperated with the state, because if that were true, they wouldn't have to behave in such a violent and oppressive manner in order to get what they wanted. Forced disappearances etc due to the secret police,

Basically, you shouldn't be using the Soviet Union as an example of people refusing to do what was morally right despite threat of persecution, because the threat was significant enough to actually control people on a psychological level. Ideals of standing up to a tyrannical government are pretty, but not actually an option to the majority of people living in the USSR.

I don't know why you had to mention Nazis there, when the Soviets did the same thing.

B1rd wrote:

Railey2 wrote:

Talking about unprovable assertions, do you think that a society without leadership could stabilize itself with nothing but the free market?

You could have a society without any centralised governing body based on the underlying principle of the NAP.

I don't think that would be stable, how would that be able to resist pressure from the inside (people will inevitably use aggressive and underhanded business strategies) and pressure from the outside (foreign invasion, foreign economic aggression)?

Not having a centralised governing body under these conditions just means that you are an easy target for everyone that doesn't play by your self-imposed, highly restrictive rules.

It's a fun thought experiment, but in the end it's also no more than a fantasy.

Aurani wrote:

I don't know why you had to mention Nazis there, when the Soviets did the same thing.

...as another example of what I was talking about, which may be more widely recognised? Did you read the post? lol

Yeah, more widely recognised by people who haven't read 2 books in their life. I won't deny that it's a valid statement, but it's a pet peeve of mine when you need to add an orange from another basket to your basket of apples, simply because you don't care. I like my things tidy, is all.

i have palyed almost an hour of osu straight for the first time in 3,5 years.

i am dying.

also i had a root canal treatment today which was delightful. 10/10 everyone should get 1 or 2.

Aurani wrote:

Yeah, more widely recognised by people who haven't read 2 books in their life. I won't deny that it's a valid statement, but it's a pet peeve of mine when you need to add an orange from another basket to your basket of apples, simply because you don't care. I like my things tidy, is all.

You might be surprised at how little general knowledge there is about the USSR for the average person

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

B1rd wrote:

But regarding what was said in this thread, I'm wondering if Vipper is going to just wiggle out of backing up his unprovable assertions, like how I don't know what I'm talking about regarding the Soviet Union.

Your post suggested that people were just idly cooperating with Stalin's regime and giving his dictatorship more power, but that's completely lacking the context of his repressive government. People informing on their friends and such were only doing so because they themselves were threatened- similar to what happened in Nazi Germany where informing on Jews was highly 'encouraged'.

Besides, plenty of people would actively try and hide things from the state in the Soviet Union too, although it's hard to get any meaningful statistics- it certainly wasn't a case where everybody simply cooperated with the state, because if that were true, they wouldn't have to behave in such a violent and oppressive manner in order to get what they wanted. Forced disappearances etc due to the secret police,

Basically, you shouldn't be using the Soviet Union as an example of people refusing to do what was morally right despite threat of persecution, because the threat was significant enough to actually control people on a psychological level. Ideals of standing up to a tyrannical government are pretty, but not actually an option to the majority of people living in the USSR.

The fact is that there was hardly any resistance to the Soviet Regime, informants and alleged criminals were extremely timid and did extremely little to resist, which is what made it so easy to the regime to make arrests on the scale they did with a disproportionately smaller secret police.
It wasn't a case of not "hiding anything", it's a mistake to assume that people were arrested because they did anything wrong, people were arrested simply because they had quotas and needed people for their work camps. That's the fault assumption most people who made, who mistakenly believed that "it wouldn't happen to them because they did nothing wrong" when all evidence pointed to the contrary. Yes, resisting is a perfectly valid opinion when you're going to get 25 years in the gulag any way, and the fact that most people when out of their way to cooperate is why the Soviet Regime were able to do the things that they did on such a large scale.

Well, regardless how I look at it, doing the referendum was one thing. They got lots of international press and opened a good opportunity to accelerate the progress to even get serious talk on the topic going when the spanish government was literally keeping Catalonia under wraps before.
Actually trying to go with the head through the wall by announcing to declare independency...I don't know really what good is supposed to come from doing it that way.

Railey2 wrote:

I don't think that would be stable, how would that be able to resist pressure from the inside (people will inevitably use aggressive and underhanded business strategies) and pressure from the outside (foreign invasion, foreign economic aggression)?

Not having a centralised governing body under these conditions just means that you are an easy target for everyone that doesn't play by your self-imposed, highly restrictive rules.

It's a fun thought experiment, but in the end it's also no more than a fantasy.

The only difference is that functions normally handled by the state (police, military, consumer watchdog organisations, et cetera) will be handled by private organisations rather than state-enforced monopolies. People who aggress against other people will still face consequences for their actions.

Endaris wrote:

Well, regardless how I look at it, doing the referendum was one thing. They got lots of international press and opened a good opportunity to accelerate the progress to even get serious talk on the topic going when the spanish government was literally keeping Catalonia under wraps before.
Actually trying to go with the head through the wall by announcing to declare independency...I don't know really what good is supposed to come from doing it that way.

No one ever got their own way by being passive.

True, and as I wrote I think it was a good move to make the referendum but like...you have to find some sort of middle ground.
Fighting for independence should not make you abandon logic. As I wrote earlier, it depends heavily on the stance of the EU how this entire thing will work out. If they keep pushing like that, they won't get recognised and end up getting shot down. Which creates a very interesting situation in its own way because that would still cause a massive political destabilisation of the european framework. And the way it happens I'm not really convinced by its positive effect on society, even with my sort of anarchistic view points.

Hey B1rd, the video on your userpage is broken, just saying to let you know!

(◕‿◕✿)

It's not broken, the video got shoa'd by (((Youtube)))

Engaging discussion in ITT as usual.

ye

olde

ot

and right now we are in ye midel OT, don't you think?

DJ Enetro wrote:

and right now we are in ye midel OT, don't you think?

*midle

DJ Enetro wrote:

and right now we are in ye midel OT, don't you think?

By the time we reach ye newe OT, we're all going to pretty much suffer

ColdTooth wrote:

DJ Enetro wrote:

and right now we are in ye midel OT, don't you think?

By the time we reach ye newe OT, we're all going to pretty much suffer

If we needed a civil war to get to midle OT, then we would have to suffer through something like osu!Forum War I to get to newe OT

Look I'm not up for a civil war. This place would just nuke itself over and over again, and that is something that I, nor anyone else in the staff, have to witness. This place just needs a bit more tidying up. Let people post for all we care, just read simple rules, actually have decent common sense and don't be stupid. Who fucking cares if old OTers are better, we're all equally shit.

You don't have to witness it.
All you have to do is getting consumed.

Endaris wrote:

You don't have to witness it.
All you have to do is getting consumed.

Haha, no, I have a special place that won't get bombarded. I already have my escape route planned. I am not going to witness blood.

this place is such a joke

Foxtrot wrote:

this place is such a joke

throw something at us. A topic of discussion or something. You see shit only because there isn't something rolling. Start something and it will continue until the next distraction (new page, random meme post, etc), and push a bit more after the distraction to maintain course.

I miss the days when i could just post on the forums and like 5 of my friends were active at the same time and we would just mess around for a while. I don't really know many people anymore because most of them joined after i became less active.

Frontline girls has some nice fanart.

abraker wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

this place is such a joke

throw something at us. A topic of discussion or something. You see shit only because there isn't something rolling. Start something and it will continue until the next distraction (new page, random meme post, etc), and push a bit more after the distraction to maintain course.

mmh no. it's not like my opinion was different when things were rolling