John Doe

2.5K posts

John Doe

John Doe

@57BossMan57

Se unió Aralık 2024
308 Siguiendo13 Seguidores
𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐒 | VIDEO EDITOR
@Arefsoid Não é bem assim. No caso do Mark, ele ainda não era um Viltrumita maduro. No geral, o que faz um Viltrumita ficar mais forte é basicamente treino e se expor a situações que levem o corpo ao limite ou próximo disso Btw, Prime Conquest é ele antes do vírus
Português
1
0
55
3K
Atlas
Atlas@Atlas_VD·
The six roots of homophobia.
Atlas tweet media
English
28
40
339
7.1K
The Vegapunk of Hyenas
The Vegapunk of Hyenas@Yeenie_Mcbeenie·
People like you legitimately piss me off. It’d be one thing if you enlisted, but the fact you are merely a cheerleader for sending young men into the meat grinder so billionaires can get more money. You are a coward with a fetish for assault rifles.
The Vegapunk of Hyenas tweet media
planefag@planefag

As someone who's been writing military science-fiction for years, and have many friends in or formerly in the military (some of which are authors themselves,) I have something to say about this: If all Yoshiyuki Tomino has to say with his art is that "war is bad," then he should stop making art, as he's only going to waste our time. Any fool with two brain cells to rub together knows that war is ugly, brutal and costly. That doesn't mean war is pointless and should never be fought no matter the circumstances. In fact, such a statement is worse than pointless, as lethal conflict is a common constant of human civilization - and, for that matter, a constant among the vast majority of life existing on Earth, even between bacteria. If all your story does is shout "this is bad!" it's a childish lament that leaves a tremendous amount of this constant of human existence unexamined. Who fights wars - the elites, like the ancient Greek Hoplites, or the knights of the middle ages, or the common men who volunteer, like in many modern nations? What do they fight for - for the ideals of their beloved nation, for honor and glory, or to save the women and children in the city that stands at their backs? What defines a good soldier? What defines a good leader? These questions are just as essential for us as they were for our forefathers, because the world is a tumultuous place full of evil people and great dangers and the time is coming, sooner than many may think, where wars between great powers will shake the foundations of the world and the lives of millions will hang in the balance. To explore questions like this, of such import to our souls, is one of the core reasons people tell stories to begin with. And our tools and machines have always been essential to the conduct of war and the defense of all we hold dear. Men have told stories of talking swords or "tsukumogami" for as long as swords have existed; long before we could even conceptualize a thinking machine might be made with science; we dreamt of them existing through magic or spirit. Tools are what first brought us out of the trees to stride the earth as its masters; in the tools we shape and wield with our own hands we make manifest our intent, our will, our spirit. In the modern age, the vastness of our creations sometimes makes it easy to forget, but the human element is still the entire point. I quote from page 71 of "Shattered Sword" by Johnathan Parshall and Anthony Tully: "The study of naval warfare (more than any other form of combat) holds the potential to completely subordinate the human element to the weapons themselves. Naval combat is conducted almost exclusively by means of machines – machines that are in many cases so huge and grand that they often seem to take on a life and personality of their own that transcend the tiny figures that inhabit them. Yet, in the final analysis, it is men who live in the ship, command and fight the ship, and often die in the ship. Their story, no matter how seemingly eclipsed by the great vessels they serve in, is still the fundamental story to be related.” Its only natural we should be entranced with the great machines of war that we build, as they're the final product of the genius and labors of an entire society; fashioned into an incredible tool that is nothing if not wielded by the hand of a skilled warrior devoted to his craft and his mission. I know of not a single mecha story that runs afoul of Parshall and Tully's warning as quoted above; everyone seems to understand the assignment. The ones that don't are the likes of Tomino, or his fellow anti-war traveler Miyazaki. I can't understand a man who thinks fighter planes are beautiful but has little more to say about war than "it's bad;" he refuses to see that the beautiful form of a fighter plane follows its function, and that there's a savage, primal beauty in that function, like the fury that animates a thunderstorm. Or the fury and purpose that animate its pilot, for that matter. Tomino seems to think that "nothing of substance is getting across." I disagree. I think the substance came across very well, and many in younger generations just think that substance is woefully lacking. There's a cutscene in the Knights of the Old Republic, between Carth Onasi and Canderous, where Carth expounds on the difference between "soldiers" and "warriors," defining warriors as those who fight for plunder and the glory of conquest, and soldiers as those who fight to protect their nation and peoples - usually from warriors. He made a great point, but Canderous wasn't entirely wrong. As any fighter pilot can tell you, you need more than noble motivations to sacrifice and serve to be truly excellent - to overcome your enemy in an aerial duel, you need that urge to "lean in" to the fight; that competitive drive - a part of you needs to love the fight. Many soldiers over the ages have spoken of this; as Robert E. Lee said "it's well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." It's that primal urge drawn straight from our deepest instincts; that thirst to compete and win, that gives soldiers the fire and fury to do their utmost in combat, to win the challenge, to defeat those who would plunder their temples, raze their cities and enslave their women and children. That is the truth of war, every bit as much as the death and boredom and bloodshed and terror. And if you can only tell one half of that truth, because the other half doesn't align with your political or personal views, then I don't give a god damn what you have to say about it, or about the works of storytellers who do.

English
58
782
7.9K
167.4K
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@GernmaiesFinn @chippel @Yeenie_Mcbeenie France and Germany did start the war. They declared war first. Germany was hostile to Poland, eastern Europe, and communists. Whose to say of WW2 would have happened had France and Britain not declared war. I doubt it. There would have been war it just wouldn't have been WW2.
English
0
0
1
19
GernmaiesFinn
GernmaiesFinn@GernmaiesFinn·
@57BossMan57 @chippel @Yeenie_Mcbeenie But they were in Danger because the Ideology of National Socialism could not have tolerated France continuing to exist as a Bastion for jews, communists and democrats. You also said Fr+GB started the war, which is untrue
English
2
0
0
33
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@GernmaiesFinn @chippel @Yeenie_Mcbeenie Germany wanted peace with western Europe. He hated eastern Europe. Sure he hated the Jews but prior to WW2 actually breaking out he just wanted to deport them. Israel was his idea. Britain turned down his idea, the Holocaust only happened because he was going to lose.
English
0
0
0
8
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@GernmaiesFinn @chippel @Yeenie_Mcbeenie Like I said. Germany was trying to reclaim territory they lost after WW1. Britain and France weren't in danger. That's a fact. Whatever justification you want to have for why France or Britain might have been in the right is irrelevant to my claim.
English
1
0
2
65
GernmaiesFinn
GernmaiesFinn@GernmaiesFinn·
@57BossMan57 @chippel @Yeenie_Mcbeenie Britain and France declared war on germany because german troops did not pull out of Poland. German troops invaded Poland after faking a polish attack on german Radio. Already in this inital invasion countless civilians were slaughtered by the Wehrmacht.
English
1
0
5
73
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@chippel @Yeenie_Mcbeenie Britain and France actually caused the war between them and Germany by preemptively declaring war on them.
English
2
0
2
502
Chip
Chip@chippel·
@Yeenie_Mcbeenie Do you think that the Ukraine fighting Russian soldiers occupy their territory is bad? Do you think the French and British fighting off the Germans from occupying their Nations was unnecessary? You could either fight or you could surrender to those who do.
English
4
1
37
3.1K
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@chippel @Yeenie_Mcbeenie Germany wasn't a threat to France or England. They were a threat to eastern Europe because they hated communism & communism was spreading across eastern Europe. They were also a threat to Poland because they wanted to reclaim former territory.
English
0
0
4
449
old toons
old toons@oldtoons_·
The first openly gay character in a childrens animated film (ParaNorman)
old toons tweet media
English
39
721
19.2K
1M
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@InsaneFreakinOZ @logosofgod3 @oldtoons_ Literally to stupid to understand. He's refuting an appeal to nature fallacy by showing how the argumentation is fallacious. You can't say homosexuality happens in nature therefore good because lots of things happen in nature that would be bad. Also homosexuality is harmful.
English
0
0
0
9
OZzie
OZzie@InsaneFreakinOZ·
@logosofgod3 @57BossMan57 @oldtoons_ Why are you comparing murder and cannablism to love and attraction? That’s just stupid. Humans also murder and can commit cannablism but that’s harmful, while attraction isn’t. You do realise DOGS can eat you right? Yet people love dogs. Pick a better argument
English
1
0
0
4
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@TRJaydenGraham @prettyandtiredd @ludwig1651 @acewizardnz That was not the hypothetical. Look up what a recepticle is. The hypothetical was halting the development of a fetus so it never obtains consciousness. Then allowing said fetus to grow into adulthood so that you could harvest it's organs. That was what the guy said was moral.
English
0
0
0
10
Artorius🔆🦬
Artorius🔆🦬@acewizardnz·
The funniest part of the outrage over this is that Invincible does not even slightly present Eve's abortion as a girlboss feminist thing, it destroys her mentaly. It's not pro or anti abortion its just depicting a thing that happens in the real world. Also, you beat your wife.
Jon Del Arroz | Pop Culture & Gaming 🎮@jondelarroz

Prime Video has not one but TWO superhero shows where the female lead gets an abortion. Both are white women. They're trying to program women to kill their babies through propaganda and they're using The Boys and Invincible to do it. Has there ever been this level of insidious agenda on TV?

English
108
4.7K
70.2K
1.2M
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@MatterDecay I wouldn't have put them to death if they had the right to rape and impregnate women. A murderer doesn't have a right to murder just because he can do it regardless of it's legality. I protect the child because it isn't guilty of the fathers sins. Blood feuds are immoral.
English
0
0
0
12
Nck
Nck@MatterDecay·
@57BossMan57 okay you put the rapist to death, now what? you are already protecting their right to make anyone regardless of age give birth to their child. who cares if they dont get to father it. you are protecting the result of their crime
English
1
0
0
13
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@laser_rv @Goomba_withahat @ludwig1651 @prettyandtiredd @acewizardnz Yeah. Do you know that in a situation like that you don't actually need to murder the baby and chop it up in order to extract it. x.com/57BossMan57/st…
John Doe@57BossMan57

@Goomba_withahat @ludwig1651 @prettyandtiredd @acewizardnz 2) In case of medical emergency you can try and save both. It's do no harm not chop up and murder the baby. If the baby dies while trying to save the mother than that's just fate. Doesn't mean you have to intentionally kill it.

English
0
0
0
31
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@Goomba_withahat @ludwig1651 @prettyandtiredd @acewizardnz Why? It's her child. She is responsible for it. Whether she wanted it or plans on keeping it is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if it's 3 months or 3 years. You are responsible for that child until someone else can take up the mantle of caring for it. You can just kill it.
English
1
0
0
17
John Doe
John Doe@57BossMan57·
@Goomba_withahat @ludwig1651 @prettyandtiredd @acewizardnz 2) In case of medical emergency you can try and save both. It's do no harm not chop up and murder the baby. If the baby dies while trying to save the mother than that's just fate. Doesn't mean you have to intentionally kill it.
English
1
0
0
47