Mercury Alexander

@TimServaes23 @NietzcheanPlus @ofmpsychiatry Oh so you're actually just retarded.

@NietzcheanPlus @MercuryAlexandr @ofmpsychiatry ALbrecht DIskont?

what the fuck are europeans putting in their bread so that it unrecognizable to others bc this is the list of ingredients on the bread I buy at my american grocery store

@TimServaes23 @ofmpsychiatry You think Aldis is exclusively german? It's an international grocery chain.

@MercuryAlexandr @ofmpsychiatry Sure. You have German grocery stores in the states.

@InchoatePrimate @ProudBavaria Never played 3 how's the economic squabbling and competing to increase the size of your sphere compare to 2?

@ProudBavaria Victoria 3 already shows you can have engaging gameplay with running an economic horserace between superpowers and competing for the loyalty of small unaligned countries. Run that over a shorter almost roguelike campaign and suitable sauce for if things do go hot and itd be fun

The Cold War has the problem that, compared to other time periods, nothing happens. And if something does happen, the game is over. Normal game - Player clicks button, immediate effect, player happy. Cold War game - Player clicks button, number changes slightly, bad review

@TimServaes23 @ofmpsychiatry Yeah we have those in america.

@ofmpsychiatry “At my American grocery store”

@dredgedskeleton @upstatefederlst Part of the reason for the revolution was wanting to expand west. What's more, the North was small densely populated states vs the Souths large spread out population. We always knew we would expand.

@upstatefederlst lol no. there was no midwest when the constitution was written. it concerned 13 states that were not very different in size. the situation right now is certainly not something you can say was predicted by the constitution. what a cope.

The stupidest thing about this map is it is the entire point of the Constitution that a large block of shitheads in the Northeast and Southwest don't get to just assert their will on a vast colonized territory across the middle.

@OddOnnion @tatjasng12 Send her to Carlos McConnell where she definitely won't be viewed as a tasty meal by the locals.

@tatjasng12 Ahhh- i feel bad for goat girl now.... ill give her a vacation after this and not curve stomp her 😭

Emperors Love (6/6)

@MitchCam1911 @OddOnnion Well no, they just send ogryns to their deaths while insulting then because they dont understand, often equipped with suicide bombs. Ogryns really don't get treated much better than any other mutant.

@OddOnnion I bet she wouldn't say that to an Ogryn. She better be smart enough to not do that.

Emperors Love (5/6)

@OddOnnion @superfeyn To keep her away from Tau Husband

@superfeyn Maras job description now comes with a kroot wife and she doesn't know why

Later...

@Killbill1125 @OddOnnion Eh, the emperor being an old testament God is perfectly in line with imperial dogma. And also being a loving God. And basically anything as long as its not chaos.

@OddOnnion Oh...now i pray for her that the commissar didn't heard her.

Emperors Love (4/6)

@Elatha1798 @shanjo_rwp @DrewPavlou I mean in fairness, Ireland is much the same.

@shanjo_rwp @DrewPavlou Now your daughters are the playthings of severely inbred Pakis, and your capital is lost. But keep looking back on the glory days.

“Remember Maggie, you have to be lucky every time” *Dies peacefully in sleep at age 102*

@Z3R0B04M @Y192814512 @interbellica I mean i wouldn't consider modern france the same france as any of the nations prior to the revolution.

@Y192814512 @interbellica We technically won the Algerian mess thereafter, -- even if for abandoning Algeria finally, but that's another story. Anyways, for your yankee information:

The U.S. has never defeated a peer adversary without significant assistance. Meanwhile, the average French conflict for several decades (they won):

@VeryBrexitProbs Eh, 1812 comes up all the time. Great lesson in why you shouldn't be to arrogant. Still achieved all the goals but Canada so I'll call it a win then insult the canadians when they claim "they" burned the Whitehouse down.

Americans love banging on about the War of Independence. They’re quieter on the War of 1812. Here’s why. In 1812, America declared war on Britain. The plan was to march into Canada and annex it. Thomas Jefferson said it would be “a mere matter of marching.” It wasn’t. The Canadians sent them packing. Two years later, the British sailed up the Potomac. American forces collapsed at Bladensburg in what’s still called “the Bladensburg Races” because of how fast they ran. President Madison had already fled to Maryland. The British walked into Washington unopposed. They sat down in the White House, ate the dinner Dolley Madison had laid out for forty guests, used the President’s silver, then set fire to the building. Then they burned the Capitol, the Treasury and the Navy Yard. A freak thunderstorm put the fires out the next day. The British left when they were ready. It’s still the only time a foreign army has captured the US capital. You can see why it doesn’t come up much.

@wedwd3145 @amazonmilkfrog @RandomNumber758 Wasn't that just subway and in Ireland?

@amazonmilkfrog @RandomNumber758 the fact that its declared "cake" by health agencies because of how much sugar it has twin

what is with the european hate against the sandwich loaf. like. it's not all plastic wonderbread. it's literally just regular bread in a sandwich loaf shape.

@OddOnnion Considering how you basically only find beastmen in tzeentchian armies these days I imagine that's how 99.9% of the guard feel.

Emperors Love (3/?)

@LandsknechtPike Americans invented pizza. Before that ever country and culture had "flatbread with some cheese"

Neapolitan is the only real pizza, it's crazy how pizza has been butchered as food in other countries.

@bonesoflasalle Historical territory of /checks notes/ Tyrol.

Today in 1915 Italy 🇮🇹 signed the Treaty of London to join the war on the side of France 🇫🇷 & the UK 🇬🇧 in exchange for the cessation of historically Italian territory. However, after the war, almost none of what she was promised was delivered.

@kukuruyo I just like the color red

The main issue i see with the Red/Blue button thing is Red voters try to do mental gymnastics to present their choice as the "logically" better when it's actually a moral question and the "logic" isn't really different For blue, you need 50% votes for everyone to live. With only 49% or less, potentially about half the population dies. For Red, you need either 49% or literal 100% for everyone to live. If it gets past 50% potentially about half the population dies. They aren't really that different. "But if everyone just voted Red nobody..!" And if everyone votes Blue nobody dies as well. It's the same thing. And you KNOW that it's not going to be a 100% vote. Nothing in history has ever had 100% people agreeing on something, for anything. No matter how sure you are of your logic you also know a big number of people won't agree with it. Even in the hypothetical that Red was the mathematically correct option you know a big number of people will disagree and vote Blue, so you're never going to get 100%, so when you vote Red you KNOW you're voting for someone to die. Whereas blue needs only a 50% to save everyone, which is a far easier number to achieve. When you vote Blue you're not actively voting to kill someone. "But if nobody votes Blue then death isn't in the equation..." And if nobody votes Red it doesn't happen either. It's the same thing. You're making arguments for Red that are essentially the same thing than voting Blue. Both Blue and Red buttons are "nothing happens" buttons if everyone votes for the same one. Which won't happen. "But by voting Blue you're making me hostage to.." Nobody is taking you hostage to anything because it's a secret vote. Nobody knows what anybody else votes, you can only guess and vote according to your guess and hopes. Blue voters are betting that more than 50% of people will be willing to try to save everyone. Red voters are either trying to save only themselves or betting that every single other person in the planet is willing to save only themselves. It's a choice you make, and you made that one without my choice coming into it. "I'm going to relabel the buttons..." You can relabel anything to stretch it and make it seem your rival's choice is delusional. The buttons can also be relabeled so it looks like you would have to be insanely psychopathic to chose Red, and i've seen some people do that too. And it doesn't matter because you're missing the point. It's not a puzzle to solve, it's a moral question. The question tries to ascertain who would be the people willing to risk their lives to save someone and who wouldn't. If your first instinct is to vote Blue, that means you're the kind of person willing to risk something tangible; your life; to save others. If your first instinct is to vote Red it means you think about only your safety even if it puts others at risk. Simple as that. The rest is gymnastics. The experiment is not asking you for that. That's a rationalization you're doing after voting. This also counters another argument i see which is that people voting Blue are the Woke/Commie types. These types are purely performative, they're not willing to risk losing their commodity, much less their lives, for the things they virtue signal about. You should know this by now. The woke type would vote red and then claim they voted blue and campaign for it to win so their ploy isn't revealed and they can pretend to be morally superior when they were safe the whole time. This is in a way the same as the famous Ai thought experiment. In the experiment humanity knows there's a future AI that if constructed will kill everyone except its creators. So essentially if nobody does anything, nothing happens. But if a group of people decide out of fear to build it to save themselves, then everyone except them dies, so would you help build it? The people building the AI are the ones actualizing the death potential. It doesn't exist until someone tries to build it. You can say "If everybody builds the AI nobody dies" but it doesn't change the fact you're building a killer AI that wouldn't exist at all if you don't build it, based out of fear and not caring what happens to anyone else. This is essentially the same. In this moral experiment people voting Blue are simply saying "let's try for all to survive", while people voting Red are saying "I care only about me surviving" and then rationalizing it like a puzzle to claim they're the ones morally superior. If everyone just voted the way *they* think it's best, nobody would die! Despite knowing it's far easier to get that outcome voting Blue. But that involves a risk for them. They're essentially choosing for someone to die in exchange of a 100% chance they don't. That's it, that's the experiment. And this is something you can see in the comments of the discussion. Tons of Red voters openly saying stuff like "fuck everyone except me", "people who voted wrong should die" and other well adjusted things. Pure tribal behavior based just on a color. It reminds me that study they did where they simply gave people two different shirts and no goal and people instantly grouped themselves by shirt and started hating the other group for no reason whatsoever. I believe lots of people may be literally just conflating "Red = republican, Blue = Democrat" and hating them just based on that completely unrelated concept. I've seen comments in such a line. Tribalism seem to be a big part of this discussion and people are arguing for Red just because they think Blue is the position of their opposition. Well i'm about the less woke person in the planet and i would vote Blue. And it's funny that this claim about Blue = woke exists, because if anything i see the opposite. Lots of Red are fitting way more into the "bad people pretending to be good" that wokeness is. And well, there's one reason why i think some Red voters are simply evil. It's actually probably the most relevant but i've left it to the end because i wanted to first show that some Red voters are not evil they just don't understand what the question is about or are seeing it through political glasses. The concept of the Red/Blue social experiment implies a setting in which people don't know what are everyone else's votes. It being secret it adds uncertainty and that can justify voting for one or the other. But this was a twitter poll. You could see the votes at any point and the OP made a comment informing of its state. And it was clear early on that the votes were closely tied, with blue winning by very little. At that point, with that knowledge, voting Blue is objectively the better choice no matter what argument you could possibly make. At 51% blue vote you know everyone is saved already if nobody else votes Red. Voting Red has literally no benefit whatsoever, and voting Blue has no demerit whatsoever. At that point, voting for Red means that you WANT half the human population to die, as Blue is close to 50% population. And yet people kept voting Red. That's just pure psychopathic behavior. So forgive me for seeing these people as evil XD Also it's over because i've already depicted you as the soyjack

@Ivan_VIII_ @Stern_66 The germans and italians had already discovered that they couldn't take Egypt. The Germans didn't even care about africa they were interested in the soviets.

@MercuryAlexandr @Stern_66 The Germans and Italians would’ve tried to take at least Egypt at a moment or another, the brits would’ve had to fight for their colonies. And the evolution of morality, just like in the early XIXth century towards slavery, would’ve ended in decolonisation sooner or later

"Rejected genuine peace offers"

@meka_tsuki @Lagiacrus206 Earth kingdom didn't have the ability to force the issue and through people liv8ng there didn't want to be part of the earth kingdom.

@Lagiacrus206 El reino tierra la víctima eterna, no entiendo como kuei cedió ese terreno, aunque lo quieran tratar en los cómics las colonias debieron desaparecer 🫠

El problema con cada uno es que: -Con Amón no saben cómo tratar la discriminación y tratan que el dominio sea análogo a la raza y la clase a la vez sin pensar en las implicaciones. -Con Unalaq tratan de representar un punto válido sobre las consecuencias...

@hattenter60606 @Stern_66 The reality is that Churchill bankrupted the nation for a pointless conflict that they did nothing in until the very end.

@MercuryAlexandr @Stern_66 Everyone can talk big But the reality can be much more complicated than that