kvnchrist

A very wise man, once said that all we have the fear is fear itself and it seems after almost 100 years of technological progress we've yet to see the simple truth in that saying and take action to alleviate many of the adverse effects it has on both ourselves and others. Why is it that we fear not being in control, when we have never been in control and always been under the control of others? Why is it that when someone who claims to be of the political party we espouse, we are less agitated than if the shoe was on the other foot? Why is it that dialogue and debate has become so toxic? Is it because the opposition have become monsters or is it that we are so use to the mental imagery we project on those who don't share our values that we simply associate any ideal coming from them as monstrous? Could it be said that what we see in the opposition is of our own observation or is it the mental imagery supplied by those in the various media sources we subscribe to?Could we be holding the mental imagery of these people so close that we, like Nietzsche said, have become the monsters we perceive the opposition is and in doing so have doomed ourselves to the political situation that we are presently in?

I'm not really interested in changing the rules so much as provoking responses and that has turned out nicely, especially given the last several which have devolved into the typical leftist ‘Anyone who advocates for free speech and ideas standing or falling on their merits is inherently a Nazi’ tripe. Take this gem from kvnchrist:: “It's not really freedom of speech that gets these guys It's the idea that such speech should be free of the consequences created by such speech. This is what makes them so much of a burden on those around them, because their irresponsibility often effects far more than just themselves.” I don't really give a crap about these (albeit stupid) rules. I want people to see the attitude the modern left has about the very cornerstone of freedom and Western Civilization. It doesn’t matter to them. They hold the very notion of self-expression in contempt because the only way their morally and intellectually bankrupt ideology can survive is if it is the only one that can be given voice to. Truth be told that really wasn't a gem but a statement of fact of the here and now. I would be remiss if I were not to expand on that and research the history of that sentiment as it was not always the case that the left held those beliefs. it wasn't very long ago that the right had a monopoly on curtailing freedom of speech and it was the left who embraced the idea as a way to get out their ideals. It was the authoritarianism of the right that the left has embraced these past several years that has caused the right so much consternation. I've walked this world for 60 years and have seen both the left and the right in the catbird seat and I assure you neither side can be trusted to avail themselves, completely to the free and unfettered discussion, when they hold the reins of society. Lets not forget that the right embraces what society has culturally represented and the left has historically championed innovation and change. Once the innovation of the left has become mainstream, then it becomes part of the culture and and in turn becomes the standard the right clangs to. the real issue is not right or left, but right and wrong. What works and what does not work. If you hold onto something just to hold onto something you become a drag on society. If you want change for changes sake then you just become irresponsible and the lives of everyone else becomes your guinea pig. That being said, neither the right or the left could exist without each other and without both working their magic society would stagnate. It is the right that maintains the structure of society that the left works to enrich. In essence the right provide the canvass and the left uses to pant on. Without the canvas there would be no painting and without the painting the canvas would only be a shell of what it could become. What we are discussing here has much more to do with right and wrong, than left or right, as it is the integrity of the site that comes into play. Idealist prejudices and elitist grandstanding, backed up with convenient anonymity of the internet have made certain subjects so toxic that to allow their continual discussion is to invite communal degradation to the point of monkeys throwing their feces. These areas are set up as a distraction from the real scope of this site and as such are a unnecessary irritant when what is being discussed causes rifts between those who share their love for gaming and modding games. If I am to take your words at face value, this thread here is a distraction even to the issue being discussed as it was set up under false pretenses to further one's own ideology, which is incredibly uninteresting. You have a great day, now!

It's sensational

Yeah, the folks that think their 'freedom of speech' applies EVERYWHERE....... Even in foreign countries. (which Nexus qualifies as..... oddly enough.) Of course, I have been seeing that argument as long as I have been participating on forums too. :smile: It's not really freedom of speech that gets these guys It's the idea that such speech should be free of the consequences created by such speech. This is what makes them so much of a burden on those around them, because their irresponsibility often effects far more than just themselves.

I don't see the point in creating a thread that introduces an argument about the rules of a forum with those who are only members here and as such are powerless to change either the forum or the rules, even if those same members have issues with said rules. No one needs to defend policies made and implemented by those who have taken up the responsibility to provide a place in which people can come and discuss ideas and those who assume otherwise are free to create their own website where they can test their own theories at their leisure.

Thank you very much. I've been there, but haven't taken it yet. Have a wonderful day.

Is there any way, anyone has learned to rest or speed up time, so that players aren't stumbling around in pitch black night for long periods of time? Thank you.

You are talking personality and self esteem here. I know men that fade away from something hard, just because it is hard and I know women that would walk through men to fix something even harder. There are always those out there who will manipulate a situation to their advantage and not everyone who uses their sexuality to gain an advantage. is femle. All you need to do is count the kids in the world without a father or mother figure in their lives because the sperm donor or their female equivalent was unable to give a crap about the person they helped bring into this world.

Don't think the man brought it up because of it being an issue, we're just discussing. One can look at regular sports and see that men's football is a heck of a lot more popular than women's football even though the women can perform. It's just an interest mainly held by men and there's nothing wrong with that. Same with this topic, I wouldn't exactly call it an issue but I wouldn't mind seeing more women in eSports or gaming in general. The subject isn't favored toward either gender, it's just about how good you are, same with every sport. The two are not synonymous. The gaming community caters to a different breed of person than football. It's a younger, more enlightened, for lack of a better word, community. I just get tired of the victimization two-step that leads nowhere except bitterness. Not everybody is a victim and not everyone is a perpetrator and definitely not everyone brings up outdated ideals to simply discuss them. In the curent political climate politics is getting rather old.

You know what bothers me most about this is the typical chip on the shoulder ideal of bringing something up that is not really an issue and make it sound as though there is an overwhelming attitude in the gaming community that needs this topic to address it.

I just added far harbor to my fallout4 game and had to update my fose and now the looksmenu doesn't work. It says I need to update my version, but I don't see one on the mod downloads. My old game's charactor now has a nose about as long as her face is deep. Is there a way to fix this? Is there a new version of looks menu that is out there I can download? Thank you.

Communism is a n idea that has never been tried anywhere in the world by anyone, because no one actually knows how a truly communist community can be implemented. Those who have tried have done such a horrific job of bringing their vision of what a communist society should be, that they have left a sour taste in the mouths of those who observe it from a far. Theses people have given those opposed to the idea a straw man to demonize on their way to glorifying the system they convinced themselves is better. Trouble is, if there has never been true comunism in the world, how can they actually say their system is better, so they go with whatever is most familar to them.

Would America have the issues it has today if it were a meritocracy or a technocracy Would America have the issues it has today if it were a meritocracy or a technocracy based on personal or group achievements and rewarding scientific and medical advancements as we do the sports or military feats. Would we have the violence in our streets if we did not glorify feats of strength and physical exploits? Would we be so fractured if We concentrated more of the responsibilities of having freedom instead of hyping the world so much it resembles chaotic hedonism? Would we have class warfare if the millions that were given sports personalities for carrying a ball around to the college professors and school teachers so that every time a student passes the faculty parking lot they will see what study and diligence brings our society?

My money is on the Chinese. They will take him out and replace him with someone that's less wacked out. The NK generals know which side their bread is buttered on and get in line .

It's not age, it's laziness. Some people want their vision of utopia handed them because it takes far less effort to set in front of a TV set and gorge themselves on good feelings than it would to go down to the homeless shelters,or volunteer at Habitat for Humanity for a couple of days and bring a little of that utopia to today's world. There are armchair activists all over the place preaching how the world would be such a great place, if others would just make it so. These message flick s are ego fluffers for hereditary hypocritical. People will march around, shaking their fists at others all day long, but doing dishes at a soup kitchen is somehow demeaning. Go figure.

Sounds like they turned Star Trek into yet another preachy little message flick. Why don't these Hollywood types stop trying to persuade us to be what we already are, which is excepting of others for being themselves. We don't need their help in realizing this. They need to entertain us with thought provoking ideas, not flood us with their own stereotypical prejudices towards us.

I think the operative word here is LUCKY. What you are talking about is going to war with an inanimate object that was operational if not for something preventing it from being so. You dislodged that object, hopefully without damaging the unit. What you did was take vengeance on a situation much the same as any other war has began. The result was more beneficial to you than to your air conditioner, so therefore it was worth it. How much you lessened the life of that same unit you may well find out at even a worse time. I once lived in a house that had no AC, what so ever. I took a box fan and placed it in the access hole to the attic, so it was pulling hot air into the attic. The outside air was pulled in through the open windows and it cooled the house considerably. You can also place regular window fans in your window and place wet strips of cloth so that the breeze blows through them and that will cool you down. You can also place a bucket of ice so that the fan blows over it.

Apologies, whenever someone mentions Trump and Hitler in the same sentence it feels like they're being compared. Now, France could have had some nationalistic parties and there might've been some people with the same mindset as Hitler, to find a group of people to point finger to and call the culprit. But as you say, Germany would have been highly militaristic at the time so the threat could have been contained. Some resistance movements would also have been formed but I think the germans would've contained them as well. Had Hitler withdrawn troops, it would only be a question of time imo until he tried something again. He had to, his own position depended on him living up to his ideology of expansion, otherwise the people would quickly lose faith in him. And without the majority of the people behind him, he was nothing. It might also be as you say, his reign might've ended then and there, had he only withdrawn troops. I would assume the west would have entered into some sort of bargain or agreement to have some access to the oil. Mechanized warfare was only starting to come into fruition with countries being more and more dependent on the oil. Get access to the oil either by partnership or through force. Yep, the Ottoman Empire had been around for quite some time. A little over 700 years and to think it's demise came at the hand of themselves, greed and corruption. All I see when people directly compare anyone to Hitler, personally shows the hate withing themselves. Hate is a dead end street that leads to misery for all involved, including the hater. Hitler was more diabolical than evil and what made him twice as dangerous is he surrounded himself with slavish minions that competed for his favor. Himmler was the worst and He was in charge of the Gestapo. As far as the Ottomans. My take on that would be that the west would be slowed down by their inability to get oil under their own terms and would have allowed much of what is known as the third world countries to advance industrially. That might have had a cooling effect on colonialism, which to me is a nice way of invading another country and effecting their society. I don't think their would be as much turmoil in the world if the West hadn't thought themselves so benevolent that they could positivly effect another culture by supplanting it with their own. Industrialization and technology enabled a great many wrongs in this world. I would have liked to see the native Americans greet the pilgrims on Plymouth rock with Gatling guns and see home far the white man would have conquered the contenient.

Why would you (or Russians in general) expect our government to be any less dysfunctional and corrupt than your own? If you haven't read Mikhail Gorbachev's books, it was not one but two giant military establishments that were outrageously kept at wartime levels after WWII ended. Gorbachev refers to the "Cold War" as a colluded effort between the two machines, both of which spent (and still spend) their time meddling in the affairs of other countries. Because they had nothing else to do, and still don't. Since 1945 and between the US and USSR, over $100 trillion has been and still is funneled to this war machine. Gorbachev is blamed for USSR fall and hated. Were things that much better under the communists??? I find it odd case that people always think of communism as good thing when has killed more innocent people than Hitler could have dreamed to have done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes Just under three communist countries 70 million innocent people died. Deaths do not include forced starvation. Most people Hitler killed were people at war and never single person by his own hands. Don't get me wrong he was evil. Yet there has been greater evils in the world. There has never been a true Communist country in the world and there never will be. There isn't enough selfless people in the world and far too many who seek power would not do what would be needed to bring about one.

Wilhelm II, Germany's ruler at the time, had a british mother and inherited her love of the British Royal Navy. He had a project to construct his own massive naval army to rival the british because he was apparently quite envious of them. Arranged marriages between royal houses was big back then which often resulted in children being of two worlds. I do think it's silly they all the world leaders basically played a worldwide pissing contest to show who was the biggest and strongest. Had the war ended in favor of the germans, there's a good chance all of France would become oppressed and many of the french would seek for answers as to why. Had Germany imposed the same reparations as the french did, the country and the people would have suffered immensely. Part of the reason Hitler had such a large backing was because he was indeed a charismatic and strong willed person. For him, the jews were to blame. Had we seen a french Hitler, who knows which minority would have been targeted. One has to understand that when you push people to the brink and leave them with no options or opportunities, these people will seek any help and answers they can, leaving many of them becoming somewhat radicalized. I think comparing Trump to Hitler is a mistake. Hitler wanted to create and expand living room for the german people east, and also exterminate Judaism and Communism which was, to him, the german people's worst enemy. Trump is not looking to expand America nor do I believe he wants war for the sake of it. It is plausible some form of union could have been formed in the 1920's. However, rule and leadership was not elected by vote back then, it was inherited, and I believe that to be one of the main causes to the world not seeing a lasting union. Otto von Bismarck was actually chancellor to Wilhelms father and he believed another war would be devastating and therefore, engaged in a policy of diplomatically maintaining cordial relations with other nations in Europe. Had Otto been in power rather than Wilhelm, who knows what might've happened. Tensions was still relatively high and Otto was no great fan of France either. I believe the Ottoman Empire would have collapsed either way, with my opinions being that many of the problems coming internally rather than being foreign. Many of the empire's military reforms resulted in it's army engaging in multiple wars, with World War 1 being one of them. It's also my opinion that the west was not dependent on the Ottoman Empire. The west would most assuredly be doing well, but perhaps not in the same capacity. Please re-read what I said about Trump and Hitler. What I said was that I don't think Hitler or Trump could have rose to power without the situation being right. Neither of them could have achieved the office they did if they had tried at any other time. I still can't wrap my head around a French Hitler. I don't think, with the German penchant for militarism that they would let anyone even close to being Hitlerisk rise to power in France. Indeed, both the English or the French could have stopped Hitler if they would have reacted to Hitlers occupation of Rhineland. I read The Rise and fall of the Third Reich and it states that Hitler was on pins and needles and would have pulled German troops out if anyone reacted. Him withdrawing, I i'm pretty sure would have ended him before he even got started. I will let the union go as I haven't really thought that out very much, but I would suggest that some form of economic and political influence over the conquered country's, including England. I don't know if it would reach the level that France and England put on Germany, but I am almost certain that there would be some face slapping going on. What I was talking about the Ottoman empire is that the West could not have set up their little puppet regimes in the Ottomans still had control of that area. The oil would not have been so cheaply paid for and the petro dollars would have went to Constantinople instead of the Capital cites of the countries that were set up after WWI. I understand that it was crumbling from inside out. My God the thing, I think outlasted any other empire except ancient Egypt.

Generals don't make decisions like that, politicians do and the politicians would have to convince the public for such a need for expansion. WWI completely sapped the public will for warefare in many nations. I don't think that Hitler could have done what he accomplished if it weren't for the war reparations and the worldwide depression. All in all, this is getting a bit off topic, as we were talking about the Geo-political area of this what-if scenario.

The simple truth is that the US and USSR fought together in WWII, and our supposed "mortal enemy" status was entirely fabricated after the war ended. Also try watching the 1950's/60's Soviet's PSAs for civilian nuclear attack (ours were "Duck and Cover" etc) during this period and tell us they weren't produced by the same group of people. This supposed conflict was almost entirely a colluded effort, just as U.S. involvement in and support of WWI (and anti-German public sentiment) had to be fabricated literally from thin air, not only in our country but in most of the world. We have Britain to thank for that global catastrophe, but historians and everyone else noted how well the UK's propaganda campaign worked. In fact it's been used as a model for generating war from nothing ever since. Here's another bottom line imo: the Pentagon's primary requirement is not to defend our country or our Constitution, it's to justify its own existence -- and this cannot be done without the perpetual existence of mortal enemies. It's been true from the "Red Menace" to flipping Islamic terrorists and Somalian war lords. Review the history and see how these boogeymen have appeared magically and out of thin air, just in time to accomodate Pentagon budgets for the last 70 years, and how every one of these claimed mortal threats to our existence disappeared just as instantly and magically -- when the Pentagon's money ran out. The Russian people learned the great lesson in 1992: it's all a scam to justify public teetsucking. Virtually all of it. The difference with the current fake war is that the Pentagon finally landed the Holy Grail of obscene spending: a perpetual war that is fundamentally unwinnable because the list of defined enemies changes on a daily and sometimes hourly basis. So welcome to bankruptcy and collapse, America, but don't fret. It's just natural selection and losing their federal government didn't kill anyone in Russia. Dude. Politics makes strange bedfellows. The U.S. pretty much backed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein at one time. This thing about Russia and the U.S. is along the same lines. History is replete with these situations of convenience. .Germany and Russia conspired together to take Poland. the two had a non-aggression pack before Hitler tossed it in the trash. If it hadn't have been for the Russian winter, I think we might all be speaking German, right now. As far as the cold war is concerned, I think Americas main issue was she was affraid of an idea called communism and I think that was sad and a little pathetic. Hundreds of people got blackballed and lost their livelihood during the 50's. People talk, today of political witch hunts. They should have set in front of the House on Unamerican Activities, which was itself unAmerican. More like the Gestapo.

I thank you very much for the information of the Germany ruler. I was not aware of this. It makes me rethink my attitude on this. It's hard to believe that these European leaders were all related to each other, seeing how some were so eager to prove themselves to each other I never thought about the rising of a French Hitler, I would supose that anyone, with the right mind could come up with a convincing argument of internal betrayl of country. It seems, all it takes is scarcity and those unwilling to keep things in perspective will convinces themselves of just about any diabolic conspiracy All we have to do is look at the Japanese interment camps of WWII to see that. . I would suggest though that Hitler was a highly apt charismatic political showman. Even at that, I don't think he could have rose to power and more than Donald Trump could have risen to power at any other time than they both did. I would ask if you think that a European union of some sort would have come out in the 1920, since the German King was so overbearing and would that have become an economic powerhouse that would have rivaled America. I would also like to hear about peoples thoughts about The Ottoman Empire. Would it have collapsed and if the Western powers could not have swooped in and organized the Middle East, would the West be even a shadow of what it is today without the cheep oil it extracted from the puppet states they created to serve their interests? Would there have ever been a need to them to look to terrorism as a way to have a voice in this world.?

I'm really not interested in how the victory would have come about. I would suggest that maybe if the original plan was implemented and the German Armies mad it to Paris, before the English came in and knocked France out of the war. Then turning West towards Russia, would there have been any need to allow Lenin safe passage through Germany in that train heading into Russia. I mean the German politicians should have known would would happen id the bolsheviks took charge of a country that large. Would England still have entered the war after France was knocked out and if not the Lusitania would surly not have been torpedoed. The reason I brought this up is because I thik what happened during WWI pretty much set the world up for WWII and that set us all up for what is going on today. Sorry, I'm trying to find and alternate really than one where two loadmouths are shacking their fists at each other across the expanse of the UN assembly room and both of them are holding nukes in those hands. What a mad, mad, mad world we live in. My friend.

Seeing the present situation in North Korea, I would think a sea change like Germany winning the first world war would be fairly profound, since I hardly think Nazi Germany would have even existed and the Manhattan project would have had, in my opinion no reason to exist. Thank you for your input just the same.