russia wasent really involved until recently

you must remimber, staying out of russias shit was why we voted against hillery

it just kind of seems like that didint go anywhere

yes, so now history is going to repeat itself over there?

no, like i just said the world is a different place now

humans don't change

same game, different skin

War has changed.

more players

<:Kappa:327142715592540171>

were in a much higher stress situation than we were with the gulf

its more like korea but not even exactly like that

theres really not actually anything comparible to this i can think of

are you sure about that? are you sure we are in a much higher stress situation than any other time since WW2?

not as bad as the cuban missle crisis

the kind of stress is different, we dont really know what will even happen during a world war with nukes

will they even be used with so much going on at once? we kind of assume they are mutually assured distruction weapons but not nessicaraly in this context would they be

nukes are a bad tactical option for any country to use. I can guarantee the only reason a nuke will be used is in retaliation of another nuke.

sure but they might not be all used

meanwhile, they have a lot of draw backs, including making you the number one enemy of pretty much the world.

i doubt even china would support russia much if they launched nukes first.

we might see something like a blow for blow thing as completely whiping you and your enemy out while other peices are on the board doesent really seem like the best plan

russia wont launch nukes till they are invaded, even then it might not be armagedon

you know, i take it back, russia might use nukes for scorched earth, you are right

they have a habit of doing that

I think as soon as one is launched the game is over.
"The only winning move is to not play in the first place."

so WW3 would be just like every other war. Conventional weaponry, fighting over land

but what would be the goal of such a war?

What happens when one side is on the verge of losing, though? If things did not escalate to nukes up until that point.

thing is if you threaten to take territory that has an icbm on it, they will use it and not lose it, or if you take an important peice of land

nukes might come out then, but like i said, what would be the reason for such a war?

reason isint the reason

all wars usually come down to land someone wants that someone else has

nah not really

thats kind of a liberalist myth

war actually tends to be more of a pride or fear thing

really? you believe these leaders to be that stupid?

WW1 lasted so long cause no one wanted to back out once it started

"neighber is getting dangerous, better kill them while im still stronger" "im so powerful i have right to anything i see"

emotions are not stupid, they are aside of inteligence

Yes

caeser was a genius

"im so powerful i have right to anything i see" <- this is a war land someone wants

over land*

its not about the land though, its about the claim

back in the day people would create monuments specificly stating the size of their empire and challanging anyone to rival it

those people dident get empires like that by being fools

but a claim like that isn't starting a war.

ill say were consiterably mild compared to then

Even in cases where it was over land, what do they want the land for?

i mean napolian only wanted to one up alexander, and he got away with trying it twice colapsing frances economy twice

even hitler was only interested in europe because it was a matter of pride to reclaim the sutendatenland

_fucking butchered that language_

i don't really care about why someone wants land. At the end of the day, its because someone wants land.

some times its pride, sometimes its resources.

so the question is, what land does russia want and why?

it seems like they want the old USSR back

which i highly doubt would lead to a real WW3

most times its pride, its usually resources when the opposing faction is absolutely so weak they are consitered another species to the conquirer or its soviet russia

or the mongols

eh the mongols it was a matter that once the khan united the tribes the only way to keep them together was to send them to war

they seem more content to be cheeky bastards and hide behind "local" forces. If they wanted WW3, they'd have out right invaded people by now.

same thing happened with atilla

america is also one of those rare places that only wars for land and doesent care about anything else

because we are ruled by nihilistic capitalists

the good of the people is in spite of progress not the goal in the land of oppertunity

they want land so any future enemy doesn't have it

or you know, to keep our uncontroled consumerism ever more bountiful

theres a reason we use a disproportionate amount of oil compared to our population

you gotta burn money to make money

or it could just be our general power usage

yes

I mean, war is pretty much a zero sum game.

Anything you gain, is a loss for someone elese.

Even resources you gain in land you already own, more resources is an advantage over ones adversary.

So I guess its kinda resonable and paranoid to think that way.

that is if you take war as only an issue,

War forces quick adaptation and evolution of combat,
WW2 was amazing for innovating technology, in fact the first electronic analog computer was a product of this

not to mention that after a war which ends in stability, the economy booms because all the old wares were destroyed, allowing a fresh new generation of equipment to be built and directly implemented

Kind of like bacteria and anti-biotics in a way,

the bacteria either adapts and becomes resistant, and this resistant strain makes the old anti-biotics useless.
Or the bacteria dies off

and if it survives, its stronger than before, because the weakness has been removed

economies don't boom in the countries devastated. Unless you are not taking the massive decline in the economies during the war.

thats why i said, in wars that end with stability, like the west in WW2

@Timcast https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/830148525853396992 i don't know if you get notifications of people @ ing you on minds, so i figure id share it here as well just to be sure. i just watched the culture war podcast, and this post of mine on minds provides some sources to stuff that went down during #gamergate, since you asked for it

http://archive.is/UCA7C

so he's partying with Saddam in heaven now? if southpark is accurate

@Timcast hey i made this comment on your video today and i thought it might help to have it here too "there's something actually semi-misleading about how you've presented the result of your test here tim, while i think its a good experiment, its results arnt as clear cut and definitive as you present them considering you haven't shown the videos you claim to have had your advertisement put on for the following reason. you put on content filters, however not all category of content filters will filter out all videos if completely checked for every sub filter. only the filters under group "digital content labels" are applied to all content on the platform, those under "sensitive content" do not as some videos wont be covered under the filters of anything under "sensitive content". basically you forgot to do a control with every filter under "sensitive content" checked when you ran your ad, even then you probably didn't get your ad on every video on youtube, as such even if you did do a control, then did a "sexually suggestive" and "sensational and shocking" filter test there's no guarantee you could tell that you had more results from the latter 2 by simply looking at the numbers"

Just remembered. I gotta call Tim out on something he and others like H3H3 kinda messed up.

Alright you know the whole creepy kids show debacle from a few months ago. Well I think there was an innocent channel caught in the cross-fire.
Do you remember the channel "Hey Kids"?

It was an ARG. Unfortunately key-word there is was.

If someone @ 's me I'll provide evidence of it being an ARG.

@buffaloguy1991 I think whether it was an ARG or not doesn't play into the meat of the criticism. The fact that it was still content that was being directed at children by Youtube would be problematic, itself, depending on the content.

but it wasn't (I don't t think so) here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B1sRPwK248

Granted, if there was effort being put into it as an ARG, it shouldn't fall in the same category as the algorithm-bait channels.

NIghtmind covers channels like this.

But yeah there were ALOT of channels that were offending. All I'm saying is "Hey Kids" was not one of the offenders.

A lot of the blame falls on Google, though

yeah.

Sure, I suppose you could say that the channels were offending

but in the end, they were creating content that got views, letting them make money off of ads

It's the algorithm that was the offender.