pandapoo @ pandapoo @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

328

Joined

2 yr. ago

It wasn't a bad analogy, it was a disingenuous interpretation by other readers, like you. That or, just really ignorant of the relevant history, such as who the Waffen SS were....

So if people want to play the "what about the good Nazi" game with it, then fine, we can skip straight to the source material and inspiration for the Fire Nation: the Japanese Empire.

But again, I don't believe art has to directly reflect reality. So I don't consider this cartoon to be a war criminal, but if people insist interpreting it as a direct reflection of reality, then yes, an IJA General would be his historical analog.

The inspiration for the Fire Nation was Imperial Japan...

That means his historical analog was an IJA General tasked with conquering China, Korea, Philippines, etc.

Why don't you open history book, and find me the IJA General on one of those campaigns who wasn't a war criminal.

That's why humans have brains, for situational awareness.

And it's less about not breaking for an animal, as it is about not wildly swerving.

Also, you should probably revise your thinking on this before you visit any states that have large animals like Moose on the roads. Because if you plow into one with a car, it can easily kill you when it crushes you after impact.

I'd smash.

They will, but only because he'll die trying to make toast while taking a bath, or something else actually Darwin Award worthy.

Holy shit.

After reading both of your comments, I am left feeling dumber by at least 12%.

Quick, write about four more of them and I should be good and ready to find my way to a Darwin Award.

U know what i think ...

The better question is do I care what you think, and the answer is no, not at all.

But if you insist, I'm sure whatever you're thinking shouldn't be too hard to figure out, as there can't be too many possibilities. What I'm saying is, you give strong vibes of a likely future Darwin Award nominee.

It feels like none of you have actually read the Darwin Awards website that actually you know, coined the phrase.

Simply working a dangerous environment and dying within it, doesn't make it a Darwin Award, not even a nominee.

She was there to do a job that required a lot of attention on it's own. You can't be assigned to photograph skydivers, at an airfield, without having to expend some energy and attention to doing that job.

By your logic, any of the kids who got ground up and killed cleaning meat processing plants, should have been more aware. Guess they're also Darwin Award winners, at least by your metrics.

Darwin Awards are for deaths that are so stupendously stupid and insane, that the removal of their genes from the gene pool acts as a kind of cleanse.

Such as the guy who stuck a plunger in the shower as a makeshift dildo, held on to the shower curtain rod area for support, which proceeded to break under his weight and impaled him.

That's an actual Darwin Award. Not this poor lady.

That's not what Darwin awards are for.

Ironically, the fact that you think it is, means if you have an untimely death, there's a good chance it will be eligible.

No asshole, read the article before making such callous comments.

She was there, on assignment for work. Small airfields are very dangerous, and this type of accident can happen to anyone who isn't fully focused on their surroundings. Such as a photographer who is taking photographs as part of their job, steps in the wrong direction.

Which is why this is fictional, and he's allowed to have a narrative story arc.

However, if this was a Nazi SS Officer, who fled to South America, and then went on to redeem himself by [insert narratively compelling redemption story], he'd still be a war criminal.

But again, it's a cartoon, and we don't have to treat his character as if he were an actual Imperial General commanding troops during wars of conquest, especially one from the IJA.

If I was support, had a list to work through because my calls were monitored and recorded, and you were being a complete know-it-all asshole, I would walk through them as slow as possible, and repeat as many as I could plausibly get away with.

Because that's the actual job: following instructions from their boss, which means following their processes. Why would they deviate from that, and risk their job, for someone who's rude, and/or self-important?

As someone who's also technically competent and rarely calls support, when I do, I've never had to repeat the same steps 17 times, or even 3 times.

I let them tell me to turn off and on again, confirm it's done, explain why I need a level 2 support or escalation. Then they'll typically ask me one or two more questions, which I'll politely answer, reiterate my polite request for level 2, and they will escalate for me.

Yes

I've heard it both ways.

What the fuck dude.

Why are you posting paintings that depict my O face?

This is like Victorian revenge porn.

People here get really uppity when you point out that Ukraine's enemy lossss and casualty reports are likely inflated, because that's what all militaries do in all conflicts. It doesn't even always have to do with wartime propaganda, but because it's hard to accurately tally enemy losses during active conflict.

Anyways, when you point that out the usual responses to point out the patently ridiculous reports on Ukrainian losses that the Russian MoD puts out, as if somehow that means Ukraine's are accurate.

The best I can say is that Ukrainian reports are almost certainly exponentially closer to reality than Russia's comically absurd and fantastical figures.

I will finish it up by saying that there are good independent sources who open source intelligence to track verified losses, and air on the conservative side.

That of course means their loss reports aren't accurate either, but they provide a good figures to be used as a floor for any estimate ranges.

Casualties are not the same as KIA, and not all WIA are permanently combat ineffective.

Someone who got shrapnel in the leg or abdomen and requires 6-8 weeks of recovery, before returning to combat, is a single casualty.

That same soldier can return to combat, catch a bullet in their arm, and be a casualty again.

That same soldier can return to service three months later, etc.

If after returning to service a 3rd time, they're eventually KIA, then they would have been counted as a casualty three times.

Not saying this is typical, or that this is indicative of the normal WIA casualty. Just pointing out that a single soldier can be counted as a casualty more than once, and it's not uncommon.

So I won't use the Iraq war as a marker of morality...

In other words, you've nullified the murder of 1 million innocent people by Bush, in order to rationalize why Trump is worse.

But please, write another five paragraphs justifying why those deaths shouldn't count here. I'm sure eventually you'll figure out the right semantic argument that almost passes muster for someone of slightly below average intelligence.

I'd actually respect you more if you just said that you care about the danger Trump poses to American democracy more than a million dead Arabs. At least you'd finally be open and honest about the political and moral views you clearly hold.

That's a lot of words to basically justify why the extermination of one million people isn't that bad relative to myriad of shitfuckery Trump did.

Oh, and Incase you forgot, Bush did actually succeed at stealing an election. So...there's that.

1 stolen election + 1 million dead arabs < Stormy Daniels and a failed attempt at stealing an election.

Your politics and sense of humanity have to be so so broken and destroyed by social media consumption to even entertain that idea, but you're full on tripling down on it.

Damn. I hope you touch grass and see the light someday.

You're comparing tangibles to intangibles, hypotheticals, and combining it with a very confused sense of morality.

The fact that you can't see past Trump to understand that actually killing one million human beings is worse then anything he did, is depressing.

Do you not understand that Trump can be a malignant tumor and dangerous all on his own, without having to pretend that anything he did even remotely compares to directly killing 1 million innocent people?

Or maybe you don't care because they're Arab? I know you'll balk at that, throw out all the right signifiers, and maybe even throw a "how dare you" my way, but I'm not left with many other options to understand to your rational.