- Dad likes this
Login to Account Create an Account
DaeMember Since 26 Dec 2010
Member ID: 337,148
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Today, 12:31 AM
Seize the Dae
Quick-Play Spell Card
Can only be activated in response to your opponent sending a card(s) from their deck to the graveyard. Set that card face-down on your side of the field, otherwise banish it. It cannot be activated this turn.
Made by Icy
made by CowCow
- OthersLegendary Members
- Active Posts 15,732
- Profile Views 54,422
- Most Active In Miscellaneous (6,689 posts )
- Member Title Legendary Member
- Age 21 years old
- Birthday December 23, 1996
Hina's Vagina, Oregon
- Skype [email protected]
Posted by Dae on 12 August 2018 - 09:07 AM
Posted by Dae on 11 August 2018 - 03:40 AM
If you want to turn the color pie into something to base sentiment on, you have to understand that the color pie is only grounds to develop an idea but not fully explote that idea. That is why we have things in MTG called "bleeds", because the colors are not simply limited to what categorizes them. The colors have a reflection and a goal but the core structure is not fully realized in the colors themselves.
This is a cool idea but one that lacks anything truly vital to what the color pie in MTG is. It is like when people used the guilds to define the same thing, it simply does not correlate cleanly without losing the meaning or aspects of the topics in question.
Posted by Dae on 04 August 2018 - 10:18 PM
I think both sides are bullshit tbh. I'm all for the lack of a political party. All they seem to do is stir up trouble within a society. A country with such conflicting parties is a country divided, what is needed is a country united. Extremists exist on both the left and the right and the stigma that both sides carry is overwhelmingly toxic. People like PragerU, while all their facts are correct, are promoting the divide. Promoting more of the right and down talking the left. Conversion is not the key. Only by destroying the standards of the left and the right do people realize that they are on common ground. Politics is not a war.
People are divided more than just by politics. Anything singular thought has a bunch of branches that divide people. If you want to have a collective and not divide people, have a totalitarian government where only one thing exists. People have opinions and that will not change nor will it come to one collective thought. Politics, as much as anything, leads to trouble. It is disparaging and when pushed far enough, it becomes war. There is a common ground but not necessarily is that common ground better than the extremes.
I'm not dodging, I'm drawing relations. You stated in response to "Politics is not a war" that "Politics literally starts wars"
Correct me if I'm inferring this wrong, but to me you're saying that I'm wrong because politics is, in fact, the basis for many wars throughout history. I was simply replying that religion is guilty of the same, yet most people would not say that religion is a war in and of itself. So why should politics be treated differently?
The topic is politics and you're bringing up religion. It is a red herring fallacy. This is about the state of a politic belief, not religion.
I think if we are to bring a thought behind fascism, looking to the context of the definition is more appropriate. Ninjask brings the doctrines to note, which is important when looking at what has become of fascism and what it means to bring together a fascist state. I don't want to read anything by v1alne because I don't want to read that much text. Seems like a lot of additional thought from a pretty simple understanding.
The operations of the Right and Left have changed over time, as they are transitional on the ideals that are apparent. Socialism and capitalism don't essential equate the core values of either side and neither does the role of the leader of the world. There is no such thing as generic fascism, only the appeal of the movement and the people who operate to that movement. As of anything, it is a mess of a concept that delves deep but the deeper we delve into it the messier the concept becomes.
There are multiple ways to look at fascism from the individual standpoint; The generic definition that is brought together, the political notion of it, and also the personal identification of being a fascist. Fascism itself is left from and by Italy, nothing more than the origins of what Mussolini was trying to get out of breaking from the previous state. This disparagement was from the movements that were already in power versus the ones that were trying to compete for power. The model of fascism never solely defined anything but the movements that occurred in Italy, whereas others had details of fascism but only conductive to their own form of it.
Later on, from a politic field rather than a generic oversight, fascism seemed to take on a more modernization route with change the accepted definition that was already trying to come together. War, in this case, became necessary for societal development and advancement. It became a part of progress rather than take away from it, as the mentality was becoming a hierarchy above the competing states to see which influence could become more influential through battles in any form. Fascism seemed to be a dictatorial stance from underdeveloped countries competing rather than powers trying to assume power. Leaders could do what they want, as if they believed their reign was for the state which would be for the country.
This problem here is that there was a difference between what defined progress and regress from both Nazism and Italy circa 1920s, as to what defined what and the outcome being associated with the implementations. Nazism didn't fit the hold that the Italian Renaissance brought together and many states couldn't follow the same fashion. But it did hold itself to a certain stance by Nazism and the basis that developed the field.
Fascism is a tool that can be generally used to fit certain molds but takes away from the details that other places are defined by. If you bring in the concepts and details of a party, it does not exist in any stance nor can be defined as left or right. Only from a general sentiment can any party be consider fascist.
If one interprets fascism as a mass-mobilizing, developmental dictatorship in modernizing nations, fascists exist in abundance, Left and Right, across the world. It cannot exist in the details of the parties. If we go into the individual take on fascism, it is more apparent how vague the baseline of the word is. But that is too much to write right now.
- Sassy Gypsy (not really) likes this
Posted by Dae on 28 July 2018 - 02:27 PM
I mean: That was the point of 1984 and the use of language itself. We get so muddled with words that we concise them and exploit them in the vagueness of the meaning rather than refining language to fit a singular idea, because language is all connected and there is no clear notion of what the denotation and connotation are. There is no universal validation of a definition anymore, nor was there really. The dictionary is fine for the understanding of the meaning, but not the use of the word or anything like that. I am pretty happy that "Politics and the English Language" was mentioned, since that essay is probably one of the most important tools for literacy when discussing politics. It is still a used tool for anything dystopian or postmodern.
From Orwell's use of controlling in 1984, and even Fahrenheit 451, the biggest metric to try and control is the use of information. Information is broken down to the communication of language, as a means to tell of the past, plan for the future, even have a conversation. It is pertinent to the interaction of society, which is also why the tool of it cannot be broken. Now, this is also where language is remarkable. The use of "Orwellian" here might be a moniker for "dystopian" or anything "totalitarian", it doesn't have refinement to itself. The definition is as vague as the use of it. While it helps to bring out a concept, it does not flush that concept out and only scratches the surface.
We are able to compare society to Oceania because of the emphasis on what metrics are used and how the could /possibly/ be presented if the metrics are furthered, without regard to the opposing idea. Exactly like how language is used now, it is also used in the reverse fashion. We promote the use of language in many ways, that break down the definition and the use of it in order to define how it is used and the definition we use. The public has control over the use of language where as the media has control over the information. It is a battle of what we let ourselves hold back from saying and what we allow to cloud the use of how we speak or what we do.
If you want to discuss the limits of language, then (HEY HINA) I suggest looking into Borges and some secondary sources that have been used to study Borges. Borges is objectively more free in the confines of writing than Orwell is, while being a nod to the opposite means of living. Where Orwell lived to fight against what he opposed. Borges tried to break free what what he opposed. Politics are only one addition to all that encompasses the world and there are limits to what politics can do if we open ourselves up to understanding what we can do against it.
Posted by Dae on 24 July 2018 - 05:06 PM
What I mean is that if the referenced material is connected to the bad guy(s), it's bearable, because it's saying "this is a bad thing" about the referenced material, whereas if the reference is tied to the good guys or if the product otherwise says "this is a good thing" about the referenced material, I can't tolerate that.
I hope this clarifies things.
- Yui likes this
Posted by Dae on 23 July 2018 - 04:58 PM
Yeah it doesn't line up with how the Hebrew God is seen by the Hebrews
It does line up how it was seen by the ancient Egyptians
Which is the perspective that matters
This is more of a theory, but CowCow is right. Exodia can be taken as the Egyptian understanding of the Hebrew or Abrahamic God. The Egyptians didn't see "God" as a entity of spirituality, but a more metaphysical entity that was all-powerful and had dominion over all with no bounds. It is more of a illustration of how God broke the Jews out of slavery and the reign of a monotheistic entity. I read this on reddit somewhere some time ago, so my memory is a little backed. But most of it is just the story of how God helped Moses to break the Jews out of Slavery when the Pharoah kept them in captivity. The story of this is also noted to be when polytheism had come to an end where monotheism, in as many different forms, came to be more prominent. Book of Exodus is dope, this is a cool take. Egyptians saw the abrahamic god as evil.
found the thread: https://www.reddit.c..._yugioh_is_god/
- God Emperor Cow likes this
Posted by Dae on 13 July 2018 - 05:28 PM
I'll get to it later tonight or early tomorrow at the latest. Thank you for ordering. Please check out the Quicker Graphics Shop, for better graphic needs, here: https://forum.yugioh...-graphics-shop/
Are you still in business? Is it not too late to bring this thread up?
If so, can you please make an avi for me from this YGO monster?
No render needed. Focus on the head, neck and torso. I would like the legs and hands too but the logo is in the way, oh well. Feel free to use any effects, filters, etc. that you consider will improve the image, I trust you on that.