NeframeTheCosmonaut

Yeah, I'm not even going to touch this one. Looking forward to the next ^^_^^

It's good to see Brother America again

@NeframeTheCosmonaut Hear, hear!

@NeframeTheCosmonaut Agreed !

I'd say that the swedish anthem is more megalomania; we don't mention sweden, and just claims the entire nordic as our lands (with the implication that we claim "only" the nordic because it's the best part of the earth).

It does, however, fit very well to the provincial anthem of the area I'm from; we mention being more handsome than the rest of sweden in every verse, not like bragging, but like it is self evident! And appently our military might is the best in Sweden and the other provinces wouldn't stand a chance (especially not Småland)?

Sort of makes sense though. Alaska is cold.

I can se the reasoning though. Morale is very important in warfare, so keeping some familiar calming thing, like a sauna, makes sense as long as it's kept from the front line.

@NeframeTheCosmonaut
Oh no, the front line is the very place to taunt the enemy with the smell of our fresh vihtas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banny_venik

@Kuusi
XD

can't build a chair? I have built half a kitchen with IKEA stuff. They must have bought the version with swedish instructions only XD

Gender roles can be a dangerous thing, to everyone. We should be open to discusion without ignoring the problems of other groups, if we let each other talk we will often find that both sides want the same solution to the same endgame; in this case equal responsibility, oppurtunity, and ability, through cultural acceptance and respect. But, humans being humans, I think its unlikely we will see mutual insight and cooperation anytime soon, regardless of how advantageous it would be to everyone. If nothing else, if you know how the other side thinks you have an enormous advantage in debates. Someone should take advantage of that.

'@NeframeTheCosmonaut' "if we let each other talk we will often find that both sides want the same solution to the same endgame"
James Damore thought so too. You can see how well he was received.
Assumption that all people want the same thing in same way is big and unfounded.

@comrade_Comrade Considering I haven't heared of him, it probably didn't (or nobody listened).

That is true. My only experience on the matter is swedish politics, in which most parties usually want the same ends, or at least require similar for their primary goal, but refuse to talk with one another.

'@NeframeTheCosmonaut' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber
Damore gave an interview to several prominent youtubers, worth listening to if you're interested.

As for politics, broad goals like "security and general welfare" can be read in vastly different ways. Even if objectives are specific, like raising GDP or lowering crime rate, there will be always several proposed approaches. Collectivists and individualists, nationalists and multiculturalists, authoritarians and liberals are likely to see same issues in mutually exclusive ways, and that difference at least in part stems from personality of individual. There is no way to trade on core values, so when policy debate comes to this, in extreme examples any compromise is seen as having as an accommodation of evil, stupidity or both.

@comrade_Comrade
Thanks for the link ^^_^^

Yeah, you are correct, many ideologies are fundamentally opposing each other. Any compromise would from that perspective be a sell-out. My opinion is rather that hindering ones own ability to achieve common goals through cooperation makes an ideology's principles fundamentally stupid. Might be the immoral-tactitian part of me talking.

'@NeframeTheCosmonaut' well, imagine that you and murderous cannibal have a common goal having a dinner. You may compromise on side dishes, sauce, dessert and spices and what kind of plates you're going to use. Eventually you'll run into the fact that human meat is his dominant preference, while your right to live has a very low priority. At this point cooperation is likely to break down, unless you're willing to contribute someone else to the table. And you can be sure: that guy is going to have his own issues with such arrangement.

@comrade_Comrade
That is true again. there will always be circumstances that make cooperation a bad choice. In those cases you shoot the cannibal if he doesnt back down.
The difference is that most ideologies consider shooting everyone else as a good first approach, before them know wether they are cannibals or vegans, or even have a plan for how to exterminate them. That is what makes them fundamentally stupid. Again, my experience is from swedish politics, it is likely to be different elsewhere. But I do see your point, and it is a good one.

'@NeframeTheCosmonaut' don't know specifics of Swedish politics, but it seems there is a similar problem in almost any country that's big enough. It looks like a combination of several factors.

Pressure of Cold War is no longer there. When there is no need to present at least semblance of unified political front, and people tend to forget that before WWII political process in at least some countries was as toxic as it is now, if not more.

It's easier to self-segregate based on preference - people no longer bound to several common sources of information, role of interpersonal relationships decreased. News outlets don't have to pander to a wide audience, they can focus on smaller set of demographic groups and therefore have to politically lean more than was necessary or possible before. People no longer have to be exposed to or tolerate very different view of the same event. When 9 out of 10 people you've heard (personally or via internet/tv/radio) share your political view, it's easy to consider remaining one to be a stupid evil deviant. On top of that, political rhetoric on core issues always seemed to lean extreme, while societal and personal cost of being raging asshole steadily declined for decades.

Political maturity of existing countries means that most of them already ran out of "soft" issues like "maybe we need to have laws against murder, theft and fraud". When relatively centrist economic and social policies are already in place, you'll have to go left, right or do nothing. Few politicians are elected for doing nothing, and given that left and right policies tend to be mutually exclusive, there are no grounds for compromise.

Also there is strong disincentive for opposition to cooperate with ruling party. If sum of existing policies, government and majority in parliament leans one way, opposition's best chance of gaining majority and pushing preferred policies is to exploit some crisis. The worse it is - the better, since your argument to scrap status quo in favor of something more desirable grows stronger. In this case fixing existing framework is detrimental to party's reason to exist, and will be forced only by threat of negative PR outcomes. This, of course, should vary a lot between countries and even individual politicians.

There are also things like generational divide, growing split between rural and urban communities, effects of globalization of economies and such, but I've already got too long-winded.

@comrade_Comrade
I agree about those factors. Saying "we will compromise with other parties and sell out our socio-economic politics" isn't going to win any elections. Its just that it's so painfully obvious nobody is even advancing their own politics when you are that devious 10th who have no allegience to any party.

@NeframeTheCosmonaut sweden strikes again lmao
i almost feel bad for them

@v0ider
Soon we shall spread our influence (into my own nation so we get something done ever), then I'll watch as the world falls into the evil off organized, voluentary, cooperation.

(I'm kidding of course, I have no idea what a perfect world would look like, I just know that we won't have one unless we are prepared to talk)

I sort of like the idea, putting the importance on the information and publishing rather than the book itself.

I mean, really Norway! You can't interrupt Science! That's just rude!

Anyway, pulverizing and using as fertilizer does make sense since they'd have to import all the nitrogen, phosphorous, and other stuff plants need from either earth or the belt otherwise. That leaves our dusters without good options for independence.
And recycling is almost what we do already, just on longer timelines.

Good luck Iceland!

I am probably one of the swedes who would instead say "great job, how did you do it? (tell me so we can beat you next year)"

The reason is that I see swedish equality in practice.

That heart coming from Russia made my day ^^_^^

Russia doesnt just like America now, Russia lives him.

Does this mean Christiania will get a robotic prostesis? cuz modern ones are pretty cool.

Japan is soooooooo smug about it. Always winning in some way.