I wasn’t actually aware it was just Norway, so I appreciate the correction.

No, oil rich Norway.

Thanks, I didn’t know about it and I’ll definitely check it out.

I didn’t source very well but a lot of my info comes from “All the Shah’s Men” by Stephen Kinzer, which I highly recommend.

Having a lot of resources is a curse. Countries that have natural ressources (Iran, Algeria, Nigeria, Russia) tend to be highly corrupt and exploited by a small elite. It’s simple. The elite can take control of the oil fields, the gas fields, the mines. Just sell ressources. Shoot protesters. No need to invest in anything else. It’s much better to live a country with limited resources (Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland). Lack of resources force the elites to invest in science and education. The most unlucky country in Africa is Congo. It’s full of diamonds, forests, oil, gas, lithium, cobalt, rare earth. So Congo has suffered horribly because of that. In fact, it’s still being looted.

This isn’t actually true. You can look at the Nordic countries which are very oil rich and owe a lot of their prosperity to that. The United States is pretty resource rich as well. What is a curse is imperialism, and having lots of resources attracts lots of imperialists. The “oil curse” or “resource curse” is a myth made up to whitewash imperialists and absolve them of guilt.

Strap in and let me tell you about my special interest, Iranian history. In the 1800s, before the discovery of oil, Iran was ruled by an extremely corrupt line of shahs who sold out every part of the impoverished country to fund their lavish lifestyles and massive harems - to the point that other countries had to step in and say that they weren’t allowed to sell out that much of the country. But the Iranian people were upset by this state of affairs, and staged a massive boycott, which set the stage for a mass movement in 1905 that established a democratic parliament and a constitution, with the support of an overwhelming majority, including the clergy (a fatwa was actually issued declaring violating the boycott to be haram). Iran was well on it’s way to becoming a peaceful, prosperous, democratic society - but then the Fire Nation attacked, in the form of the British and Russian Empires moving in, shelling the parliament building and dividing the nation between themselves, like a pack of wolves.

The Iranian people suffered tremendously in the following years, with major plagues, famines, and genocide conducted by the Ottoman Empire. Of course, the Russian Empire collapsed, the British took the opportunity to unify the country, propping up a shah of a new dynasty as their puppet. That shah proved uncooperative during WWII, and the Allies invaded to set up supply lines between the Eastern and Western fronts and to secure the Iranian oil (which had now been discovered), and the shah was forced to abdicate to his son, who the British found more amenable.

The British technically owned the rights to Iran’s oil, but the deal they had made was with the previous dynasty (Qajar). The one that had been selling out their country to an absurd degree, the one that had been overthrown by the people precisely because they were selling out the country, and so naturally the deal they had struck with the British regarding oil (which had been made before oil had even been discovered in Iran) gave them extremely lucrative terms. But it actually didn’t matter how lucrative the terms were because the British were just straight up stealing it. They falsified their records and forbid any kind of inspection of their facilities.

This led the Iranian people to once again mobilize in support of democracy and self-rule. As outrage over the exploitation grew, the shah, who had previously rubber-stamped anyone the British picked, began to fear his own people more than the British and appointed democratic reformer Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister. After the Iranians had watched the British stonewall them for decades, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry with overwhelming public support. Iran was once again on track to becoming a peaceful, democratic, independent country.

But the British set up a naval blockade that crippled their economy. Iranians, at this point, had a neutral to positive view of the US, and hoped that it would live up to its stated ideals and support them against the British. The British, meanwhile, expected the Americans to back up their “property rights.” President Truman threw up his hands in frustration, seeing both sides as intransigent. But Churchill simply waited him out, and offered his successor Eisenhower British support in Korea and NATO in exchange for the CIA launching a coup, and so Iran was passed around like a bargaining chip. Mossadegh’s commitment to democratic ideals allowed the CIA free reign, he didn’t crack down on the press despite the CIA controlling virtually all the newspapers, he didn’t crack down on protests while the CIA was hiring protesters on both sides, etc. Naturally, he was ousted (although the CIA denied it/covered it up for decades), and the shah was given much more power (which he used to hunt down and exterminate the Iranian left) and the oil kept flowing.

But after a few decades, once again, outrage over the exploitation came to a head, and the shah, seeking to appease his people, participated in a multinational oil boycott. But as a result, his foreign support was withdrawn, which set the stage for the Islamic Revolution. President Carter, against the advice of his state department, allowed the shah to take refuge in the US. Naturally, this outraged the Iranians, because the US had previously staged a coup to install the very same man as a dictator. In retaliation, some of the revolutionaries seized the US embassy and took hostages. This of course led to a breakdown in relations between the US and Iran.

And so, Iran is often held up as an example of this supposed “resource curse” that leads to political instability (not to mention the old line about “Islam is incompatible with democracy”), but the reality is that the country had multiple times in its history where it could’ve become stable, peaceful, democratic, and independent, but those chances were destroyed, not by Iranians, but by foreign imperialists, the vile colonial empires of the British and Americans. Had they simply been left alone, they would not have suffered from this supposed “resource curse.” If you look into the history of any similar country, you will find a similar story. But the history of these countries are simply not taught and not known in the imperial core, and so other explanations are invented.

In one of those examples, the people of NK worship Kim and his father and grandfather as literal gods.

Lol, no they don’t.

What’s wild about this is that people predicted AI would be used for nefarious purposes, but generally in the form of like, showing your opponents doing crimes. But here it’s being used to show their own side doing crimes while the other side is only made to look “cringy” or more like a stereotype.

It really speaks to the utter depravity of the US right that, given a machine that can generate any video of anything they could imagine, this is what they do. These people are utterly incompatible with any kind of free or even functional society, and I really don’t know what could ever be done fix them or their culture.

Lmao I’m the one with no capacity for rational thought? Defend anything you said this conversation. Any one thing:

• The Vietnam War was “lost” in morale - Show me a war that was lost not on morale

• Kill Death Ratios are important in determining who won or lost - explain how this applies when we look at WWII

• Vietnam lost because they failed in their goal of spreading communism and didn’t occupy the US - show me how this applies to other wars, such as my random example of the War of Spanish Succession

You can’t. You just move on seamlessly from one excuse to the next, zero thought put into anything you say, zero reason or evidence, just pure brainless talking points, probably just regurgitating what some coach passing for a history teacher told you.

**Stand by one thing you said.*"

but just read the Wikipedia article about the Vietnam war

Lmao.

It was a bar fight between 3 brothers

No it wasn’t. It was the Vietnamese fighting against the invaders and their comprador regime.

Russia took over Germany, they invaded the land and took it by force that’s winning.

Nuh uh! Who cares about land, Germany had a higher KDR, that means they won! KDRs are super important in determining who won or lost, that’s what I learned from you, that’s why you brought it up in the first place, isn’t it? Or were you just talking nonsense, coming up with excuses for why the US didn’t “really” lose?

So in what ways can we analyze north Vietnam showing domination over the United States?

They weren’t fighting over “domination over the United States,” dumbass, they were fighting over control of Vietnam. Which they got.

I have no idea where this idea comes from that seems to be something exclusively American, that “defeat” means total, unconditional surrender and occupation, and anything short of that isn’t “really” a defeat. It’s so insane. Like, after the War of Spanish Succession, pretty sure all involved countries still existed afterwards, but one side got who they wanted on the Spanish throne and the other side didn’t, meaning, one side won and the other side lost. I guess according to you, the countries that dumped tons of blood and treasure and got nothing out of it “didn’t really lose” because they weren’t occupied. More realistically, you would say they lost, because they did lose and anyone can see it, and, and this is crucial, the US wasn’t involved so you’re not blinded by your chauvanism and propaganda, like you are with Vietnam.

The absolute state of education in this country… zero understanding of anything, literally just reciting a bunch of memes and talking points designed to twist words around in order to defend the US’s “honor.” Americans are such a lost cause, how am I supposed to reason with this shit? Excuses after excuses after excuses, can’t back up even a single point.

I’m not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that there are major differences between a modern day American and a Vietnamese person during the war, which makes comparisons difficult. It’s just a bit of a pet peeve when people are like, “We’ll just do a guerilla war, no biggie, worked loads of times.” Sure, it can be an effective tactic, but you have to understand why it was effective in certain cases and what that entailed.

I don’t believe the US left has much of a chance of winning a domestic military conflict, looking at the material conditions and the present level of organization, discipline, and training (or lack thereof). If we end up being forced to fight then we can hope for the best, and preparing for the possibility is a worthwhile endeavor. But don’t think that just because guerilla tactics exist that it’s trivial to employ them.

They weren’t an American colony

South Vietnam was an American puppet regime. The puppet regime was entirely dependent on the US military and the leaders were picked by the US and ousted whenever they did something the US didn’t like. You are plainly speaking in bad faith and attempting to use technicalities to avoid facing the truth of the US defeat. “Mhm, see, technically, Japan didn’t lose that territory because Manchuko was an independent blah blah blah.” It’s an obviously stupid line if you apply it in any other context, but your chauvinism blinds you. Just like the line about “We only ‘lost’ because of morale” or the line about kill death ratios mattering, apply it anywhere but Vietnam and you’ll see how fucking stupid it is.

You do realize video games use things that exist in the real world right? Like if I talk about how important goals are in soccer you do know that is because that’s how soccer works and it’s not just because that’s how you win in fifa?

Nazi Germany killed a hell of a lot of Russians in WWII. I don’t actually know if they killed more than they lost, I believe so but I’d have to check. Does that mean Nazi Germany won WWII? Does that mean I don’t know who won WWII, because I don’t know the KDRs? Do you see how ridiculous it is to say that? And yet, that’s exactly what you’re saying about Vietnam!

To any concern about Vietnam taking over the world

You literally just said they “failed in their goal to spread communism.” As in, to spread communism beyond their borders. As in, Domino Theory. As in, the idea that the communists fighting in Vietnam were aiming to take over the world and turn it communist. You’re straight up contradicting yourself.

Christ Jesus in heaven.

The NVA got nothing from the United states and their long term goal of spreading communism failed.

What utter nonsense.

The NVA got the entire territory of Vietnam from the US, they won the freedom of their people, which is the whole thing they were fighting for. The idea that they wanted to militarily expand and take over the world was always just American propaganda, like every conflict ever, they needed to evoke the Hitler comparison and pretend that “if we don’t fight them now, they’ll keep expanding until we have to fight them.” They’ve said this about virtually everyone they’ve fought or opposed since WWII and it’s basically never been true.

Vietnam has done, and is still doing much better than they would have if they had surrendered and remained a colony.

I don’t even know how it’s possible to reason with someone who thinks war operates on some kind of point based-system like a fucking video game. Jesus Christ. How are Americans still like this over Vietnam? Will people ever be normal about it?

lost Vietnam, lost iraq, lost Afghanistan, and tied in Korea.

But we’re not talking about Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

In many of these cases, the people in these countries had experience living under unimaginably harsh colonial rule, and understood that that was what was in store for them if they lost. Guerilla warfare is hell, especially for the side of the guerillas. It’s very rare that anyone chooses that route unless they have no other choice. Also, there was generally a more unified culture and a clarity of vision for what they were fighting for.

You take a random sample of 100 Americans, at least a third will actively support the enemy side and sell you out. Of those who aren’t opposed, a lot will be able to just keep their heads down and go about their lives, coming home to play video games and jerk off for as long as they have that option. Of those willing to get involved, many will limit their opposition to nonviolence and whatever form of protest the state permits. So now you’ve got, like, three people who are actually willing to fight and not just go home at the first sign of danger, and those three people probably hate each other for subscribing to slightly different ideologies which have different takes on events from 100 years ago.

Contrast that with a random sample of 100 Vietnamese at the time of the war. There’s no comparison.

We “lost” those wars because of morale.

Yeah, that’s how every war is lost. A war is won when the other side is no longer willing and able to take up arms against you, to achieve victory, you can remove their ability to take up arms (killing or imprisoning, for example), but the bulk of warfare is about removing the enemy’s willingness to keep fighting.

Like, if you occupy an enemy trench, chances are you didn’t kill everyone in the trench, you just removed the enemy’s willingness to keep holding that position, convincing them to retreat or surrender. Virtually every war that has ever been lost in history has been “lost because of morale.”

Putting “lost” in quotes regarding Vietnam is absolutely fucking insane. “Kill death ratios” don’t matter, this isn’t fucking Call of Duty. Murdering all those civilians helped convince the Vietnamese that there was no future for them if they lost or surrendered, it put their backs against the wall and ensured that breaking their willingness to fight was virtually impossible. If the US deployed nukes, then it would become even more clear that there was no future for them as a colony, and the US would have to exterminate the entire country. And if they tried to exterminate the entire country with nukes (not that they were at all restrained as it was), they would have faced even more backlash, domestically and internationally, which, guess what, are also valid theaters of war.

I stg the hoops people will jump through to maintain this chauvinism and be like “America never loses” is absolutely insane. People have such ridiculous brainworms over Vietnam. You lost. No quotes, you just lost. Get over it.

Oh no, I’m not happy about the US falling apart, because the military strength is still there, and that creates a very dangerous situation. We could see a situation where a president starts WWIII and nukes China or something, just to distract from internal problems. The right is much better equipped and has more clarity of vision, while the left is weak, disorganized, unarmed, and confused. In the event of chaos and a breakdown in government, it’s hard to imagine that anything good would come of it.

In my ideal world, the US gradually draws back from international commitments while refocusing on domestic problems, accepting a smaller role and (after addressing domestic issues) competing with China through soft power, regarding who can offer developing countries the best deal.

Unfortunately, nobody seems to like my approach (people even call me an accelerationist despite my perapective being pretty much the opposite of that), so we’re going to crash at full speed. Hopefully the rest of the world survives.

I think it’s just American culture, we can’t accept potentially being #2, or not being Superman, or not pouring all our money into bombs.

Well, step 1 would be doing something about the US. The US wields enormous power and influence around the world despite having a relatively small population (compared to how much influence it has). What you’re proposing is that every person in Africa, China, Southeast Asia, etc, should have equal say in what happens in the world as an American - I agree with that, as anyone who believes in democratic ideals should. But countries like the US that benefit from the current arrangement would never allow it, and are well armed enough to be a serious impediment to that goal.

Personally, I sub out the chlorine for hydrogen and oxygen, which I know are safe because that’s what’s in water. It also helps keep my soup nice and warm whenever I sprinkle it in.

Eating sodium chloride is kind of insane. It would be like if you took my stuff and poured a bunch of hydrochloric acid on it and then sprinkled that all over your food. Yeah, no thanks.

How marketable would you say your illness was?

Your options would be: begging strangers on the internet for money and going viral, being rich enough to pay out the ass for really good insurance when you were healthy, declaring bankruptcy, and playing Luigi’s Mansion.

I appreciate you doing your part to fact check, but I invented that rule, and I always have the receipts. Don’t come for the king.

Case in point, the thread in question was removed, but I was able to find the relevant comment through the search function. A comment from Unruffled, reading:

If the community rules don’t ban GenAI images then you can assume a) they are allowed, and b) complaining about them is not allowed.

As a follow up, I asked, “Is there any way to get a list of .dbzero communities that do/don’t ban AI so that I don’t have to block your entire instance?” to which they replied, “Lol must keep your eyeballs pure eh?”, at which point I blocked the whole instance.

You’re free to ask Unruffled to clarify their stance or ask some other mod who might overrule them or whatever, but until you can show me a statement otherwise, I’m assuming that the rule is:

If the community rules don’t ban GenAI images then you can assume a) they are allowed, and b) complaining about them is not allowed.

Because that’s what I was very directly told.

Personally, I subscribe to “Live Internet Theory.” I assume that the vast majority of people I interact with are real people, and bots are very much an exception, and often easy to identify.

The Internet connects people with different views who wouldn’t otherwise meet and who might not express their opinions if they did. Most of the time when I see people lob accusations of being a bot at someone, it’s either because their worldview is too limited to imagine a person thinking differently from them, or they just want to use the accusation as an excuse to write them off. The reality is, I think most people who post like expressing themselves through posts, and rather than go through a bot and posting that, they just wouldn’t post.

Maybe I err too much on the side of assuming people are human, but I’d rather do that than assume a human is a bot. Especially because I find the biggest “Dead Internet Theory” types tend to be insufferably unimaginative and close-minded, and I don’t want to be like them.