[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1708880090699.jpg (295.49 KB, 1080x1109, 1080:1109, Screenshot_20240225_104453….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you drive an electric car or some other type of vehicle regarded as advanced and cutting-edge in today's automobile markets?

Do you follow the business and science of automobiles enough to have any opinions given the chaotic environment happening now?
5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>proprietary steel blend in the 300 series range.
>I'm not sure how you get an ambiguous SAE rating.
I'd interpret "300 series" as just "austenitic, alloyed with nickel and chromium".


Seems like a problem with all modern stuff nowadays.

Things don't seem to be built to last anymore.


Just because something is expensive, that doesn't mean it was designed intelligently or that it was made to last a long time. The best item for general purposes is generally the middle-tier item.


File: 1708451442023.png (565.09 KB, 1221x737, 111:67, Alexei-Navalny's-message-i….png) ImgOps Google

What's the argument to be made that it was ethically justified for the Russian government to arrest anti-corruption and anti-war activist Alexei Navalny?

What's the argument to be made that it was morally correct to have him killed?

I'm interested in stepping out of my subconscious desire to be in a personal bubble, one in which his killing is seen as obviously terrible, and see what the general populace of America and Europe think, to be honest, given the extremely positive views held of the Chinese state, the Russian state, and so on held by half or so of regular peoples out there as well as the widespread popularity of Chinese and Russian efforts to crush dissident activists.

I realize that there are a lot of online locations in which I can see random comments on Navalny, but I'd much rather take in the attitudes here than out on 4chan, Facebook, Reddit, et cetera since trying to communicate on those platforms is kind of like trying to pick up melted ice cream with a fork.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I don't watch the news anymore or heard of this guy, but based on the situation as described, I would apply the following rules:

1. Killing is wrong.
2. Killing may be justified (as in, mostly (at least), I think - one may choose to justify it) but it is still wrong.
3. Justification is the worldly method of attempted atonement for wrong. Instead of seeking forgiveness (as in Western traditions) or Wisdom/Understanding (Eastern), justification is given in order to maintain one's position.
4. Justification may be given to either oneself or to others.
5. Justification does not make a wrong a right.


I don't imagine the average European will defend this.
Granted, aside from a group of pro Russian folks.

Now US Republicans, they probably think it was Russia's perogative to do.
Or I hear there's a call to not let Asange be the next Navalny for Americans.
Or Trump tweeting he's just like Navalny and the government is trying to murder him for speaking the truth.


These are solid points.

Yeah, I'd say that the average European wouldn't defend this assassination. It's more that it feels shocking that any European would. Let alone some small yet incredibly public faction of activists.

It seems almost like people marching in support of the seasonal flu or in support of car accidents plus bad breath in terms of "bad things are bad" as a clear moral rule being ignored.


File: 1707911204224.jpeg (318.94 KB, 1170x1333, 1170:1333, GGLuEqrX0AANQmb.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Has AI gone too far?
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I mean, aso all the past stuff, youtube videos you shared, images posted on Facebook or just collected from your school's yearbook.

Not a big deal 20 years ago, but imagine some AI now training themselves on those, making a videocall with your managers /... and doing some illegal stuff on your behalf.


While this is admittedly a highly cynical thing to say, the fact that about one in three American women and also one in six American men in their life report having been sexually assaulted means that Americans craving as a matter of basic safety a romantic partner mentally incapable of hurting them (or so the media claims go: these AI lovers are supposedly incapable of doing wrong, which as a claim could just be lying via advertising) makes sense.


This is just an example technology addiction. Also, it's another reason to ban all corporate marketing.


File: 1708579411253.jpg (56.97 KB, 960x879, 320:293, ufo-caught-on-tape.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What do you think about the Roswell crash?  The US Gov't now claims it was the top-secret Project Mogul Flight #4, but the records indicate that Flight #4 was cancelled due to weather conditions.



If we're willing to believe a government organization is lying, which I think is neither farfetched nor particularly conspiratorial, then I don't think it's too crazy to say that they were lying about the flight being cancelled due to weather conditions.


Does intelligent life exist on other Milky Way planets? This appears to be the case, logically, given the nature of evolution and the extremely large number of locations that scientifically support life extremely well.

Have they visited Earth before? This is far more tricky given that, yes, on the one hand a large number of credible witnesses from American commercial pilots to Navy personnel in the U.S. have not just seen strange craft but engaged with them (such as have had unusual objects jam our radar systems). I'm inclined to see this as credible evidence although so much more research is needed.

Did this one really specific incident in Roswell involve aliens? That's a far more spurious claim. The lack of eyewitness evidence either way makes me think both that the U.S. government is lying and also that extraterrestrial escapes cannot be at all proven.

This interview is neat in that, while, yes, Rogan is always a goofball as a literal stand-up comedian, his guest is extremely credible to me:




I think that if extraterrestrials wanted to visit an uncivilized and technologically-primitive planet like Earth for whatever reason, they could do so easily without us knowing, and UFO conspiracy theories are more a product of our species, rather than reality. Furthermore, if extraterrestrials could visit Earth without anyone knowing, it must follow that they are good because for technology to advance that far in a society would require the perfection of compassion.

...and if extraterrestrials were present, then the proof would be indisputable by now, given nearly everyone on Earth has a cellphone with a high-quality camera now, yet no troves of pictures are coming in. Lastly, the military can't keep secrets, either. So, in conclusion, there are either no aliens visiting Earth, or there are and we don't need to concern ourselves with it.


File: 1707740358684.png (67.82 KB, 498x281, 498:281, tadc-why-are-you-like-this.png) ImgOps Google

> Taylor Swift then
> Tells people to vote on a concert once

< Taylor Swift now
< A traitor to the USA
< Is a pawn for the corrupt government
< Runs an underground business trafficking children for sexual exploitation and organ trade
< is probably a lizard person
< needs to be arrested and put up for execution ASAP

Why are you like this, USA?
30 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


"If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted." (Leviticus 26:21-22)

"Cursed be he who does the Lord's work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood." (Jeremiah 48:10)

How many statements from the Lord, from Jesus Christ, would you like me to quote to you?

I'd like to point out that you and I are mere creatures of flesh and blood, not that different from ants and such, while these are holy proclamations from the God who created the Universe and such that cannot be revised, opposed, or interpreted away: not a single comma or such of this holy writing can be ignored. Granted, I'm personally not a Christian and thus these words have no individual power over me. Yet if I was, then, well, obviously they would.


No amount of irrelevant cherrypicked quotes would sway me into believing your claims of "large amounts" of "deranged religious fanatics who enjoy lying cheating and stealing".
So, zero, really.
I'd much prefer you stay on task.


File: 1708606140452.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google

Most of the religious people I know don't read the bible that much. Do you have any actual statistics?


File: 1688195047447.jpg (690.06 KB, 1859x1948, 1859:1948, FrogandToad1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you feel safe here?
66 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I'm seeing three news stories about militant subgroups of right-wing conservative Americans going into Palestine to commit acts of violence against innocents of various races, religions, nationalities, and so on due to their reactionary political beliefs.

Which is horrible, of course, but you're making an incredible buttload of assumptions in order to move this from:
A)Certain factions of far-right extremist American political activists want to commit violence in a foreign nation (against a large variety of victims).
B)All far-right extremist Americans are trying to colonize Palestine, specifically.
And then:
C)All Americans who're of the right-leaning side of the political spectrum are just inherently terrible people who want to do evil acts, including colonizing Palestine on behalf of America.
Before going to:
D)Even the majority of Americans who're apolitical (or who have some interest in politics that's either centrist, libertarian, socialistic, communistic, or anything else that's not right-wing conservative) are at moral fault for what the minority does.
And finally ending up with:
E)Americans are an evil group of monsters who want to take over Palestine.

To be blunt, you're almost exactly the same as somebody who sees a rapist criminal who happens to have dark skin attacking a random woman and then claims that this proves "all black people have crime in their DNA".
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


I'd also like to point out the fact that geographic and political community known as "Palestine" that has been named as such going back hundreds upon hundreds of years to areas controlled by the Ottoman Empire, by the Roman Empire, by disorganized tribes of farmers, and so on has always, always been a multiracial, multireligious, multiethnic, and otherwise highly diverse place in which people who look and sound nothing alike have, at least sometimes, gotten along as neighbors peacefully.

So, the popular idea that these lands must only be owned and occupied by an incredibly specific regional subset of brown-skinned peoples who're practicing a very narrow subset of Islam and advocating for a very narrow subset of economic and financial organization through nationalist militarism (i.e. these lands "must belong to the real Palestinians only" and not the "other Palestinians" or anybody who's not Palestinian in the first place) is rather bonkers to me.

Granted, it's equally bonkers to mirror this and state that only an extremely small minority of certain types of Jews can live in this land either, but two wrongs are two wrongs and not a right.

If a clique of people named Bob living on some random island decide to form a political party based on the oppression of everybody not named Bob, then they ought to be mocked for being insane. If a group of Steves does the same, then mock them just as much. Same for a group of Johns. Or a group of Mikes. Or Wills. And so on.


File: 1706246877377.jpg (220.5 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, EiyWn7-U0AAsBqg.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What should be done to secure America's borders against illegal immigration?
33 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Yes, the clear-cut solution at a conceptual level is to make big business own less and less of the government such that over time this shrinking of power becomes dramatic.

I won't say that Americans are doomed, because we really aren't, but I'll admit that personally I don't know what would be the first several steps to making this happen. As in what has to happen first to give big business less ownership of the federal government. I'd say that, at least in theory, this problem is indeed solvable.



1. Pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here
2. Make immigration easier
3. Most people with serious criminal records can't come over
4. If you come over illegally anyway and have no serious criminal record you get treated nicely
5. Build a fence, if property owners agree
6. Advertise new immigration process to potential illegal immigrants so they don't come over illegally, anymore

1. Illegal immigration decreases by 90%
2. Legal immigration increases
3. Illegal immigrants easily caught due to being fewer in number
4. Everybody happy


All of those things are bad for me if I'm a wealthy capitalist who wants to destroy workers through endless waves of illegal aliens coming in, though.


File: 1707437774236.png (437.77 KB, 1080x1433, 1080:1433, Screenshot_20240208-190743.png) ImgOps Google

How did we end up with two elderly people in cognitive decline as the frontrunners for the 2024 presidential election???

:aj6: :shy4: :twi5: :bon2:
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Or at least those who have easiest access to voting.

There are plenty of places in America where voting comes at the sacrifice of being able to earn enough to eat for the day, and if not that, then a threat to one's continued employment given how much free time the process eats up, and how many employers in those states will not allow many of their lower class employees to take the day off to stand in line for hours just to vote. It gives an enormous amount of power to a smaller upper middle to upper class elite to determine the party nominees.


File: 1708142466634.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

Because things changing isn't in the interests of those in political power.


People don't like hearing this, but a large part of various popular religious and political beliefs in America are based on mental illness. Not just dementia. But depression. Anxiety. Paranoia. Schizophrenia. And so on.

If you're a normal straight person going about your life in some standard American town being paralyzed with sincere fear that, say, gay men are out to get you and your family, such as gay dudes hiding in public places to molest your children everyplace potentially, well, that's textbook mental illness. You can label it as a political statement. Yet it's a clear-cut medical case of somebody's brain chemistry being diseased and past psychological events having impacts now.

You don't need to go vote. You need therapy. And pills.

[The exact principle much applies if you're psychologically deranged about Catholics, people with red hair, Jews, Hispanic people, bisexual people, left-handed people, or any other random small group of whomever.]


File: 1705206809273.png (722.99 KB, 960x540, 16:9, Trump_gestures_to_people_d….png) ImgOps Google

Is there going to come a point in our lives in which Donald Trump is no longer such a dominant aspect of our existence in worldwide culture, international relations, politics, religion, and society, or is Trump going to wind up similar to Napoleon Bonaparte, Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, Martin Luther, and other civilization changing figures?

More specifically, what're the chances in your opinion that Trump becomes President again in 2024, 2028, 2032, or whenever else there's an opportunity during his current and future political campaigns? Do you think that American support for the Taiwanese against mainland China, for the Ukrainians against Russia, for South Koreans against North Korea, and for Israelis against Iran (as well as other countries in the broader Mideast plus international militant groups) will all end as he has promised if he does win? Should all of those expressions of support end, regardless?
13 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm ill convinced of much you describe here, especially in respect to a greater territorial aim from Russia.
In either case; they've got no historical claim on France, nor is it a nation that boarders them anyway. So I'm not really sure how any of that would apply.


Stating things plainly:

If the native Taiwanese peoples that organically arose on that island have a form of civilization with their own artworks, religions, music, literature, social organizations, and so on that is scientifically inferior and lesser than the mighty achievements of that mainland Chinese race, with the mainland Chinese race suffering under the idiocy and immorality of the lower races temporarily having political power, then is it a matter of scientific destiny of those with higher evolved way of life exterminate those lesser beings and thus take over the island's territory.

This is exactly parallel to the superior Russian race achieving their proper place above mongrel groups of a lower biological status such as the Finns and the Ukrainians (among many others) that're compromised by Jewish influences, homosexual influences, feminist influences, and so on, with the more evolved civilization organizing proper life above the immoral barbarian groups temporarily occupying territory that could be used more efficiently by better peoples.

As the iconic conservative political philosopher Houston Stewart Chamberlain put it, "Certain anthropologists would fain teach us that all races are equally gifted; we point to history and answer: that is a lie! The races of mankind are markedly different in the nature and also in the extent of their gifts."


I don't know. It's hard to care about politics anymore after the Democratic Party failed to nominate Bernie Sanders, who was the more popular candidate, resulting in the anti-establishment movement having nowhere else to turn but to Donald Trump, giving him the win in 2016. And then to see that they also ended up giving up the Supreme Court seats, as well, because they would have rather had Donald Trump as President than Bernie Sanders.

In 2020, the Democratic Party threw a few peanuts to the Bernie Sanders crowd in order to gain back some of their lost support, which barely worked.

Now, in 2024, it's the story of the new slightly-reformed establishment candidate vs. the only anti-establishment candidate again.

But would the world have really been that much different if Bernie Sanders won the nomination and presidency in 2020? I doubt it. Trump would have probably just ran and won in 2020 instead, and it would just be Bernie vs. Trump again this year.

As for the chances of Trump being President in 2024, I would say it's about as good as they were four years ago. I'm not going to follow the election, though. I'll probably do an internet search to see who the President is in February or March of next year, after all the recounts are in (and the lawsuits are over).

If Trump loses in 2024, he won't be running again in 2028. He'll be way too old. He would proably end support for such wars, I think. Expressions of support are complex, as it's often a political game when dealing with other countries. For exmaple, if you say you're never going to support X country if Y country attacks X, then you're just encouraging Y country to attack X, and if they can take you at your word because of your history of being honest, then that just encourages Y country to attack X. But it's hard to say.

Also if Trump loses in 2024, we'll almost certainly get a Republican in 2028. If Trump wins in 2024, then we'll probably get a Democrat in 2028. (But I could be wrong, as I often am.)

tl;dr: The President is just a figurehead. Real change doesn't happen through politics. If you feel like it, vote. If you don't, then don't.


I leave this here for people to draw their own implications.
5 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>It neither is, nor was, no.
>You would be mistaken in this presupposition.

It certainly applies to businesses based in the US though.

And even in this case the only reason they have any concern over TikTok is because Trump hates it because a bunch of teen girls used it to humiliate him in 2020.


Certainly not. Plenty of companies have been called in by congress, especially in more recent years. Didn't they have Zuckerberg in no too long ago?


I suppose the most annoying aspect of all of this is that U.S. corporations have done a lot of unethical things over the past decade that should be intellectually investigated.

Of course, intellectually investigating a entity means studying obscure financial documents. It means looking at the physical set-ups of various real buildings. It means analyzing tax related claims in the legal record. And so on.

Mindlessly screaming at somebody wealthy a set of partisan political buzzwords in front of a group of cameras doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with intellectual processes, even if such yelling can make you more famous given the meme-heavy era that we live in.

A toddler loudly clanging a set of spoons against a metal refrigerator isn't the same thing at all as a professional drummer for a jazz band starting a public performance.


File: 1703300261581.png (318.32 KB, 682x684, 341:342, __futaba_akane_original_dr….png) ImgOps Google

Does the furin cleavage site provide evidence against natural origin?
25 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I just realized that isn't even a reply to the post I saw, but one well further in... alongside several attempts to make the same affirmation of Goat's position...

I suppose it's still worth saying, though now I can at least say with certainly it isn't mere ignorant belief or fanaticism, but a more clear-cut frankly attempt to demonize or otherwise paint as monster any who fall into the realm of doubting the agreed upon narrative, let alone whom fall into a generalized "opposition".
This kind of dehumanization is dangerous enough on its own, even without the expressed desire to remove basic fundamental rights from individuals.


You're engaging in a rather odd kind of what amounts to a "totalitarian libertarianism" or some other sort of intellectual soufflé.

The people advocating for big government jackboots to stamp down upon their social opposition are politically right-wing, particularly when it comes to Jewish and Chinese scientists being targeted by demands that they be fined, put in jail, muzzled in terms of their free speech, or even assassinated.

The only blind faith in the state that I've ever seen comes from libertarians and/or conseratives looking for an activist state to destroy their supposed enemies such that said state can crush those who lobby against an official government ideology of conservativism and/or libertarianism. Such as governments preventing regular Average Joes from calling for the wearing of masks and such. And governments even preventing institutions from having masks worn inside of them, having social distance practices taking place inside of them, and so on. Hell, libertarians have been shrieking for blood as-is about destroying the lives of scapegoats viewed as being responsible for COVID-19 all across the media for years and years now.

It's weirdly ironic that libertarianism is supposed to be an ideology of freedom and yet it's demanded to be imposed upon people, by coercion, against their will. This applies not just to COVID-19 related issues but libertarians fighting to have gay marriage banned, libertarians claiming that gun rights should only apply to certain groups and not others, libertarians selectively advocating for higher taxes depending on the industry and/or business being gored, and the like. It's maddening. To be frank.


I fail to see how daring to oppose a rather orwellian proposal that certain doubts or beliefs ought be muzzled and prohibited quantifies as "totalitarian".

But then, given the rest of your speil, I suppose it's rather clear you've little interest engaging in what I've actually said, when you could simply paint me in the brush of your hated enemy for daring to disagree with you. To leave aside the doubtful validity of your portrayal of that enemy, besides.

Claiming that libertarians oppose certain groups from owning guns, for instance.  An obvious abject absurdity that has no bearing whatsoever at all in reality.
Anyone with half a brain ought be able to point such a blatant falsehood out, that it marks you rather self-evidently an unserious individual reciting tribalism and not reality.


File: 1706379347858.png (713.55 KB, 1080x1265, 216:253, Screenshot_20240127-131017.png) ImgOps Google

The trend of spending more time online and less time interacting with other people in person --- is this trend having a negative effect on society?


There's a lot to unpack there, but there's two especially big parts that stick out to me.  One is that the data, at best, goes back to 1990, and there often isn't too crazy a divergence until about 2015, long after humanity had gone online.  It seems more likely that other events in their respective countries are causing these trends.  This is something we might be able to corroborate if data went back farther.  Second, being more liberal or conservative or even having a gap between the two isn't necessarily a net negative, so I wouldn't say that even if all other assumptions were correct there would be any particular downsides.

As for more minor issues, most of these graphs still show people in general as leaning liberal.  The US and Germany had males trend slightly towards a more centrist stance compared to women, while the UK had a sharp liberal upturn in both listed genders, just less pronounced in men.  South Korea is the only one that was wildly divergent or conservative in nature.

Paul's "boringly obvious" explanation seems to pull a conclusion out of nowhere and with no supporting data whatsoever.  In fact, I'd even say it goes against common expectations.  People hanging out primarily with their own gender has always been the norm, and if anything is probably only changing away from that recently.  I'm also not sure that the concepts of conservatism and liberalism are particularly gendered?  Like, at multiple points on these graphs, the women are more conservative than the men, which seems weird if they're ever meant to "make the boys more liberal".


Definitions are too tricky here.

For example, does the term "conservative" mean "racial and religious prejudice"? Does wanting people fired from their jobs for being Jewish, kicked out of their homes for being gay, prevented from educational success due to being in an interracial marriage, and so on constitute "conservative beliefs"? Is thinking that free speech, freedom of assembly, gun rights, and so on should involve restrictions or even outright bans so that the "wrong types of peoples don't have freedom" a key part of "being a conservative"? What about advocating for Holocaust denial? A flat Earth? That LGBT people are organizing conspiracies to "groom children"? That vaccines against the coronavirus are actually dangerously sickening? And so on?

I'm not making accusations here. I'm genuinely asking. Because it seriously matters. What is "a conservative person"? Is that different during various contrasting times in various contrasting places?

An activist-leaning libertarian in New York City who spends his life at firearm ranges with his African-American gun club? A transgender Scottish actress campaigning against higher taxes in Glasgow? And an Austrian neo-Nazi influenced businessman living in Berlin who sells lederhosen? These three humans will call themselves "conservatives" but are so unlike each other that they might as well be literal aliens from different planets.


File: 1707033296070.jpg (267.32 KB, 892x1077, 892:1077, Screenshot_20210123-112238….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google



Communicating entirely through text is not enough to communicate fully things like vocal tone, inflections and other non-linguistic verbal communication. Also, things like facial expression and body language are lost too.

Written language alone can't really communicate as well as direct interaction can, it's much more limited.


File: 1698844760802.jpg (90.78 KB, 1207x499, 1207:499, 2a690m.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Madman though he seemed, Thanos was right about the universe. It had grown overpopulated. There were starving people on every inhabited planet. Crime was becoming rampant. The galactic empire was struggling to keep the peace. There was pain everywhere, but only distributed amongst the poorest people. The rich and wealthy enjoyed a life of luxury on their plush and sparkling towers, glaring down with disgust on those simply less fortunate.

And after he defeated those who failed to see his vision, what did Thanos leave in his wake? Pain, oh yes. Wide spread pain, like the sting of an open wound which has been doused in disinfectant. Like the aches of a cut off gangrenous limb.

But it was fair. Thanos's purge was indiscriminate. The pain was spread and felt evenly across the galaxy, the universe. Everyone lost someone. Everyone became the same. And everyone helped each other. The people galvanized about the pain of their loss, and they grew together, rebuilding their world, now full of abundance.

Like the atomic bomb saved the people of WWII Japan, Thanos and the Infinity Stones saved the universe.
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1698893181662.jpg (13.05 KB, 309x180, 103:60, I-Gave-Them-Fucking-Bubble….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If we generously remove all of the weird psychological stuff from Thanos' life, such as his creepy attitudes towards his children and other individuals connected to him through family or friendship connections (with has uncomfortable predatory undertones), we can analyze Thanos from a socio-economic perspective.

Let us be scientific.

He's indeed correct, based on my assessment, that the massively increased population of the Milky Way Galaxy's sentient beings would present a variety of problems, particularly the loss of badly needed resources. In the history of English language academia, this view of economics is called "Malthusian" and has a lot of criticism. This criticism from the point of view of English-speaking nations is valid, through my eyes, since English-speaking peoples can just leave the continents of Earth to get more resources. Earth is not a closed system; access to other locations in the solar system already exists for detailed analysis. However, the Milky Way Galaxy is a different story as it appears to be significantly isolated from all other entities in outer space. So, constantly increasing overpopulation for resources that simply cannot be replicated in any way (such as involving unique matter related to peculiar stellar events) is tricky.

However, the logical solution to this would be obtaining the 'Time Stone' and then the 'Reality Stone'. Doing this means that Thanos has the ability to go into future versions of the Milky Way Galaxy including alternate dimensions that don't involve any of the same residents living on those planets. Travel through spacetime becomes simple. This situation entails the ability to mine a gigantic variety of locations for all of the needed resources without any actual harm coming to any living being.

Thus, Thanos is both right and wrong at the same time.


The resources his plan calls for make it a one-time-only deal. The doubling time for humans is roughly 35 years, though mass casualty events are frequently followed by baby booms so it could be dramatically shorter.

I don't know what part 2 of his plan was. I don't think he had one since stabilizing population growth would make the whole preventative genocide thing unnecessary. He talked about balance? I don't know what he's actually balancing though because it isn't growth rates.

He just kind of reminds me of those people who notice the symptoms of a problem and think that they have the solution to it without dedicating any more thought or observation to understanding it.


Yes, he was correct and it happens in nature all of the time.

>Too many deer aren't killed by hunters or wolves
>Deer eat everything in sight and populate out of control
>Everything starves and dies
>The cycle repeats


File: 1694823565402.png (494.77 KB, 1280x948, 320:237, large.png) ImgOps Google

This is a thread for ponies who have no political opinions.  Ponies that just respect and obey the state without getting upset over anything related to state power or government.

We can talk about how nice it is to be apolitical.  Or maybe just say hi to each other.  The topic can be whatever you like other than political discussion.
30 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1705719320969.jpg (7.16 KB, 311x162, 311:162, Untitled.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Why can't we just grill in peace?


There's no such thing as apolitical, yanno. If you don't have a problem following the state it just means you agree with what its doing (or maybe youre just unaware) (whether you actually do believe/agree is not important, you are essentially just saying youre fine with it, regardless)

and hey. thats okay.


I also wish to just grill in peace.

Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]