ForumTouchy Subjects ► Why people want more
I get it.
Conquering is not about greed.
It's about wanting what's best for your people.
Think about it. Rome wanted peace; the conquered their adversaries so that they wouldn't have to fight any more. Hitler wanted Germany to not be blamed for WWI, and that's what he set out to prove, just through military conquest. The Celtic countries wanted land to grow food for their people. Voldemort wanted wizards to not have to live in the dark anymore. Luke wanted his half-siblings to not have to answer to the gods. Folj leader wanted his people to stop cowering in the crevices they called home.
Sure, we may perceive these folk as broken, warped individuals who led their people to war and turmoil, and they may have lost their minds along the way, but these people were just looking out for their kinsmen. The ones they stood up to defend, the ones they cared about. I'm not saying to "Go do a huge genocide" or "go conquer the world", but just that these people wern't all about themselves. There were always alterior motives, things that you can't find nowadays in the course of a game or movie (worldbuilding, people!). There were always reasons besides themselves to do what they did.
Just sayin'
  • from a question that I answered, not me, the anonomous person that asked the question and I thought his writing was good but he refuses to have his name associated with this. Again, I did not write this myself.
  
I gotta say, I didn't expect "Voldemort was good, actually" to be the hot new take of 2018.
  
I saw this one too. I kinda disagree with it though. The brain stresses about many things and it tries to compensate by trying to connect unrelated things together to make it seem like it has a reason to happen. People hide behind shields of falsehoods to block out the truth, because the truth hurts. This is the reason why things like religion—where the big man calls all the shots because he needs to—become such a widespread epidemic. It'll be easier to believe you are killing for your god or country rather than to admit you are doing it out of anger, revenge, jealousy, or spite—we don't want to admit that we do the things we despise because we don't have control. The truth is that we are emotionally charged creatures, and these emotions always get the better of us.

Even those that can see and admit these pitfalls aren't free from criticism, me included. We can't escape these flaws, not permanently. We may have these things in mind, but as sure as the sun will rise, emotions always get the better of us. We may forget it in the heat of the moment, we might cave in. There will always be irrational distrust, anger, fear, and jealousy just as how there will always be conflict and hatred—but for that reason we should not ignore these things, nor should we dwell on them.

Rather, keep these inevitabilities as reminders that you are real, that you are not subject to false teachings. You can learn from just about everything, and you can always improve, so don't belittle yourself with meaningless falsehoods or meaningless guilt. Everyone knows the phrase "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." but that phrase is dumber than a bag of rocks. It tells you to add things to the lemons, to cloud the sourness with a sweetener. You can't add things to life—because life isn't an ingredient—it's the full course meal. so instead of lemons, try this instead, "When life gives you a cup of dirty water, filter it before you take a sip."

"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Your ultimate impact on the universe is worth nothing and you can never reach the stars. The closest you'll ever be to Saturn is the pictures you see from NASA. Despite this painful truth, "We are part of this universe; we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts, is that the universe is in us." - Neil deGrasse Tyson. You shouldn't forget to appreciate that you exist in it. Irregardless of your reach, you can still change what you can touch.

Your world, while limited, is under your influence and can be changed for the better. To make the world a better place is your obligation as an existing sentient being. Pass on your lessons so others can pass it on too. Making the world a better place doesn't mean you have to cure cancer, it just means you make someones day just that little bit better. It's all we can really do for each other, but it's enough to make the fire of our species burn brighter. And if we are lucky, with the lessons we teach to each other and to our children, we might just give our sons and daughters the reach beyond the stars that we so desperately wanted, and knowing that their reach is something I gave to them—that's worth enough to me, and it should be worth enough to you too.
  
Let me start by saying that any truth in this paragraph is completely obscured by the total lack historical and literary accuracy.

I get it.
Conquering is not about greed.
It's about wanting what's best for your people.
Think about it. Rome wanted peace; the conquered their adversaries so that they wouldn't have to fight any more.


This is a complete lie. Rome's motivations can be summed up in three stages with one underlying theme. First was the chiefdom period, where Roman warfare -- like all chiefdoms -- was principally for loot. Romans wanted cold hard cash, and that's why they sent a few hundred men at most to neighbouring villages in summer. This developed (during the war of the Veii and Samnite Wars) into a client state system where Rome would conquer regions specifically to extract tribute, and direct its "allies" to give them some of their loot from summer campaigning.

It wasn't until the Scipios, and the conquest of both Carthage and Corinth (after which Rome was so rich it no longer needed taxes for a generation) that the third and final stage was made manifest: Manifest Destiny, the right to conquer and tax other people.

Read Mary Beard's SPQR if you're interested in a more complex analysis of Rome and it's motivations, but throughout their entire history, war was fought to prove Virtus. In the Late Republic, Cicero wanted to prove his Virtus so bad he basically demanded a Triumph for putting down a minor rebellion.

Hitler wanted Germany to not be blamed for WWI, and that's what he set out to prove, just through military conquest.

Hitler wanted to reclaim the German Empire. The literal heartland of the German Empire was given to Poland (Prussia), and two key industrial regions were given to France and Czechoslovakia after WWI. Interestingly, the reason Italy joined the Axis powers was the fact America refused to honour the treaty that lead Italy to join the Entente in 1915, which granted Italy all Italian speaking territories and overseas holding of the Austro-Hungarian empire, including Fiume, a historically Italian city.

Nota Bene: Hitler was always a lunatic, even the blithering idiot that was Kaiser Wilhelm found him reprehensible as early as the 1920's.
The Celtic countries wanted land to grow food for their people.


There has literally never been a Celtic country till Ireland's independence in the 20th century, and historical Celtic invasions were aforementioned Chiefdoms looking for loot (the sack of Rome in the 4th century BC). I suppose you could mean the Germanic tribes, who moved south thanks to climate change increasingly putting pressure on resources in the Germanic homelands

Voldemort wanted wizards to not have to live in the dark anymore.


No, he wanted Wizards to reign supreme and enslave normies, much like 4chan does.

Sure, we may perceive these folk as broken, warped individuals who led their people to war and turmoil, and they may have lost their minds along the way, but these people were just looking out for their kinsmen. The ones they stood up to defend, the ones they cared about. I'm not saying to "Go do a huge genocide" or "go conquer the world", but just that these people wern't all about themselves. There were always alterior motives, things that you can't find nowadays in the course of a game or movie (worldbuilding, people!). There were always reasons besides themselves to do what they did.
Just sayin'
  • from a question that I answered, not me, the anonomous person that asked the question and I thought his writing was good but he refuses to have his name associated with this. Again, I did not write this myself.


This is the part I kinda agree with. No one thinks they're the bad guy, if you look beyond Hitler's inner circle you find people like Donitz who were warlike assholes and conservative Prussians, but probably justified in thinking Germany didn't deserve what it got in 1918.

Edit: It's worth mentioning that Donitz et al. didn't know that "concentration camps" meant "death camps for undesirables." Most Germans assumed they were for political dissidents and were concentration camps, not death camps.
  
@Pinupopinion:
You say that it is human nature to be emotionally charged and for emotions to get the better of you but you call that a flaw. You also say that that's an uncomfortable thing to think about but I don't see why. I also don't see why the Tyson quote is uncomfortable nor your take on it. That's just the way things are. Have you ever had a glass of lemonade without enough sugar but chose to focus on the taste of the sugar? Better yet, have you ever just eaten a lemon (maybe with some salt on it)? They taste pretty good. What's wrong with lemons?


"We are part of this universe; we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts, is that the universe is in us." - Neil deGrasse Tyson"
Vaguely sounds like Atman. I wonder what he thinks of Hinduism.

Edit: also dirt smells pretty good sometimes and but depending on where you are, you might also want to boil that water. Is adding heat allowed? Does that count?

Check out the second quote on my blurb, dawg
  
You say that it is human nature to be emotionally charged and for emotions to get the better of you but you call that a flaw. You also say that that's an uncomfortable thing to think about but I don't see why. I also don't see why the Tyson quote is uncomfortable nor your take on it. That's just the way things are. Have you ever had a glass of lemonade without enough sugar but chose to focus on the taste of the sugar? Better yet, have you ever just eaten a lemon (maybe with some salt on it)? They taste pretty good. What's wrong with lemons?


It is a flaw, a flaw of logic and a pitfall of the mind. It only guides us into corners, where one will sit in wait for predators to come and scratch at them. "Cognitive dissonance" when someone has two conflicting beliefs, they are prey to it.
People have the ability to make clay out of lies and ignorance. When the beast attacks, they start replacing the fleshy truth of their bodies with clay lies to fill the wounds that mark them as as heretics against their god.
These clay lies are moldable keys, casted to the likenesses of the iron keys that unlock the temples, the churches and the mosques. It allows them to infiltrate, it lets them enter anything. They subscribe to specific parts of systems, and think they can fill in the holes with their clay lies and call themselves worshipers. It is not the open mind they think they have, it is a closed mind with an all purpose key.
They make masks out of these clay lies, and switch them at their leisure. When you wear a mask for long enough you'll even believe that that mask is a part of you. The clay lies will tell you that mask is your face, that without it you are just muscle and bone.
The worst part is these clay lies tell them they can use bits of truth to cover their tracks, and they believe it. They warp the truth by breaking it and building it back up with their clay lies. They let the clay lies hurt them, and lead them astray. You don't need the truth when you feel with faith that you are right. That is the the pitfall of emotion, that is the flaw of our grey matter. That is what scares me.

Nihilism is unpopular to positive or neutral thinkers, because it implies negativity. There's truths that will give you nothing but a cup of dirt. You can't filter out the water when it's not there. Sometimes, you just grit your teeth and bear it. Some people—like you—have already accepted things for what they are, so the things I said loose their punch.

I wasn't saying that lemonade is bad, but the phrase was. Existence is like an island, it's dirty, dangerous and unforgiving, but beautiful and yours. Some people try to take it easy and don't bother to check if the berries they eat have poison. They drink the water without cleaning it. This always ends up hurting them, and killing them at worst. That's what i was trying to get at.
  
It is a flaw, a flaw of logic and a pitfall of the mind. It only guides us into corners, where one will sit in wait for predators to come and scratch at them.

That's not really what emotions do.
  
Are you going to ignore the rest of it?
  
Nihilism's whatever, man. I mean if I was hanging out with someone who told me everything you've said, Id want to say something like "Yep. Wanna bake some cookies?" And frankly, no, being religious doesn't preclude knowing that the world is gonna end and humanity is gonna go extinct and people kill each other every day and I'm gonna die one day and rot in the ground. That doesn't stop me from being religious and that's not a mask or a bunch of lies I tell myself. It's not cognitive dissonance to believe both of these things.

But I'm still confused, how can humans (or anything for that matter), who actually did evolve randomly out of a bunch cosmic dust shit have flaws when there was no intent or design? Is it a flaw that no matter what, if you've got gas piping, then even with a basin you're gonna find sediment in the pipes eventually? Only if using gas is a flaw. Sediment comes with the gas and comes from the pipes and comes from everything else. People can lie to themselves, yeah, but what sort of lies are you talking about? Religions? Optimism?

I'll take that cup of dirt and put some seeds in it. I just came up with a better phrase. How about "when life gives you dirt, put some seeds in it." Who doesn't like seeds?

"Sometimes, you just grit your teeth and bear it."
The lemon phrase means the same thing but just puts it in a gayer perspective.

Edit: and I actually mean gay, not homosexuality or in the "ur gay" sense.
  
I think a lot of the examples in the OP are dubious. Hitler's territorial ambitions were only related to the Treaty of Versailles in the sense that the Treaty of Versailles had taken a lot of those territories from Germany in the first place.

I'm surprised to see the Celts cast as colonial villains in the same breath as Hitler. I thought the popular conception of Celts was the victims of colonialism, dancing with fairies all day until the English came and ruined everything in the British Isles and/or world. Precisely what Celtic invasions are we even talking about. I disagree with Grayseff about the Republic of Ireland being the first Celtic country. Other Celtic countries came and went in previous centuries. Scotland for example was an independent country till 1707.

Specifics aside, I assume the general point is that the people we think of as the bad guys usually didn't think they were the bad guys. They often have motives beyond being evil, and justify their actions in terms of righting a previous injustice the modern layman has lost sight of because we view wars out of their historical context. Wars often have more complex origins than bad guys being bad.
  
I would very strongly disagree that the Kingdom of Scotland constituted a Celtic country given they were Scots speaking southern Scots of Anglo-Saxon origin.
  
Grayseff said:
I would very strongly disagree that the Kingdom of Scotland constituted a Celtic country given they were Scots speaking southern Scots of Anglo-Saxon origin.
I would very strongly disagree that that's an accurate description of the Kingdom of Scotland. There are still Scottish Gaelic speakers in Scotland today, let alone in the 9th - 18th centuries.
  
The language of the king, court and Kingdom was inarguably Scots. Scots Gaelic was if anything, rarer at the time and relegated to the pockets where the Irish migrated or where the Celts could not be displaced by the Vikings, let alone the Saxons.

Edit: The language was more common, but not at court. I think if you went by the populace you would be right and if you went by the kings and elites I would be.
  
The language of the Scottish court wasn't Scots to begin with. And by your criteria the Republic of Ireland isn't Celtic either, because the Irish government generally speaks English.
  
Right, I stand corrected. I was under the false impression that the power base in the South was more influenced by Anglo Saxon and Viking invasion than it was.
  
In any case, I don't think Scotland was one of the aforementioned Celtic countries that invaded somewhere else because they wanted land to grow food.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Why people want more