Recent posts

#1

Principia Discussion / Re: Have a Slack Sloth Day

Last post by Abbot Mythos - Today at 05:01:25 AM

'Tis the 27^th day of the Season of Confusion in the Year of Our Lady of Discord 3192, and time to not give a damn about celebrating the Confusloth Whollyday.

Carry on.

Hail Eris!

All Hail Discordia!

#2

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Iran

Last post by chaotic neutral observer - Yesterday at 06:10:25 PM

I don't think blunder is quite the right word.  I think a cessation of hostilities by Israel has always been a very important thing to Iran, I don't think there would have been any progress if that had been left out.  Now we get to see if the US actually does anything to reign Israel in.

The MOU certainly counts as progress as far as Iran is concerned, and yeah, it's very doubtful they would accept any agreement that didn't result in an actual ceasefire in Lebanon.

But, has the MOU improved the US's position?  Seems like the situation on the ground hasn't changed, except the US is now committed to doing something about Israel.

I suppose it's arguable that reigning in Israel was always going to be the US's problem, MOU or no, but now it's in writing.  If it wasn't a full-on blunder, it at least doesn't seem like the smartest move, diplomatically.

#3

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Iran

Last post by Pergamos - Yesterday at 05:31:05 PM

The US signing an MOU that requires the cooperation of a third party was a hilarious blunder.  Iran has set itself up with a Xanatos gambit.  I believe they knew what they were doing; Lebanon is mentioned three times in the first term of the MOU.  That's not concise diplomatic language, that's hammering the point across.

Iran likely went into this expecting Israel wouldn't cooperate.  But, what are the options?

If the US somehow, magically, gets Israel to stand down voluntarily, that's still a win for Iran--and it drives a wedge between the US and Israel.  This war appears to have popular support in Israel, even if Netanyahu doesn't.  The MOU being adhered to would leave Iran in a pretty strong position.

If Israel doesn't stand down voluntarily, then either:

The US attempts to force Israel to comply, by cutting off their weapons supplies, applying sanctions, or whatever other pressure they can bring to bear.  A weakened Israel would be a big win for Iran.  It's possible they want this even more than the terms of the MOU--after all, that $300 billion reconstruction fund sounds nice, but nobody expects Trump to hold up his side of any deal in the long-term.

The US doesn't force Israel to comply, and the MOU falls through.  Now, Iran has justification (on paper) for keeping the strait closed.  Not a best case for them, but they're still holding the cards.  I've heard it claimed that oil reserves will hit a wall in about four weeks, at which point things will get very bad, very quickly.  I guess if Cain was around, he might know if that is accurate.


I think Iran can't back down, and Israel won't, which means whatever happens, will be a result of US action. The US has already lost, but the ultimate form of that loss is unclear.  Will they back out entirely, without an agreement, and leave the rest of the world to clean up their mess?  Will they cut off Israel?  Will they attempt a ground invasion of Iran?  Will they come up with something even stupider than the above?

I don't think blunder is quite the right word.  I think a cessation of hostilities by Israel has always been a very important thing to Iran, I don't think there would have been any progress if that had been left out.  Now we get to see if the US actually does anything to reign Israel in.

#4

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Iran

Last post by chaotic neutral observer - Yesterday at 03:51:23 PM

The US signing an MOU that requires the cooperation of a third party was a hilarious blunder.  Iran has set itself up with a Xanatos gambit.  I believe they knew what they were doing; Lebanon is mentioned three times in the first term of the MOU.  That's not concise diplomatic language, that's hammering the point across.

Iran likely went into this expecting Israel wouldn't cooperate.  But, what are the options?

If the US somehow, magically, gets Israel to stand down voluntarily, that's still a win for Iran--and it drives a wedge between the US and Israel.  This war appears to have popular support in Israel, even if Netanyahu doesn't.  The MOU being adhered to would leave Iran in a pretty strong position.

If Israel doesn't stand down voluntarily, then either:

The US attempts to force Israel to comply, by cutting off their weapons supplies, applying sanctions, or whatever other pressure they can bring to bear.  A weakened Israel would be a big win for Iran.  It's possible they want this even more than the terms of the MOU--after all, that $300 billion reconstruction fund sounds nice, but nobody expects Trump to hold up his side of any deal in the long-term.

The US doesn't force Israel to comply, and the MOU falls through.  Now, Iran has justification (on paper) for keeping the strait closed.  Not a best case for them, but they're still holding the cards.  I've heard it claimed that oil reserves will hit a wall in about four weeks, at which point things will get very bad, very quickly.  I guess if Cain was around, he might know if that is accurate.


I think Iran can't back down, and Israel won't, which means whatever happens, will be a result of US action. The US has already lost, but the ultimate form of that loss is unclear.  Will they back out entirely, without an agreement, and leave the rest of the world to clean up their mess?  Will they cut off Israel?  Will they attempt a ground invasion of Iran?  Will they come up with something even stupider than the above?

#5

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Ancient Astronomy as it pe...

Last post by chaotic neutral observer - Yesterday at 02:54:47 PM

I grew up on a farm, kid, and you don't harvest by the calendar, nor by esoteric knowledge, grudgingly granted by the clerical class.

Okay old feeble-minded geezer, maybe you're just bitter because you grew up dirt poor on some struggling rural farm with parents who had nothing and no real education or modern thinking.

Oh, I'm not bitter.  You're the most fun I've had on this forum in months.

They got handed chemicals, equipment, and easy calendars later with zero actual threat of famine or invasion like real history had.

Sure, they benefited from modern technologies.

But you're dodging the argument.  I'm saying you don't harvest based on the calendar.  You haven't said anything to contradict that.  I wonder, have you ever grown a plant?  Have you ever even seen one?

Y'know, you might have done better if you had conceded calendars are not terribly useful for harvesting, and focused on their utility for the timing of seeding.  Because...sometimes that does make sense.  I start growing my tomatoes around the spring equinox, for example.

Did you know there are also consequences for planting at the wrong time?

So now you sit there with your simpleton logic acting like ancient people were exactly like you?
They didn't even have calendars without the churches and the literate class running the town centers. Your whole "I just checked the field" story only works when you're in a safe modern society, not starving, and not living under real authoritarian power structures.

"Checking the field" is the only method that works at any point in history, regardless of the consequences of failure.

"It's September 15th, the priest says it's time to harvest!"
"Oops, the crop has already spoiled, we're all going to die."

vs.

"It's getting late in the season, time to check."
"The north is a little too green, but the south is almost ready.  Let's start there tomorrow, and check the north again in a few days."
"Good, I'll visit the priest and have him pray for clear weather."

Eh, that's not a terribly big deal. I had an uncle who was a Shriner.

Your uncle was probably some nobody in a backwoods chapter who never had real status outside of that, nor the money or guts to actually stand for anything real.

The town he lived in is so small, I'd be surprised you'd even heard of it.

But then, what impact did your great-grandfather have?  I bet he was thrown out of the order because he couldn't pay the membership fees.  Tragic deaths and misfortune go hand-in-hand with poverty, I suppose.

Your insulting, simple take is just wrong and shows how little you actually know from your kid farm life. Is it your goal to demotivate people into being as bitter, closed-minded, and stuck in the past as some washed-up old farm boy who never had anything real? So the rest of us have to settle for your boring, simple version of history too?

Real history is already fascinating without having to make stuff up.

If my observation that calendars didn't have quite the role in historical agriculture that you seem to think causes the edifice of your conspiracy theory to collapse, you could always tweak your theory to match reality.

I haven't said you have to throw all your ideas out, you know.

#6

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Iran

Last post by Faust - Yesterday at 11:49:41 AM

No one comes around here much but I've missed his analysis of complex situations which some how made the world less scary and more understandable

#7

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Iran

Last post by Pergamos - Yesterday at 03:43:04 AM

Its times like these I really miss Cain's opinion

Does he not come around any more?

#8

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Ancient Astronomy as it pe...

Last post by Omnidextrious - June 20, 2026, 11:09:33 PM

I grew up on a farm, kid, and you don't harvest by the calendar, nor by esoteric knowledge, grudgingly granted by the clerical class.

Okay old feeble-minded geezer, maybe you're just bitter because you grew up dirt poor on some struggling rural farm with parents who had nothing and no real education or modern thinking. They got handed chemicals, equipment, and easy calendars later with zero actual threat of famine or invasion like real history had.

So now you sit there with your simpleton logic acting like ancient people were exactly like you?
They didn't even have calendars without the churches and the literate class running the town centers. Your whole "I just checked the field" story only works when you're in a safe modern society, not starving, and not living under real authoritarian power structures.

Eh, that's not a terribly big deal. I had an uncle who was a Shriner.

Your uncle was probably some nobody in a backwoods chapter who never had real status outside of that, nor the money or guts to actually stand for anything real. Not all chapters are the same, and sorry your family was so small-time and insignificant that they never got close to anything that mattered. Doesn't mean the rest of us come from the same nothing background as you.

The peasants were stuck under monarchies that worked hand-in-glove with the church since ancient times. State and religion ran everything together back then, like they still do in different forms now. Your insulting, simple take is just wrong and shows how little you actually know from your kid farm life. Is it your goal to demotivate people into being as bitter, closed-minded, and stuck in the past as some washed-up old farm boy who never had anything real? So the rest of us have to settle for your boring, simple version of history too?

#9

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Iran

Last post by Faust - June 20, 2026, 10:11:29 PM

Its times like these I really miss Cain's opinion

#10

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Iran

Last post by Faust - June 20, 2026, 08:49:18 PM

The current phase of the deal is verifying it:
The condition is Isreal immediately cease all attacks on Lebanon, they didnt so the straight was closed again, this is a test, they want the US to intervene and reign in Isreal, probably permanently.

This is far more damaging to the US then the 300 billion rebuild funds, as it will force the US to undermine its ally there, even if its in their best interests as well as everyone else