Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ZeroGravitas]

That's not what Materialism is about in Stellaris. Materialism is about denying that anything exists outside of the material world, as opposed to spiritualism, which, in Stellaris, posits that consciousness or spirit begets reality.

There's no way that the USA is materialist in Stellaris terms. In fact no human civilization would be materialist in Stellaris terms, except perhaps the EU.

The USSR was materialist in Stellaris terms, and modern China outright bans some portrayals of supernatural things.
[/quote]

China bans portrayals of supernatural things out of respect for the dead/ancestors. It's a cultural taboo, not because they are materialists.

And of course the USSR no longer exists, but if it did, I suppose it would be materialist.

[JumpingJack]

China bans portrayals of supernatural things out of respect for the dead/ancestors. It's a cultural taboo, not because they are materialists.

And of course the USSR no longer exists, but if it did, I suppose it would be materialist.

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Still, though the average joe may not be a materialist, their government does follow a strictly materialistic agenda.

[Neonivek]

There's no way that the USA is materialist in Stellaris terms

No one would be a Fantatic Materialist.

Thinking of the universe as purely science with there being absolutely no other significance to the point where religion itself could be seen as a imposition on logic... Is closer Fanatic Materialist.

Spiritualism would be closer to the Jewish Tech Cult in Wolfenstien where they were hundreds of years ahead of their time in terms of technology but studied it as a way to reveal the greater design their creator made (to know science is to know God so to speak).

Medieval Towns are spiritualist.

With Fantatic Spiritualism being that spiritual matters are of the upmost importance, everything has to fold back into spiritualism.

---

Fanaticism is what is RARE to non-existent in human history. To the extent where you would usually have to be an alien in order to achieve some of these.

[umiman]

These past few pages reminds me of one of my renters. He has opinions about everything like how the UK should split from the EU or how France should embrace their peasant heritage (I don't get that part either) but he's never left North America. Hell, he's never left Canada for longer than a week. But if you point that out he goes "you don't need to go to these places to know about them", which in and of itself is pretty hilarious. Because it's not wrong, but it's like saying you know what bacon tastes like because you've read all about it but have never actually eaten some.

Though I have to say, personally I don't really mind it as I find it quite funny. We nobles do so enjoy watching the plebes and their little make belief squabbles after all.

----------

Edit: Also I think Neonivek is correct in that you guys are thinking too much on human terms.

And while I might have pointed out that the US spends more than all the other major world powers combined on military. I will now point out that in terms of the US's own national budget, they only spend about 20 - 25% on it, which is about the same as everyone else. They just make way more money.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I just like fucking with you guys.

[JumpingJack]

There is something eternally amusing about people arguing about countries they've never experienced.

It's like my renter. He has opinions about everything like how the UK should split from the EU or how France should embrace their peasant heritage (I don't get that part either) but he's never left North America or how China will conquer the world. Hell, he's never left Canada for longer than a week. But if you point that out he goes "you don't need to go to these places to know about them", which in and of itself is pretty hilarious. Because it's not wrong, but it's like saying you know what bacon tastes like because you've read all about it but have never actually eaten some.

But anyway, please continue. This is quite entertaining.

Pardon? I wasn't under the impression that anyone was arguing, just discussing quantifiable differences between nations, their people, and their governments, so that they could be modeled as accurately as possible.

Edit: Also I think Neonivek is correct in that you guys are thinking too much on human terms.

Most certainly, except when attempting to portray a galactic federation of humans. Unless the humans are actually lizard-people, but that's another case entirely.

And while I might have pointed out that the US spends more than all the other major world powers combined on military. I will now point out that in terms of the US's own national budget, they only spend about 20 - 25% on it, which is about the same as everyone else. They just make way more money.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I just like fucking with you guys.

Who makes these charts? It's like they don't won't colorblind people to know where all the cash is going.

[umiman]

Since that's from Wikipedia, I'll assume the Wikipedia gods made it. There's a chart floating around about how the US spends more than 50% on the military but that's absolute horseshit.

I wanted to link the one from the US government website, but it won't let me link.

[Putnam]

There's no way that the USA is materialist in Stellaris terms

No one would be a Fantatic Materialist.

You mean culturally or individually? Fanatic materialist seems to fit me pretty well.

[Teneb]

There's no way that the USA is materialist in Stellaris terms

No one would be a Fantatic Materialist.

You mean culturally or individually? Fanatic materialist seems to fit me pretty well.

Stellaris seems to deal with cultural almost exclusively. Pops are more like groups of like-minded people living mostly together, after all.

[ZeroGravitas]

Since that's from Wikipedia, I'll assume the Wikipedia gods made it. There's a chart floating around about how the US spends more than 50% on the military but that's absolute horseshit.

I wanted to link the one from the US government website, but it won't let me link.

It's not horseshit at all; it's a matter of whether you pad out the total federal budget with mandatory spending + interest on debt, or only look at what Congress actually chooses to spend money from year-to-year. As social security, medicare, and other programs are already set by law, and have separate payroll taxes to support them, it makes plenty of sense to consider them separately from all other government spending. They're ~2/3rds of all government spending, plus interest on the debt is ~6% of the budget. But they have their own rules and in many senses operate "automatically."

Discretionary spending is everything else - ~30%. Of that "everything else", Defense is a clear majority. $600 billion out of $1.1 trillion.

[Flying Dice]

Since that's from Wikipedia, I'll assume the Wikipedia gods made it. There's a chart floating around about how the US spends more than 50% on the military but that's absolute horseshit.

I wanted to link the one from the US government website, but it won't let me link.

It's bullshit. Our SS+Medicare+Medicaid spending is a larger portion of the budget than that. Last I heard, SS alone was ~23%.

Unsourced and deceptive infographics from the internet are meaningless.

[ZeroGravitas]

Since that's from Wikipedia, I'll assume the Wikipedia gods made it. There's a chart floating around about how the US spends more than 50% on the military but that's absolute horseshit.

I wanted to link the one from the US government website, but it won't let me link.

It's bullshit. Our SS+Medicare+Medicaid spending is a larger portion of the budget than that. Last I heard, SS alone was ~23%.

Again, those are not part of any yearly budget. They have been set by law for decades. Unlike regular spending, they work on an individual basis as to whether an individual has paid into the program. If you pay in for a sufficient period of time, you are entitled to receive payments at a future point. If not, you are not.

By contrast, the annual budget process is what lawmakers actually decide to spend money on from year-to-year, also called "discretionary spending." That is dominated by the Defense budget.

Unsourced and deceptive infographics from the internet are meaningless.

Well how about a graphics from the Congressional Budget Office, then?

[ZeroGravitas]

Interesting; wikipedia and most other sources have an extra $16 billion in the defense budget. Wonder if that's later adjustments or different categorization...

[Flying Dice]

Yes, defense spending is more-or-less half of discretionary spending.

It's also deceptive as all hell to claim that half of annual federal spending goes to defense. Don't try to be coy or condescending about this. I despise how much we spend on a military designed to win a war that never really started, and that ended decades ago, but I despise liars more, particularly those that use statistics as their medium.

If you want to try to start flamewars with intentionally misleading data presentation there's a double handful of politics threads for you to do that in.

[ZeroGravitas]

Yes, defense spending is more-or-less half of discretionary spending.

It's also deceptive as all hell to claim that half of annual federal spending goes to defense. Don't try to be coy or condescending about this. I despise how much we spend on a military designed to win a war that never really started, and that ended decades ago, but I despise liars more, particularly those that use statistics as their medium.

If you want to try to start flamewars with intentionally misleading data presentation there's a double handful of politics threads for you to do that in.

So where is the misleading chart that umiman is complaining about? If it says "total discretionary spending" like mine does, from the CBO, where is the deception? Nobody said "half of all annual federal spending goes to defense."

It's hardly "misleading" put mandatory spending in a separate category from discretionary spending, because expenditures are a function of how many people have paid in and for how long. You qualify or you don't. Everything else works differently.

[Karnewarrior]

SO HOW ABOUT THOSE SPACE ALIENS HUH?!

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THOSE BIRDS IN SPACE-SUITS? THEY'RE EVEN IN SPACE SUITS WHEN THEY'RE PRE SENTIENT!

I'M GLAD THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A FLAMEWAR WITH BIRDS! BECAUSE OF THE SAPCE SUIT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *weeps softly*