For a while now, I've been thinking of a game idea with a future US dystopian setting... and even there the detainees would have beds, brushes, and other basic necessities.
this post was submitted on 26 May 2026
908 points (99.0% liked)
Brand New Sentence
176 readers
320 users here now
Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.
- Be cool to each other.
- Post title must be the sentence.
- Link for context if possible.
- Tag NSFW where applicable.
I'm looking for another mod, someone chill. DM me if you're interested.
founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
4
2
1
3
4 (cont.)
Trying to follow tweets of tumbles of instas gives me a fucking aneurysm
Americans right now
Outright lie! How dare you accuse Americans of this! Americans don't have anywhere near this level of self awareness
Always have been.
Yeah, the whole thing started with invading a newly found continent and slaughtering the native people. There was never a point where it was good in any way.
You can't think of a particular laurel the USA has been resting on since 1945?
Can you?
Being the only country to use nuclear weapons?
Needing the fascists to bomb a naval base in an island colony to reluctantly join the fight against them, rather than just war profiteering?
Think we'd be better off if they'd sat it out?
Folks love to read a history book on WW2 and tell themselves the only fascists that ever existed were the Germans, the Italian, (and occasionally the Japanese).
And then we say "they lost! we won! Problem solved!"
Maybe with some hand waving about how Russia was full of Tankies and it's a good thing we won the Cold War, too.
There's never any real analysis of why we joined the side we did or why we broke with them before the smoke had even cleared.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They did sit it out as much as they could - the Japanese attacked them and then the Germans declared war on them, the US was only involved out of self-defense.
We would probably have been better off if the US had declared war on Germany in September of 1939, rather than Germany declaring war on the US 2¼ years later out of solidarity with Japan.
only involved out of self-defense.
The oil embargo on Japan was a virtual declaration of war.
As always the US wants war to defeat their economic rivals.
In Europe they waited royally late until the decisive battle of Stalingrad in 1943.
The reason they 'liberated' western-Europe was to take a part for themselves and stop the Soviets from going all the way to the Atlantic.
Making Europe vassals to this day.
There was no self-defense only opportunistic self-interest.
I don't think the US expected that Japan would attack them. They wanted to cripple Japanese imperial power in the Pacific so they could colonize the Pacific instead, but they would happily let China get genocided in the process rather than go to war and lose actual troops and material.
So I agree with you that "self-defense" made the US seem too pacifistic, when what they wanted was to bleed the world dry so they could become king of the ashes. But it should be made clear that the US did not take initiative to fight fascism. It did not "virtually" declare war. It sought maximum economic advantage for itself as millions perished.
The sensible military experts knew moving their main base to Pearl Harbor was crazy and creating a juicy target.
They most definitely expected an attack from intercepted messages and other intelligence.
And the embargo on Japan from resources is at least an act of aggression if not war.
They knew the Japanese certainly saw it that way.
Of course the US didn't fight fascism as many industrialists liked that ideology.
They only acted against them when they were sure they would lose against the Soviets.
From then on they actively helped to evacuate and save nazis for their future war against communism.
And the embargo on Japan from resources is at least an act of aggression if not war.
Good? The Japanese were slaughtering literally millions of Chinese people, and others across east Asia. The embargo was absolutely called for, and declaring war outright would have been even more commendable. The only thing we should be criticizing is a hesitancy to enter the war, if the embargo was essentially "an act of war" that reflects positively on the US, right? Why are you talking like an act of war against the Japanese was a bad thing?
The Japanese were slaughtering literally millions of Chinese people
Yes that's awful but I guarantee you the US couldn't care less about that.
The examples of the brutalities in the Philippines and other places in the area show enough about their attitude. (nothing has changed about that BTW)
I guess some people believe also they really want to help the Iranians from their evil government.
I repeat, they only did it out of self-interest, certainly not out of some humanitarian motivation.
And the same goes for their actions in Europe.
I agree, nations are generally not motivated by benevolence and certainly not at that time. However, the US was still on the right side of the war, it was good that it joined, and it did make a substantial contribution to the war effort. I'm not claiming that the US was "pure of heart" or something, what I am claiming that its involvement in WWII did more good than harm.
Saying that they only joined the war when it was clear that the Soviets were going to win is just ahistorical. The Germans had just reached Moscow days before US entry into the war, and the outcome of the war was far from certain. Yes, there was plenty of quibbling over who gets what towards the end of the war, particularly under Truman, but that doesn't mean that the US did not make real contributions in it.
I guess I just don't see why it's necessary to shit on the one time the US stumbled into the right side of history, to the point of historical inaccuracy. The Soviets were glad to have the US in the war, and coordinated with them substantially. You can hate the US while still acknowledging that. I don't see what the Iran War has to do with anything.
They let the germs and Soviets weaken themselves, they saw both as their enemies.
Saying that they only joined the war when it was clear that the Soviets were going to win is just ahistorical.
Again, only after the battle of Stalingrad decided the future outcome in 1943 did they enter the European theater.
Those are 2 facts and historically accurate.
Yes the Soviets were glad the west did a (small) part against the nazis.
But that only was a temporary marriage of convenience.
And again, they only went in to grab a piece of the loot as the opportunistic vultures they are so the Soviets wouldn't get it.
Which they still could if they wanted to, and chase the combined western 'allies' out too if they decided to continue the war.
I'm certain they don't teach that in most US schools but they do at West Point military academy BTW, in case you want to call that ahistorical again.
The US deserves to be shit on for all the awful things they do and did.
If you're looking for a win for your country, WW2 is not it.
As I said, we Europeans became US vassals, same as the Japanese.
So no, they were not the good guys despite the liberator heroes propaganda BS.
Again, only after the battle of Stalingrad decided the future outcome in 1943 did they enter the European theater.
Before D-Day, the US prioritized Europe before Japan, and it fought the Germans in North Africa and in naval battles, while providing material support to the Soviet war effort.
The US deserves to be shit on for all the awful things they do and did.
100% agree. It does not, however, deserve to be shit on for killing fascists 80 years ago.
If you’re looking for a win for your country, WW2 is not it.
I am absolutely not "looking for a win for my country" I am simply not willing to change historical facts just to make the US look worse than it already is, because I don't need to.
So no, they were not the good guys despite the liberator heroes propaganda BS.
Nobody said anything about "good guys."
There's plenty of bullshit propaganda regarding the historical narrative, but that doesn't mean that this knee-jerk criticism is correct. Like when you've reached the point of "The US is bad because it provoked Imperial Japan" I think you need to seriously consider whether you're overcorrecting.
Before D-Day, the US prioritized Europe before Japan , and it fought the Germans in North Africa and in naval battles
North Africa was largely a British effort (not to mention also late in the war, AFTER Stalingrad)
The actual fighting in Europe except for some bombing runs was the invasion of Sicily. Also 1943.
I am not overcorrecting, just correcting.
I have also for a long time overestimated their efforts (and allies in general) when the Soviets eliminated 85% of nazis, most of their troops were on the eastern front.
Al this caused by propaganda and revisionism.
The times and places of battles are correct, they are not up for discussion.
How you interpret them and their weight is another thing.
But more important than their effort was the realization of their motives.
That was the shocking thing for me, also Europe's part and the heavy downplaying of collaboration and whitewashing afterwards.
Maybe we should make a difference here between the troops and government also when talking about the US actions.
I believe that nearly all the soldiers should be respected for the effort in fighting fascists.
The government is another thing.
You may see it differently but we can have our own opinions.
That's all I have to say I guess, unless you have objections ;)
Fair enough. I just think that our line should be slightly more reserved. Its enough to point out that the US was motivated primarily by self-interest and that the Soviets made the greatest contribution to the war effort (although I generally find that sort of "glory hounding" distasteful regardless of who's doing it, it is good to set the record straight). Those two things have very firm backing, and I don't think there's any narrative that should require going further than that. Imo, that only weakens otherwise solid criticism by getting into more disputable territory and gives fuel to accusations that we're just knee-jerk anti-American regardless of anything it does or doesn't do.
Whether it would have been possible (or strategically advisable) to do D-Day sooner is not a concrete fact. The US needed time to mobilize. If you want to present some form of hard evidence or academic work that proves otherwise, be my guest. But until then, I think your argument rests on shaky ground and again I just don't see any reason to push that far.
What exactly is the harm in just saying, "Yes, the US stumbled into doing something good one time, and it's been exaggerating about that for the past 80 years and using it to justify themselves while conducting imperialistic campaigns of terror and brutality ever since?" Do we really need that one good thing to actually be bad? Why?
And many people in the US quite liked Hitler and what he was saying. Henry Ford was a personal fan
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Guys watching the original Rambo: First Blood movie and simply not getting it
Nah, most of my fellow countrymen (jailers?) aren't anywhere near introspective enough to get that far.
This is the kind of shit that blows my mind. I thought surely this was an image of satire.
NOPE
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Literally worse than the Taliban...
...this was posted seven years ago, during the first trump administration, just nine months before his bumbling incompetence killed twenty-five million people and shut down the global economy for a year...
If they don't need 'em, you don't need 'em. Ransack this official's house.
Ransack this official’s house.
You first
Xianscums voted in 2020 and 2024 to treat children like this. This story is from 2019.
All the confusion should let people know, don't use this if you want to actually communicate information. Just type Christians. It's not much longer, and everyone understands it. This is only too look cool, not for conveying information.
You sound mad. Have you tried asking your god to make you less angry?
I'm not angry. There are like five comments confused. I dint have a god.
load more comments
(1 replies)
For a moment I thought it was Xian as in region of Xi'an, Shaanxi, China, and I was even more confused
load more comments
(1 replies)
By "Xians", I'm hoping you mean Xitter users & not Gen X because I'm a part of that group.
They apparently meant Christians, using the Greek Χ (Chi), the starting letter of Χριστιανός (Christianos) as an abbreviation. I've seen it a few times, but I'm not personally a fan of it due to the obscurity outside of the niche that understands it.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Americans: "Not my last straw."
view more: next ›