Third-Worldism
noun
The tendency of affluent, tender-minded humanitarians from the First World to venerate the Third World and/or savagery in general.

Signs you might be a Third-Worldist:

• You believe that the Native American tribes were living in peace and harmony with each other and with nature prior to the arrival of Europeans.
  
• You believe that slavery is a uniquely Western phenomenon.
  
• You view international trade with skepticism or think that a nation "loses" when it trades with a richer country.
  
• You support or advocate for war.
  
• You have a poetic or "superhero movie" view of modern international relations, where some nations are the "good guys" and other nations are the "bad guys."
  
• You believe that the problems facing the Middle East and Africa today have more to do with colonization, multinational corporations, "imperialism," etc. than with the cultures, religions, and laws that currently prevail in the Middle East and Africa.
  
• You have never been to a Third World country.
  
• You refuse to talk about the problems of Islam or of African religions. You refuse to talk about or critique the cultures of Third World countries.
  
• You condemn immoral actions (e.g. murder, terrorism, theft) when they are committed by individuals from one country, but excuse or try to justify the same actions when committed by individuals from another country.
  
• You use political slogans or loaded terms like "liberation," "neoliberalism," "by any means necessary," "power to the people," etc.
  
• You do not look at or form opinions based on data when thinking about about international issues, instead relying on news articles, social media, pictures, and so on. You do not form opinions based on weighing benefits against costs.
  
  Notable Third-Worldists include Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Alexandre Dugin, various socialists & foreign-aid lobbyists, and so on.

I publicly challenge you to link any footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon on 9/11. If you do, I will happily recant my previous statement. Your claim that plane parts were found at the Pentagon is addressed in the documentary I cited. I also notice that you have ignored the complete absurdity that is the passport being found on the sidewalk far away from the crash site in NYC, Building 7 falling down for no reason, etc.

The only security footage I know of that shows the attack on the Pentagon is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SL2PzzOiF8. As you can see, there's no plane in this footage. I'd be happy to see the footage you claim to know of.

I am against terrorism & murder. I am also against theft. It is a simple historical fact that Israeli settlers stole land from Palestinians; this is documented, and many Palestinians still have the deeds of ownership to the land that belongs to them. It is also a fact that the Israeli army is negligently bombing civilians, including women and children, and even targeting civilian centers (e.g., hospitals), as well as preventing humanitarian supplies & aid from entering the Gaza Strip. I'm not pro-Palestine or pro-Hamas, I'm anti-Israel.

It isn't "cheerleading Hamas" to point out (1) the proven record of Israeli land-theft against Palestinians and (2) the disproportionate & mass killing of Palestinian civilians in the current conflict.

Sure.

JFK is pretty clear cut. What I like to do when discussing these things is identify the strongest piece or couple of pieces of evidence and emphasize those.

With JFK, anyone can prove it was an inside job in literally 20 seconds. Here it is: After JFK was shot, it was widely reported that JFK's head moved forward after being shot. This would be consistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's position in a building behind JFK. The Zapruder film was seized after the assassination (by the FBI, of course) and hidden from the public.

When the film was finally released, however, you can see that JFK's head did not move forward when he was shot. His head was thrown backward, towards the seat of the car. This is literally physically impossible if it is true that JFK was shot from behind (where Oswald was). Remember: people shot from behind do not get thrown backwards, they get thrown forwards. I encourage you to look up the Zapruder film and watch it for yourself.

There are many other inconsistencies with the official JFK story, such as Lee Harvey Oswald's body double, the extremely convenient timing of the assassination (convenient for the CIA, of course), Oswald denying involvement in the attack and saying that he had been set up and being assassinated himself soon after, and so on. But the direction of JFK's head after being shot is so conclusive, and proves beyond any doubt that he was shot from the front (rather than from behind, where Oswald was), that it's really all you need to understand that it was an inside job.

I will also note that there are so many blatant inconsistencies and problems with the official JFK narrative that even many people who spend their time "debunking conspiracy theories" admit that there are serious problems with the official narrative. Same goes for Jeffrey Epstein, whose killing was so absurdly obvious that the same "debunkers" admit he didn't kill himself. This is also worth pointing out.

As for 9/11, the case is at least as strong as the JFK assassination. There are many angles to approach this from: A third building, Building 7, falling down for no reason on the day of the attack; the fact that WTCs 1 and 2 look exactly like controlled demolitions and fall uniformly; the fact that the owner of the WTCs took out an absurdly huge insurance plan shortly before the attack; the fact that melted steel was found at the crash site (yes, melted); and many more fascinating pieces of evidence. There are 3 pieces of evidence that are, in my view, the most convincing.

1. The "hijacked" planes flew wildly off course for over an hour without ever being intercepted by US military aircraft. This is so strange and is beyond any explanation. The US knew that the planes were flying low and wildly off course, knew they were headed towards major population centers, and did not send a single military aircraft to intercept them.
   
2. The passport of one of the supposed attackers was found blocks away from the crash site in NYC, unscathed, on the sidewalk, shortly after the attack. I am not making this up; this really happened and it was reported on the news. Tell me: how can a passport inside of one of the planes that hit the WTC not only (A) sustain no damage whatsoever from the attack, but also even more incredibly (B) end up blocks away from the crash site on the sidewalk on the day of the attack? How would you even explain that? The fact is, there is no explanation, and the passport was planted there because the US government knew in advance who the "attackers" were.
   
3. Finally, and most convincingly, there is not a single piece of footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon. None. Not a single second of footage. Does anyone else find this strange? Furthermore, there are pictures after the attack on the Pentagon, and no wing parts are on the ground. If a plane hit the Pentagon, its wings would have shattered upon contact. But not only are there no wing parts in any photos or videos following the attack, but there is literally 0 physical evidence that a plane actually hit the Pentagon. No videos, no white-painted metal plane parts, no anything. And you're telling me a random Arab is skilled enough to fly a passenger aircraft in a descending corkscrew towards the Pentagon without it ever being photographed or intercepted by US aircraft? Seriously?

That's the short case of 9/11. If you want more information on JFK and 9/11, I recommend the documentary 9/11: In Plane Sight (available for free online) and James Corbett's documentary Meet Lee Harvey Oswald, Sheep-Dipped Patsy (2013). James Corbett has also done a lot of work on 9/11.

If you want to be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job in 5 minutes, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCzy9i4tIHU

Also see this video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/wO5oJM8GjWA/

Yeah, it's obvious.

There are 3 types of inside jobs: The first is where the inside-jobbing country will literally cause the attack/event. An example of this is the Gleiwitz incident. This type of inside job is where the term "false flag" comes from; historically ships would fly the flag of an enemy nation and attack their own ports if they wanted to start a war. Another example of this is 9/11. Another example is the JFK assassination. Another example is the anthrax scare after 9/11.

The second type of inside job is where the event is completely hoaxed; where it's made up out of thin air or literally "acted out" by operatives. An offshoot of this second type is where an event is overblown by the media on purpose in order to achieve some political aim. Bad things are happening all the time, so the media can simply choose one bad thing (e.g., a real terrorist event) but blow it way out of proportion, making people think the problem is much bigger than it actually is. The number of deaths from terrorism compared to the amount of money "fighting" terrorism is literally absurd and does not pass a cost-benefit test. Look up "availability bias" for more information.

The third type of inside job is where a government or inside-jobbing organization will provoke or be negligent on purpose in order to "cause" an attack to happen. Examples include the attack on Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, and the Oct. 7th Hamas attack. Again, nobody can answer why Israeili forces were ordered to stand down on Oct. 7th for no reason. With these types of attacks, governments will identify a threat in advance but decide not to prevent it or stop the attack.

As for Pearl Harbor, there are basically 2 questions that can help us determine whether it was an inside job (of the third type) or not.

1. Was the Japanese code cracked prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor?
   
2. Did the Japanese planes approaching Pearl Harbor maintain radio silence with one another?

If the answer to question 1 is "yes, the code was already cracked" and the answer to question 2 is "no, they did not maintain radio silence," then Pearl Harbor was an inside job. It means officials saw the attack coming and let it happen. As it turns out, it is 100%, without a doubt the case that the Japanese code was cracked (so we knew what they were saying to one another) and that the Japanese did not maintain radio silence. This is a summary of the case that Pearl Harbor was an inside job, and it's basically as strong of a case as the JFK assassination, 9/11 being an inside job, etc.

Death toll of Palestinians passed 42,000.

I am convinced that Oct. 7th was an inside job. Israel probably didn't directly cause the attack, but it was rather a "they let it happen" kind of situation (like Pearl Harbor). I think it's quite strange how Israeli forces in the southern part of Israel were instructed to stand down for 7 hours on the day of the attack (look it up). It's kind of like how all of the video cameras mysteriously stopped working when Jeffrey Epstein got killed.

Some quotes:

“Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.” Benjamin Netanyahu, November 24, 1989.

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier, Israeli Prime Minister, June 15, 1969.

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimetre of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

Revelation 3:9
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

Jeremiah 3:34-36
You have blood on your hands!
It is the blood of poor, innocent people.
You did not catch them breaking into your house.
You killed them for no reason!
But still, you say, ‘I am innocent.
God is not angry with me.’
So I will also judge you guilty of lying, because you say,
‘I have done nothing wrong.’
You go from one place to another looking for help,
always changing your mind.
But Egypt will also disappoint you,
just as Assyria did.

Build, build, build!

The problem with this argument is that you're assuming that the Elo number has literal meaning in itself, but really, Elo measures a difference in skill. The actual number isn't what matters; all that matters is the difference. If a team rated 1600 plays against a team rated 1400, the chance of winning for both teams as predicted by Elo rating is the same as if a team rated 2200 played against a team rated 2000. Elo is not a quantification of skill, but rather, a quantification of a measurable difference in skill.

In the situation you've described, you say that the low invite team that loses every time to Froyo would be placed in the "newcomer" Elo category. But the fact is, categories are simply labels you've placed on certain Elo ratings; if these two teams were the only ones playing, then the massive difference in Elo would reflect the difference in skill between the two teams, but it wouldn't say anything about the actual level of the two teams. Do you see what I'm trying to say? All that it would mean is that one team wins every time, and one team loses every time. The same Elo difference would happen if you had a Main team play against a Newcomer team over and over. Elo doesn't quantify skill; it quantifies a difference in skill.

What I'm trying to say is, there is no such thing as "invite" and "below newcomer" Elo in the example you give. All there would be is "top invite" Elo and "low invite" Elo. In your example, you're taking labels that you maintain out of one playerbase, that reflect that playerbase's relative skill levels, and applying it arbitrarily to a completely different playerbase. In a situation where Elo is based on rounds won, the same total divergence between the Elo of Froyo and the low invite team will happen, it will only be much slower (take many more matches played) than a situation where it is based on W/L only. This can be proven mathematically.

As long as Elo measures some zero-sum number, whether it be wins/losses or rounds won/rounds lost or something, then Elo will diverge to the same point, based on relative skill, no matter what. The only thing you're changing is the speed of the divergence. In a closed-box where Froyo plays a low invite team over and over, they will both end up in the same place whether or not you calculate Elo from round wins or pure wins/losses (assuming the score is the same every time, and assuming they play an infinite number of games).

The moment you start introducing non-zero sum elements into your "Elo" system, i.e., people gaining Elo without the other team losing the same amount, or thinking that Elo measures anything other than a difference in skill, you have committed the fallacy of objective value/a "quantification" fallacy. The only thing that would change in the example you give is the labels, since you're the one who creates the labels; the bottomed-out Elo would become the "low invite" rating, and the "inflated" Elo would be the "high invite" rating. Labelling different ranges of Elo is something you do once you see what Elo ranges various skill levels are in, and then name them accordingly. Thinking it's somehow bad/a failure of the Elo system that the team that gets beaten every time bottoms-out on Elo is like those people who used to say "I was Global before the rank reset!" in CS:GO. That is, you've made the mistake of thinking that a number can measure skill, rather than relative skill; you've assigned a meaning to the arbitrary name or "rank" (like those CS:GO players) that doesn't actually exist, rather than assessed the distribution of ranks in the playerbase.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether Elo is calculated based on wins/losses or rounds won/rounds lost, so long as the amount of Elo gained by one team exactly matches the amount of Elo lost by the other team, so as to not violate the zero-sum nature of TF2/the nature of all Elo systems. Also, although it isn't technically necessary for a functioning Elo system (based on the above), it is super frustrating to lose Elo when you win. A much better solution is to simply award less Elo to the winning team for close wins and more Elo for stomps. This will achieve the same effect without the frustration.

Hey why is Nursey on your friends list? If I remember, people don't pick you because you get mentored by Nursey.

If you mean it didn't increase your fps after installing it, make sure it's installed correctly. It should be in your Team Fortress 2 --> tf --> custom folder.

bump, looking for medic and soldier tryouts (both roles). open to up-and-comers. thanks!

One applicable area for whip bombs would be jumping through small doorways. Currently, one of the areas where soldier isn't very good is getting through small doors, since you have to awkwardly waddle through the door and then jump. If the whip were unbanned, soldiers could speed-waddle and bomb from doors that they would normally be completely locked out of.

Heavy isn't as bad as people think in general, not just to mid. Heavy can be pretty powerful pushing out of last, pushing last, and for dryfights where you're expecting the defending team to bomb (such as drying into process 2nd).

Whaaaaat

-clearcut ,+the koth_ramjam remake a guy on tftv is doing
-sultry (dead map with no developerment), +cp_subbase

I think that active development is the #1 quality to look for in new maps, to the point where there is basically no reason to have a new/alt map in the pool that isn't being developed at least seasonally or every few seasons. We know that reckoner is never going to get updated again, so what's the point? Same with sultry (unless somebody volunteers). Clearcut would have to change so much to be more playable that it would basically be a different map at that point as well.

Let's play this next season if nobody wants to update sultry. no point keeping a newer map around that has no updates/fixes planned.