Mostly, no. Usually, it’s just .world and .ml that get into slapfights. Hexbear is just bizarre.

https://www.oneidaindiannation.com/oneidas-and-the-birth-of-the-u-s/

That doesn’t say anything about the Oneidas being attacked by the Revolutionaries during the Revolutionary War.

Source?

Not of Washington’s conflict with Native Americans, that he burned down the villages of native tribes that fought for the US in the Revolutionary War.

But they kept returning to Ohio.

Sickening behavior. Unhinged.

Probably on DB0.

Explanation: Sequoyah was a Cherokee man who invented a new system of writing for Native American peoples - whilst being (initially) illiterate himself! He saw the potential in, and was deeply impressed by, the ‘talking leaves’ of European colonists - being able to transmit information perfectly, across great distances and long periods of time, with infinite recitations? Writing is often underappreciated by those raised in highly literate societies! He took a large number of European texts, which he could not read, and used the symbols as the basis for an entirely new method of writing - including mixing letters from the Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek alphabets. The letters are thus recognizable to European eyes, but each represents very different sounds than in their original alphabet.

Sequoyah had to fight his society’s preconceptions about the written word initially, but inside of a decade, the vast majority of the Cherokee nation was literate - having learned Sequoyah’s syllabary!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_syllabary

(I’m actually pretty sure they lived and died in Ohio, but we’re memeing here)

I mean, while that is true, I don’t know how much the news of a recent event like the Great Bengal Famine in a time of slow news and even slower analysis really impacted the American Revolution’s internal support. Most American colonists were probably not particularly aware of the Great Bengal Famine, and those that were were probably not in possession of the full data of the event and its causes; and revolutionary sentiment had been on the rise all through the 1760s in any case.

Well, I would say that design enables tactics.

It would be similar in usage at that point, but dissimilar in quality. Disregarding the cranequin for a goatsfoot (as the cranequin would be for REALLY high draw-weight crossbows that would be overkill here, though if you want we can discuss having 8x the power), you’re still looking at an increased fire rate, triple the power (lockbows being around 50 lbs draw weight, while early stirrup crossbows being 100-150lbs, and composite crossbows with loading devices generally being 450lbs+), and significantly more penetration joule-for-joule. A goatsfoot can load in more positions (kneeling, bending, standing) compared to a stirrup (bending only), and reduces fatigue compared to spanning by hand. Power in a crossbow also affects its range and its trajectory, don’t forget. Metal quarrels had both increased weight (improving trajectory and energy imparted) and specially designed heads, relying more on force rather than sharpness to ‘punch’ through armor and skin and bone, playing more to the strengths of the crossbow (which are surprisingly different from a longbow ballistically - is ballistics the right word for non-bullets objects? Whatever, you know what I mean).

The stirrup was a major advancement, increasing firing rate, position, and power, but not nearly to the degree that anyone would mistake it for roughly equivalent to a composite crossbow of the type you laid out. It would be LESS of a massacre, but it would still need to be lopsided in some way for the outcome to be in doubt. I guess you might say that at that point it’s more like a Mosin-Nagant vs. an AKM, though that still misses the penetration/damage/range factor. IE that a Mosin-Nagant can penetrate as well as or better than an AKM, while a stirrup crossbow with wooden limbs spanned by hand would struggle to penetrate padded armor, whereas a composite-limbed bow with a loading device and metal quarrels could realistically penetrate mail and even lighter plate armor - and of course, all of that applies to the increased force imparted to skin-and-bones to unarmored targets, though not as important.

Well, I’d point at the difference being “America was organized and ready to take advantage of anti-British sentiment, while the other two were not”.

People often want to think it’s the scale or intensity of the injustice which triggers revolutions, but it’s really not - it’s the chances of success. People can suffer almost infinitely if they don’t believe they can win. Britain’s policy of ‘benevolent neglect’ bit them in the ass, because it forced us to organize ourselves, including in local companies, militia units, and colonial representative bodies, which came in handy once we realized that not being represented was a really shit deal.

As a wise man once said, “Is you is, or is you ain’t, my baby?”

https://youtu.be/Zi8BNFklj8Q?t=31

I remember a lot after the age of 7.

What’s that old JFK quote? Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable?

The state draws its legitimacy from the social contract. When people no longer feel like the social contract is beneficial to them or to society - ie as one might feel with a healthcare system that is 100+ years out of date and has received one (1) bandaid for normal folk in the past 50 years - the state can no longer expect individuals to uphold their end of the social contract (adherence to laws, norms, and peaceable conduct).

This doesn’t mean “the overthrow of the government is coming tomorrow”, but rather means that the social contract is beginning to fray, and a failure of those in power to recognize and accede to that fact (by making major concessions) will result in this sort of incident continually intensifying until… well, until the social contract is gone to a large swathe of people, and then at that point, the overthrow of the government will be imminent, for better or worse.

All interactions between state and citizen are implicitly negotiated. Negotiations require leverage. Violence has always been a form of leverage. But assassinations are far more powerful leverage than riots.

Hexbear et co literally have called Blahaj a transphobic instance, numerous times. Lunacy.

Oh God, I’d forgotten about that game. The Third Age, was it?

How do I reverse this Rube Goldberg trap

Christ.

She got started late smh we were all playing GBA on the bus back in the day.

Existence is still much better than it was in the pre-modern period for just about everyone who isn’t living an ultra-traditional lifestyle somewhere so far from the national government’s focus that the government may as well not exist for them. And that isn’t a very large number of people, considering the massive improvement in living standards that even most modern subsistence farmers benefit from.

“Things are bad now and it should not be this way” does not preclude “things were worse before”.

Furthermore, from your own source:

Interestingly, the lowest segment of wealth has shrunk considerably since 2000. Between 2000 and 2022, it fell from 80.7% to 52.5% of the global population, and is projected to keep decreasing. Despite this, the total share of wealth controlled by this rung is just 1.2% of the global total.