Trencher

I am not arguing against you Archer I am just flabbergasted by the sheer evil on display here by the WWE.

I get its legal if they were employees. But they are independent contractors and artists at that. So they cant do side gigs?

In any case them not outlawing it but wanting a cut is what really makes this immoral. 

Either its damaging to your brand or its not. This is extortion. "You want to keep your job, you better give us the money from your other job.."

I usually fall for temptation and rent the network when Royal Rumble times comes around and then unsub when they do something that make me loose interest. (Causal fan until I die!)

But not this time. 

Is that legal in USA, they are independent contractors are they not?

I know they probably signed a contract of some kind but would not a contract like this be illigal?

Hello everyone.

I am GM'ing a Fantasy hero game and are always looking for stuff to let my players spend points on. 

I been toying with an idea for Heroic archetypes that players can buy to difference them from each other and have as a reward for great role playing. 

Like they have to had fulfilled this or that heroic ideal to be able to take one of these abilities. 

And I would like some feedback on if this is a good idea, if the types I chosen is any good and if the abilities I chose for each archetype is worth the point cost.

As for the archetypes I did want something with a bit of a unique feel and not like different types of paladins or knights from dnd. These archetypes are supposed to represent what the characters are not a series of wows they need to upheld. 

I also have just come up with six archetypes and I would like 7 as its a cooler number so if any of you have an suggestion I all all ears. 

Also these are not psychological limitations so there are no codes against killing or anything like that. This is just to give character concepts a little more meat on the bone and to reward and encourage heroic role playing. 

This is what I have so far

Refined hero: This hero like many others values justice, honor and all that but see them as something that needs to be learned and taught. Fair play is very important to this hero and ethics, diligence and being protective of those weaker are key words here. An Refined hero could also be called an noble hero as he or she is a bit of a knightly archetype. 

Pure hero: This hero represents heroes that just are heroes. They dont think over it. They dont have to learn it as they pretty much just are naturally good. This archetype in fiction are often virginal or chaste of some kind but this is not necessary for this archetype. Rather an pure hero would just love their equal partner and not put it into some kind of social or moral context. 

Pure heroes can sometimes be naive, they give villains chances to surrender, they help people who just fell into quicksand when they tried to push them into it and so on. 

This is an archetype that represent abstinence, sacrifice, openness and gentleness. 

Kind hero: The kind hero is the most common hero archetype in our world. This hero have a lot of compassion is generous with their time and help and take pleasure in empathizing and understanding others.  Despite the simple name kind heroes are often the most complex and conflicted as the kindness of their heart can go against what they know is right. 

For instance while other heroes dislike to kill or feel sad over a life lost the kind hero feels their victims pain even if they had to kill the person to save their own or someone else life. 

Kind heroes are often the most emphatic people around and sometimes feel alone because they dont feel connected by causes or principles as much as they feel human emphatic connection.  And few have the same level of emphatic prowess as an kind hero.

A kind hero represent compassion, mercy and generosity. 

Logical hero: The last twenty to thirty years have not been kind to the logical heroic archetype and they been shown as robotic, cold hearted or just misguided. 

The logical hero however is one of the most resilient of heroic archetypes and the least likely to fall to darkness or anything like that. Logic after all is all about clarity and truth and to the logical hero what is good for people is the greatest truth. Logical heroes have many beliefs and philosophies but they all have a tendency to fall on the side of humans are good and deserve to be protected, nurtured have freedom and live full long lives. To the logical hero evil and aggression are just waste of time and the people doing them can off course be dangerous but ultimately unless everything goes wrong they can be brought over to the side of good or at least there is possibility for some understanding. One of the few things that really provokes an logical hero is an villain that wraps themselves in sophistry and such to justify their to the logical hero primitive actions. Logical heroes are represented by wisdom, humanist and progressive principles. 

Loyal hero: Some philosophies would perhaps argue that the loyal hero archetype is not a hero at all but in fiction this archetype appear often and follows the rules for heroism to the letter. 

The loyal hero is a person that would go through fire for his or hers friends and not only that but also someone who try to build other people up and support those they are loyal to with all their heart. 

Loyal heroes not just people who like hanging in a group but people who are loyal to their core and will put others before themselves without a second thought. To qualify as a hero its not just enough to be moderately loyal so long you are not in any danger or trouble yourself. The heroic archetype of the loyal hero is a person who go a lot further to help those they are loyal to. Loyal heroes represent positive strength and to be protective. They are often quite enduring as well and its through that endurance they loyalty goes from being a positive trait to something heroic.

Balanced hero: The balanced hero have a mind of their own and are often dedicated to justice. However this can be an natural inclination or a taught dedication the balanced hero is about justice not how its achieved in the end. The balanced hero sees things from both sides and they also recognize that conflict is not just between people but also raging inside people as well. A balanced hero could also been called an contemplative hero but since the balanced hero dont really need to be a philosopher archetype balanced works better. Like logical heroes balanced heroes thinks that humans are good at heart and ultimately all that is evil can be explained, understood and ultimately defeated through rational discourse. If people are willing to do it off course. 

Balanced heroes are represented by the concepts of compromise, benevolence and positivity. 

As for abilities I am having an fantasy campaign where I try really hard to hold CV to 7 and damage classes to 8. But with shields and maneuvers, longer weapons and stuff that is hard at least when it comes to CV. Also magic is powers and can cost quite a bit. This is balanced by that everyone plays magic users of some kind and there are no rules that stops them from wearing metal armour or certain weapons. 

So here are the "rewards" I am thinking of when it comes to heroic archetypes. 

Refined hero: +1 ocv skill level vs worthy enemies. Worthy here being enemies that are more powerful and have more CV than the hero. 

Pure hero: plus 3 power defense vs evil magic. In fantasy stories some people are to pure to fall to some kind of evil curses and stuff so I think it might fit.

Kind hero: +3 presence, a flat bonus as this is going to be a reward representing the kind hero stepping up and its often more impressive when a kind person does that.

Logical hero: +1 dcv skill level vs monsters and weird creatures. Where others might panic or be stunned the logical hero just analyze the situation and does whats necessary.

Loyal hero: I am thinking +5 ego if their friends are in danger and maybe even +3 in con only to avoid getting stunned as well.

Balanced hero: This interesting and rare hero could get +1 to all skills as they are careful and thoughtful about what they do. 

So is this something? If you were a player would it be interesting?

Steal the relic that the cultists need to summon the entetiy and replace it with a copy.

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I figured you were having the storm around the PC’s . Also is -2 based on windy conditions. Iow does the book suggest that in windy conditions archers should suffer a -2 OCV- an environmental condition? Cause then you should be able to raise the local wind level and that condition should kick in.  See the GM.

Yes the storm is going to be eight meters around the pc's if I that is fair to put the minus to hit on arrows coming in to it. The minus 2 was a bit much I double checked and it said -1. But I think I am going to go with -2. And I am the GM lol! I think I might have been wrong thinking that the change enviroment cost should pay for covering the shooters as well as those that are shot at.

1 hour ago, ChaosDrgn said:

Change Environment for both wind level and a negative to ocv, area of effect:  radius.  You could link telekinesis to it as well depending on effect.

Oh, may want to add hole in the middle

Yes hole in the middle and tk is coming up on the higher grades of the power. 

Well to affect the people shooting the change environment would need to be large enough to cover them right? Or is it enough to to just buy eight meter radius (four inch hexes) around them for the minus to hit on shots to have effect, since the missiles goes into the windstorm? Or is that cheesy?

A player would like to build a power that creates a windstorm around him that makes him and his friends more difficult to hit.

I would like this power to have more than one level so he can buy more powerful versions later on.

I know that storms can give muscle powered ranged weapons -2 to hit and that would be pretty balanced but change enviroment is insanly costly and since he would like to have this as storm around him and his friends I dont know its worth the cost. Especally since force wall are so much cheaper.

11 hours ago, pinecone said:

Some good points, but I usually look at Elves not as "Hippies" and instead as super bothersome vegans, who always look down on all others. "Go back to your stinky cities monkey boy!' "I've got "High magic" to cast!" (And the reason the world is in danger, turns out to be "High magic!" after all)

Well that is the point. People make up their own version of elves so it is okay to dislike them. 

6 hours ago, Badger said:

The treatment of the strong vs the weak is really nature itself not just humanity.

 

To survive, you must adapt. The strong are seen as those who adApted best. 

Tolkien the creator of orcs were a World war one veteran. He saw the futility of total war and were naturally enough inclined to promote the idea that peace and kindness were the way for humanity to survive. I say this to put this notion in context: You can just as well see the strong as people who force others to adapt to them.

Changing and adapting is not really about strength but about surviving. Which is the orcs weak spot. Orchish lives mean nothing to them. Victory for the dark lord and thereby themselves means all. 

Strength, aggression and violence are not ways for them to adapt their own culture (such as it is..) to better survive but to change other cultures and people into another state. These states being enslaved and dead respectively.  

Off course in epic fantasy based on a humanistic morality the morale of said stories are usually to show the futility of the orc (or equivalent) kill or be killed attitude. And the value of peace and kindness (like hobbits for instance). 

Many games and books show the inhuman conditions of the orcs warfare and the heavy toll it takes on themselves and how it lead to their doom. Very few epic fantasy promote the total war soloution that orcs represent. Usually they glorify the single warrior against many and or honor and chivalry in war. For instance showing mercy to conquered enemies are often shown to pay of at a later date.

To take video games as an example the excellent video game "Shadow of Mordor" takes to be mild quite a lot of liberties with the lore of middle earth. However there is one thing that game gets right and that is to show of the hopelessness and futility of the orcish condition. The cost of their way of life. Both physically and psychologically. 

But there is another example seen in a recent world of warcraft cinematic. In it we meet an old cool looking orc who have doubts about war, especally the current one againt the heroic alliance which could really be avoided and are not fought in an way that appease the orchish sense of honor. (As in this game the orcs are a noble warrior race). 

He then meet an young and a naive troll who idolizes him, idolize war and are ready to fight for the honour of the horde. The old warrior orc is implied to know better.

Then the troll dies infront of the warrior orc. AND THIS CONVINCE HIM TO FIGHT ON!

And the cinematic shows this as a cool and heroic moment. War is the way. War is cool! Fight on! Dont quit! 

These are two approaches not only to war. But to the total war that orcs usually represent. The authors of the cinematic are trying really hard and doing a really good job at making unjust war seem like an honorable. The opposite of what orcs were intended to do. 

I think that some people are just attracted to that idea of total war and they try to it honorable and shown as the "only way". 

Off course they dont really want to do that. So story wise they often meet themselves in the door and have to make their warriors extra kind and sensitive like they have done with the world of warcraft orcs.

From the first warcraft game orcs who looted pillaged and stabbed each other in the back up until to the warcraft movie where the orcs were just looking for a place to belong and raise their cute litte orc babies. Each version of the warcraft orcs are heaped on with more and more humanistic qualities while all the players want its to play tusked hulk and smash puny alliance humans. Its diffent wants and needs dragging the concept of the orc in different directions. 

On 6/27/2020 at 1:57 AM, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but Wizards didn't create the problem.

 

Gygax and Tactical Systems Research ("Research!"  HA!     ) created the problem.

 

For what it's worth, I don't care if they leave the alignment system in or not, because _screw_ D&D.         However, I've never been really big on accepting "this whole race is evil; deal with it."   I am _totally_ cool with "this particular dickhead right here, _he_ is totally evil."  I'm _way_ fine with that.  I just can't figure how a race of mortals with any sort of society can all just "be evil" and a society is still maintained.  I'm willing to be that even Mayans weren't chucking people onto the altar every stinking day.....

 

 

True like most of the problems in dnd it can be laid at Gygax feet. Arnson were more palatable but he had also his own ideas about race. 

As for evil I figured people never talked about nor thought of themselves as evil. Off course since most dnd player think of evil pretty much as black plate armour, and being feared is cool. that went out of the window pretty early. Blunders like aligment languages did not help. Then you have pathfinder who are working around the clock to make lawful evil into the new good. 

They say lawful evil is actually people who are willing to sacrifice everything to make sure the law is upheld rather than sneaky sneaks who hide behind their law to do their evil deeds. And that the devils in the abyss is actually some kind of bullwark against the demons, ignoring that demons existed millennia before devils fell in most campaings and that demons dont have to crush hell before they invade the campaign world. Its just a bit of characterful background. Also TSR and wizards trying to milk the annoyance we gamers felt from being called satantistic by selling "books of darkness" and other crap to make the game look as occult as possible. 

On 6/27/2020 at 8:50 PM, pinecone said:

I usually used "Snooty Elves" to highlight systemic racist behavior, the few elves who gave a dang and tried to help save the world were viewed as dangerous deviants by their own kind. And the usual source of stable half elf families. Most 1/2 elf children were raised by single mothers.

Yes that is a good point. Elves was usually labeled as racist even though elves in the dungeon and dragons book were noted for hanging out in the forest and having parties. They were hippies not nazis. But still players on some level wanted them to be racist and their counter part the orcs to be freedom fighters. 

This is ironic since Tolkien created elves and orcs as two faces of the same coin. Elves were cultural one who loves nature, art and harmony. While orcs were the warlike ones who hates nature, loves technology especially weapons and wants to exterminate all the other races in the world. Both were the same race. Just two facets of the same culture. And since fantasy is closely related to fairy tales where evil is clearly marked by ugliness and good is clearly marked by innocence. The good elves were beautiful while the evil elves were ugly orcs. 

But dnd, warcraft and players in general wanted so much that the aggressive orcs who wanted to exterminate humanity and bring in the new era of the orc and Sauron (You cant stop progress!) to be on THEIR side and the "wussy" (peaceful) and "snooty" (cultural) elves to be their enemy. 

In psychology that is an easily recognized instinct some humans want to suck up to those who are more powerful than us and they want to attack and destroy those who are weaker than them.

Its the same with Klingons, Stormtroopers and so on. Off course people dont want to admit that they are morally evasive so they invent stuff like they are racist or they hate us or something like that to explain their instinctual behavior.

But in the end it is about this: Some players want to be on the side they perceive would win. Because in fantasy without our merry band of heroes the forces of evil would win. The point of fantasy is that small heroic bumps can topple a big cart of evil and give hope to humanity in an world where evil often win. But that does not speak to some peoples instincts they want to win and they want to win easy and fast and the fasted way to do so is to join the side with the biggest guys and the largest most organized army. Showing us that to some players the point of fantasy just go straight over their head.

10 hours ago, death tribble said:

If this is just the main races then fair enough. Demons and Devils will always be evil and Celestials always good.

But if their deity is evil then it stands to reason that their people will try to emulate them like Gnolls, Orcs and Goblins.

The Drow situation is understandable bearing in mind that elves can come across as Aryan.

Aryan is ancient tribe of  people from India. Hitler just stole the term togheter with the sun cross because he thought it was cool. 

Also you mean Aryan in the hitler term which means white not drow black, purple, grey, blue or whatever dnd use for drow skin now adays. Which makes no sense no matter from what angle I am looking at your argument in. Furthermore the evil of drows are because of their evil goddess and their matriarchal rule. Black matriarchs are not the same as the hitler youth. 

1 hour ago, pinecone said:

I've always viewed Elves as snooty "better than you monkeys" types, with the Hero elves being the 1% ers of elven society. So yeah, I do see them as one step down from racists by nature.

I seen this attitude in lots of players both online and off line. Orcs and other powerful aggressive conquering types are either misunderstood victims or cool warrior people worthy of admiration.

While passive and contemplative races that spend most of their time in the woods drinking wine and doing poetry are seen as "actually" evil and hateful. 

And if the game designers take this into consideration and create evil elves for instance. (In rpgs now I think there are more evil elves concepts than good tbh)

Then the players start to interpret the evil elves as either as cool misunderstood victims or bad ass warrior people worthy of admiration.

It seems to be instinctual in some people. Anything that is threatening and coming after you, like orcs are bad ass alpha individuals that should be sucked up to. 

And everything that is passive, cultural and maybe a little bit feminine, like elves are looser victims that should be crushed, spat on and hated.

And lets be honest here. there is more than a little bit of dislike of potentially gay and or the feminine woven in with elves hatred, maybe not that much at my table but certainly online. 

In my dnd campain back in the day I could not stand for such nonsense so I had one of the evil npcs high priest of the blood religion kill off the last elven tribes. So if you wanted to play an orc you could go test your steel on heavy dwarven infantry instead. Focused on macho ritualistic behavior of the orcs which most often the players would succeeded at but they could also fail at created an "on the edge" and slightly paranoid culture which gave the orcs a distinct flavor but also made the players aprichaite humanity and human culture more. Which to be honest is perhaps what orcs should be?

Oh one more thing lol. Instead of fixing their main books Wizard are going to sell another book which tells players how to "fix" a problem wizards created in the first place LOL!

Back in the day when my first game master showed me the dnd stats for "orc" and told me what it meant he said "and this is alignment. This orc is chaotic" then I asked "do all orcs have to be chaotic?" and he said "You can do as you want"

And that was that. I never used the alignment system for races to any degree other than a vague suggestion. And I have never met any gamers who have. But I have met many who enjoy playing the misunderstood good member of an scary but powerful race of beings. Which is something I think dnd can hold on to for new editions of the game as the misunderstanding itself can apply to more than one. 

I really really get it when people fear that moral relativism will creep into their game. But the removal of the blanket statement of evil in game can actually aid the game master and players in creating real evil enemies and villains we can all love to hate. Evil will now be a choice which makes it extra morally justified to cut off the head of whatever entity that is looting the village. 

On 6/23/2020 at 9:55 AM, tkdguy said:

Also that screaming woman vs cat meme. The woman,Taylor Armstrong, was in one of the Real Housewives series. The origin of that scene is actually pretty disturbing.

The hitler meme is from something disturbing too. Making disturbing things into jokes is a way to deal with it.

On 6/23/2020 at 3:09 PM, Ragitsu said:

 

Additionally, Jake Lloyd's childhood was permanently scarred. Curiously, the actor that voiced a thinly disguised Greedy Jew stereotype seemed to escape any (most definitely undue) criticism.

The greedy merchant stereotype could fit in everywhere. In fact this is the first I heard of it as Jewish. Maybe it was because it was a such a weird alien that we did not see any human cultural traits in it. 

1 hour ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

Opinion Hosts.

 

I don't to roast anyone on the police thread though, so to each their own.

I am sorry I dont understand.

Speaking of listening to academics who both argue sense and have the experience and education to back it up.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/potential-fraud-why-mail-elections-should-be-dead-letter

Yet when you go to wikipeida he is labeled "alarmist" a vague yet threatening term that will create an emotional response rather than a rational one. There are off course nothing to back that accusation up except for some referrals to news sites and on those news sites gives nothing substantial. 

Off course there are a threat of unprecedented voter fraud if it goes all by mail. It is impossible to secure in any meaningful way. You would have every voter escort their letter to where its counted and then you could just show up to vote anyway

Hopefully things will improve soon.

9 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

If John Oliver provokes such a rant as a comedian, what is your opinion of the "journalists" doing opinion shows on FOX News. 

Atleast they admit what they are and set themselves up for counter arguments that can be taken seriously. 

1 minute ago, Pariah said:

I feel we have begun to drift off azimuth here. A lot of the last two pages of posts really should be in the Politics thread.

Ok I am done anyway I am going to go for a walk and have an ice cream.  Sorry for getting ranty but there is a lot of negativity going around. 

55 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

If what John Oliver is saying should not be listened to because he's an entertainer by profession, rather than an academically-credited authority on whatever subject he's discussing, then there's no point in listening to or reading practically anything posted by anyone here, including yourself.

Touche.

But I will point out that there re some differences. I am just a guy on a forum he has a whole set up created by staff and designers to make him look like an authority on whatever subject he will talk about this time.  And I am taken to task by you guys. While his program and his message is designed to have him be met by delighted laughter and clapping. Giving us the viewer a subconscious message of him being "the leader of the pack" and someone to be listened to. While my posts are an invitation to come up with some counter argument. 

What really really burns my hide though and why I get so angry at this smug douche is that he preys on peoples desire to feel smart. By saying things in a certain way and by presenting his joke as "laugh here to show that you are smart enough to get it" rather than being actually funny is very very annoying!

32 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Oliver's show does more real journalism than most TV news these days. It's got a team of journalists researching the segments.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oliver#Influence_and_the_"John_Oliver_effect"

No they do enough research to say whatever they want to imply, or what mood they want to create or what spiel they want to throw at you sound plausible but they are not journalists because they dont care about truth they only care about the SEMBLANCE of truth a veneer that they can sell to people who like to sound smart. And then you add the comedy as an convenient absolution of responsibility and you have a social disaster. It brought Donald Trump into the white house and it created the idea that every American lives in an action movie and no matter what you do it is justifiable because you are the hero. 

31 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Funnily enough, in the United States of America (the last true bastion of freedom), academics are often labeled "Communist" or "Marxist' by those that are scared of their knowledge or - more specifically - the implications of their knowledge becoming assimilated by the masses.

Communists have developed tactics for taking over academia using social pressure and exclusions to do so.

Off course right wingers use the fact that there are communists in academia to discredit the idea of academia itself. Because they themselves are very often anti intellectual and want a society where knowledge is the purview of the rich and powerful and their chosen servants. 

This does not hamper the communists though if anything it helps them as it makes academia feel hunted by "the outside" making the environment ripe for indoctrination into the cult.

Which is what communism is.

18 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If those who are not experts should have no voice, what does that suggest about the merits of allowing everyone to vote? 

 

Or even freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech yes.

Have voice yes.

Be listened to yes.

Be able to vote yes.

Be given the benefit of trust when they are speaking from the position of being a minority of some kind and they speak from their perspective yes.

Be allowed to dominate the conversation completely by pretending to be knowledgeable while making everything a cynical joke, avoiding intellectual responsibility and cultivate a veneer of trustworthyness to make your half truths and outright lies easier to swallow? NO!

58 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Yes, this nation harbors a deeply anti-intellectual sentiment; unless you're coincidentally attractive or wealthy, people rarely want to listen to what you have to say. I could expound upon this statement, but I am tired of rehashing the same points and I don't want to delve into politics (more than I already have...I broke my own rule). That said, if comedians are using their powers for good rather than (purely) profit, I am fine with their actions. It should be noted that the most effective comedy often contains a hearty kernel of truth.

 

Half truths do have a kernel of truth. But by setting himself up as an authority in practice but not in a manner that makes him take any responsibility for what he is saying because he is "just a comedian" have a long term negative effect that cannot be ignored! Enough already! This guy can take his sanctimonious lying ass straight to hell for all I care!

And you know who can join him? Those low brow but try to feign wisdom by saying the most obvious truisms guys who run the South Park show! Sure they are right about a lot of stuff just like this comedian but when everything is drenched in a cynical funny ha ha crap then you loose track of what is important, what is ideal and what is true and humane! To hell with them too! Even though I will admit they dont lie as much as that comedian dude. 

As for my anti communist spiel its based on a historic precedent. 

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

 

I will always agree that more training is helpful.  However, I don't believe Scandinavian countries are good examples to use for the subject of police brutality.  As I understand it, they have little to no racial, ethnic or cultural divisions whatsoever in the past or present.  Nor do they even deal with sticky immigration or refugee issues such as Germany.  These are massive underlying causes of the problem.  Also, more training does not fix the main factor - abusive and/or flat out bad cops are almost completely untouchable thanks to police unions, lobbyists and internal politics.

This is no longer true. The population have shifted thanks to immigration. The biggest cities have districts that non whites are in the super majority. Adding to different culture you also have language barriers and other things. Training, funding and massive democratic oversight is absolutely necessary. And defending the police and leave the law to local councils who select themselves would be disaster.

Even here however police violence can be a thing. Once a guy almost died from being chocked out but the police did not how to do cpr and managed to save his life. He lost 35 percent working capacity but he is not dead. Policing is ugly and brutal no matter what but the alternative is worse! 

Also a quick note. 

Defunding the police makes it even more corrupt and ineffective. And more attractive for racists and other power trippers to dominate as they are the only ones interested in working there.

The reason Norway and Scandinavia in general have less police brutality than the rest of the world is because they are funded and trained extensively. Even so people still die as some have psychotic episodes and or are high on drugs and have illnesses that can be deadly in stressful situations. But better trained police makes them better at handling and more importantly identifying such situations. 

This there are corrupt police in the system so we got to get rid of the entire system and replace it with gang rule (or political gang) gotta stop. Nothing good will come from it.

Your looking at "councils" that will elect themselves and therefore be unassailable by democratic means. But very assailable by other more violent factions within the council or another council. 

Your looking at not only secret police but actual informer squads and individuals who will use any situation true or false to rat you out so they can get social and political cred. 

Your looking at politically organized mob rule through cancel culture and indoctrination sessions.

And most of all you are looking at endless ennui as the dialogue online and even between friends becomes more and more fake as people just do the required clicks and quotes to repeat the socially expected spiel. And even what people think could be dissenting opinion will be shouted down as it will be more important and socially beneficial to shout things down than its to actually say anything for most folks. 

In short you are looking at communism even if it is going to be a watered down hybrid of cooperation and communism kept alive longer and therefore increase your suffering longer by a higher level of technology and resources than Russia had. 

Keep in mind a couple of facts.

You as a person dont matter to communists its only the group that matters and individuals can and must be sacrificed for whatever whims strike them in the moment. 

If you dont believe me look at the old guard of communists on the American continent. From Chomsky's night letters to scare New York news papers from reporting on the millions of death done by the Red Khmer or the chopping off fingers to ensure they could not vote even though they would never recognize the election results anyway.

You might be falling for the lie that people can not be that stupid, that it have to be exaggerated. 

It is not.

The communistic system works for a while and I will tell you why. The higher ups employ people with high ambition but low ability and give them power. Such people will DO everything in their power to keep that power. That means lie, cheat, steal and even sign off on murder. 

Autistic people especially those on the lighter side of the spectrum are easy people to recruit for that purpose. Unfortunately they sometimes meet a person with actual ideology. That is a problem and such a person must be either hidden away doing grunt work or unfriended and canceled. 

The leadership is not autistic but fully functional people who with great effort have trained themselves to ignore their feelings in an effort to get more power. This is a trait for the most successful authoritarians who starts movements (Hitler, Lenin etc..). Off course because of the nature of the communistic system, later on they are replaced with varying degrees of narcissistic psychopaths or become one themselves to remain in power of the power bloc. 

Communism is anti democratic. 

Communism is pretty lie to remove democratic safety blocks that exist so that one group of individuals will not get all the power over others.

When those safety blocks are gone, the group in power can never be shifted. Society itself need to grind to a halt before its possible to throw off the yoke of corruption and the damage done to the social and cultural essence of the people will linger for generations. 

Communism is brutal to the point of anti humanism. 

Communism attaches itself to other causes trying to make it look it was they who fought for it. But communism only fights for one thing: Their own power and that require the destruction of democracy. 

Communism is anti capitalist but they are not anti corporations, corporations especially ones who are bought up and then slowly bled to death by a group of executives who move like piranhas from one to another actually have a lot in common with communists. Their ideology only work because of its parasitic nature. They are all about power and are all corrupt, and they are all ruthless when it comes to how they treat the people on the ground. Corporation and communists are natural friends. Anything that removes responsibility for people at the top is. Now dont get me wrong the structure of these two types of entities are different but the people at the top and how they treat their underlings are the same. 

I see videos on youtube of people trying to rat people out for washing away BLM graffiti after the protests are over. The people who are cleaning up might even be the protesters themselves! But that does not matter to the kind of mindset communism produce only the posturing and outing people matters. Its weaponized mob mentality. It takes the darkest and most evil parts of us humans and let it run unchecked as long as its the service of power. 

I see people retweet and repost article after article none of whom actually say something substantial, but they all ferment a sense of discontent.

I see anti intellectual pretensions talking heads like the guy above telling half truths and whipping people into a frenzy about real injustices while silently silencing and removing agents of change that are not on their "team".  

The police is a tool of democratic control. Communists need to get rid it and replace it with their own controlled "police".

Sorry that is getting an automatic downvote. 

The reason USA is in the dire straights it is in is that you started to listen to comedians take on politics instead of academics in the first place. 

Even if what that chuckleduck is saying is true its part of the problem. 

He should hide in shame not talk. He ruined a country. 

Edit: Not alone obviously.