Ah, that’s it then.

To me, “drek” is low quality, high output stuff. Interesting difference of definition.

No, no one can. And we can both not like it together.

But I do think that the distinction between “I like/enjoy this” and “this is poorly made/low quality” (and also “I hate the obnoxious ever-present fans of this”) is of value to maintain.

Maybe we just use drek differently. Frisky Dingo, is, I think, drek to some degree - but I liked it when I watched it.

I’m probably being overly pedantic and picky. Sorry. Hate away.

Or national security spy thrillers.

I’m not a Downton fan, and think shows about the travails of the set upon landed aristocracy are, at best, blasé.

But Downton was not “drek” it was well acted and shot at least and was made with care. Not for me nor do I agree with it overall, but it wasn’t a “bad” show.

Yes, over 12 years.

In addition to what OP said in their reply to you. There was also a willingness to break status quo, which helped the longevity.

Israel exists due to US support for Heganah and similar groups, and global guilt following the public awareness of the Holocaust.

Britain being defeated would probably led to a loss of empire, and with Palestine outside British control the “memo to aid in creation of a Jewish state” would cease, there’d still be Jewish terrorists groups, but it’d go very differently without US power projection and Nazi sphere of influence.

How about Churchill was forced from government along with Chamberlain after the catastrophe in Norway at the start of the war, and doesn’t end up Prime Minister?

But they didn’t even follow the scientific method or produce decent data.

We know perhaps marginally more from them, but the poor note taking and lack of systemisation make both Mengele’s, and Japan’s Unit 731, “experiments” close to useless.

And that’s disregarding all the ethical issues that modern non-fascist people of ethics have.

I cried with The Mitchells Vs. The Machines.

Think I teared up at another film recently, but can’t recall what it was. Sorry. That’s one I watched I know got me weeping, though. I’ll cry over anything intergenerational these days.

The world loves eugenics, and it is considered “civilised” to kill disabled infants. Sterilisation programs of indigenous people and minorities are carried out across Europe, North America, and Asia.
A rule of power International order, where there are spheres of influence for the big players, Japan, Germany, USA, and maybe Russia and India.

A very racist USA that has annexed Canada and maybe more of Mexico, debates about reinstating slavery are a common part of political discourse.

UK is run by incompetent fascists, but the empire has collapsed so tensions build. I’m not sure who the “enemy” would be - maybe a violent revolution that leads to the end of the monarchy? Maybe German “Peacekeepers” on the streets to neutralise the communist subversive threat. Maybe invasion to reannex Ireland as Irish independence is blamed for things falling apart?

British intelligensia fled to Aus-NZ, causing demographic strife as the influx of new comers puts strains on the countries, but also an influx of ideas and they could evolve into a bastion of Liberalism, if not progressive ideas. Probably define selves as not Nazi, and will do a lot of soul searching (or just ignore) treatment of indigenous peoples.

South America probably more stable and more left wing without US meddling and the influx of Nazis. But my South American history is quite weak, so I know I’m not accounting for an awful lot. That, or the fascist US attempts to invade and has a Vietnam experience in Central America.

India as a fascist Hindustan, allied with Japan.

Imperial Japan controls much of Asia either directly or indirectly. The official story is that Japan is the liberator of Asia, having freed Asia from European imperialism, but life is hard for many people, especially ethnic minorities of China and Siberia who have few rights and are often sterilised while their culture is erased. Meanwhile wealth and value is extracted for the metropole.
Asia would certainly have some armed revolution movements, especially in western China and Northern Siberia. A much larger Mongolia, Tibet, unified Korea, Manchuko, and maybe some new nations in Southern China as indepent states, and maybe Turkistan.

Indochina would be wild. Not sure how it would end up, but the road would be very different.

Would Middle East be better off? Maybe. [Edit: Sykes Picot was 1st World War, stupid sleep addled brain] The mess of Sykes-Picot wouldn’t happen, and no installation of British/French puppets. Turkey likes USSR’s weakening, but now Germany is a worry.
German superstate may well invade to control oil in the 50s/60s though. Which would be very bad news for the Zionists, who are a group of Socialist Jews who run a smattering of self sufficient communities across the Middle East.
By a bizzare twist of fate the Kurds still end up without their own nation and as pawns in games between other powers.

Africa would be embroiled in the second scramble for Africa where Germany, Japan, and the USA fight via proxies if not directly for control over the former French and British colonies. Each side supporting partisans and independence movements against the other. Hindustan might join in too, but has to sort its (Edit: accursed autocorrect) home situation out first. Fascist Kingdom of Britain and Australia might do lots of espionage here against each other, seeing themselves as legitimate successor to the UK.

Libre (and ethnic cleansing of Palestine supporting Microsoft) Office does, too.

Somebody lied.

Yes, because rule by the bourgeois will always tend towards a more authoritarian level than Socialism.

That’s fair, I have respect for rules like that and also know that camping out for a rare quick animation would kinda ruin the effect when you want to be playing.

Nice write up.

Must admit I’m kinda disappointed the screen shot of Kaepy G isn’t one where the head is twisted nearly upside down.

But it also made me come in and read your thoughts on it. It’s a comfy game to play. Good luck with the project.

My use of the “Mulch the rich crowd” as people who will, at least (or perhaps at most) express the desire to grind up billionaires, or maybe millionaires into more useful biomass, such as mulch for their vegetable garden or community allotment.

You used it seemingly as a term for “people with lots of money and investments” thus able not only to not sell to keep up with cost of living increases, but also buy up things sold by those who needed to liquidate assets to keep themselves afloat.

Now, they may not be mutually exclusive circles - but the overlap would be neither informative nor relevant to the point.

For instance if someone is talking about birds and mentions a quality of vertebrates, and you come in with “and vertebrates can breathe underwater!” because fish are vertebrates and you are very clever.

I think we understand “mulch the rich crowd” very differently.

But rich people, on the whole, cope better with economic downturns because they have more resources to play with and aren’t living paycheck to paycheck.

So why would the mulch the rich crowd be celebrating?