[North America] NEW SPLATFEST: Team Past Travel vs. Team Future Travel!

[SupaTim]

I didn't say all the cartoons on TV today were bad. In my opinion though the shows on today can't compare with the shows back in the 90's. Batman TAS, Cybersix, Powerpuff girls, Dexters lab, Samurai Jack, Johnny Bravo, and Edd Edd'n Eddy and What's with Andy were really amazing shows. Also was it really necessary to comment saying I never grew up? That was uncalled for pal.

Actually, I think he was implying that you DID grow up, which is why you don't like today's cartoons.

Anyway, I abso-frigging-lutely love Phineas and Ferb. I still miss the days of waking up on Saturday to watch X-Men and Pokemon and Digimon and coming home and watching Dragon Ball Z and Gundam Wing (if this HAS to be American made, then the "What-A-Cartoon" type of stuff you mentioned were awesome. Still love "D and DeeDee"). But there are some good cartoons out there now.

 

[TS Swoop]

Future>Past

 

[Leronne]

I didn't say all the cartoons on TV today were bad. In my opinion though the shows on today can't compare with the shows back in the 90's. Batman TAS, Cybersix, Powerpuff girls, Dexters lab, Samurai Jack, Johnny Bravo, and Edd Edd'n Eddy and What's with Andy were really amazing shows. Also was it really necessary to comment saying I never grew up? That was uncalled for pal.

i never said you haven't grown up. Read my comment again. I'm saying that you did grow up and that can be the cause of why you don't like these shows, it was not meant as an insult. Growing up is a common reason as to why someone doesn't like something that's new. Like all the elders saying "back in my day". I like animated series from every generation. And besides great animated series these days, samurai jack remains my all time favorite. i'm just tired of the whole "the 90's were better" when most of the time that argument is purely based on nostalgia (not referring to you that is). I don't mind at all that you find those shows better than those of today, it's mostly how you addressed the ones of today that i had problem with. apologies if i seemed harsh in my reply.

 

[Award]

Going with past. Too scared to know what's gonna happen in the future. Plus I think all the kids will want the future just because they're young. I mean what 8-12 year old will want to go back to the past? What do they have to go back to? Being a baby again isn't gonna be much fun. I'm 24 years old and I'd love to go back to the 90's again. Cartoons on TV were actually GOOD compared to most of the crap we have on TV today.

You're not seriously going to compare Sonic BOOM to Sonic the Hedgehog voiced by Steve Urkel, are you?

...anyone want some chili dogs?

An ounce of preparedness is worth a pound of cure though. There may be more problems and bigger problems now, but we are at least aware of them, and there are people dedicating their lives to stopping or preventing them.

Well, I'd say that's one of the biggest problems we have with our "we're too smart for our own good" modern system. A dangerous arrogance where we believe we've identified all the problems and are working to solve them. Again, a classic error through history. We've identified the problems, except for the ones we haven't. And in working to prevent them there's the potential to create them. Science all to quickly assumes their new discovery is true. Then popular opinion swings to act on it, only for that truth the then be determined questionable by later science. The ozone hole you cite being one such (minor) example. I remember the hullabaloo of CFC's and the ozone hole. Recently however, further study of the ozone hole has determined it may actually be a natural phenomenon! That study is not concluded nor conclusive, but that means the original opinions that it was caused by CFCs was also inconclusive, but it didn't stop it from becoming "truth" back in the 90's. Too many times "a study" becomes "truth". Medical is plagued by that effect as well. But it's not new (once again, history shows the way!) Remember back when blood lettings were scientifically proven to reduce fever? When the earth being flat was scientifically proven? When shock therapy was a valid scientifically proven treatment for mental illness (sadly that's making a comeback...)? Humanity has a history to become "too smart for its own good". That's not an argument for not liking the "future", but an argument that the future is often just more of the past with updates.

Really, I wouldn't want to go back to a time when non-whites were hosed on the street, to a time when a country that lost a war had its entire population put into slavery, to a time when people just dumped their solid waste onto the street below, or to a time when everyone lived in constant fear of the Mongols or the Huns or the British or the Romans or whatever dominant conquering, killing force was at the time. (Know how Hernán Cortez and his small band of conquistadors were able to take down the mighty Aztec Empire? Because he had a knack for persuading leaders of peoples the Aztecs had conquered and uniting them all against the Aztecs.)

All true, but it's also easy to have selective vision. It's easy to pull the most awful parts of history and view it as collectively affecting everyone in history, where much of the world was in complete ignorance of whatever atrocities and dangers were lurking. Slavery is still a thing in many parts of the world - to someone in those places it's no different than the past, and the Jim Crow era US would be an improvement from their present condition. It's easy enough, to either view too small a part of the picture or too large of one. You can point to the bad of any era and say "I'm glad I don't live in that time!" but were you were presently in one of the fairly awful places of the world today, you might easily look back to the time when the Romans were the greatest threat and say "you know, I bet that was a much nicer time." The question really is "Would I like to visit the better parts of the past, or the better parts of the future?" You can't really look at rosy parts of the future and the ugly parts of the past as part of the same context! Pessimist that I may be, diplomacy may have done great things today, but if we both time travel sufficiently far in the future and you read the history of WWIX and the total breakdown of diplomacy yet again I'll make sure to give you an "I told you so!" :) The problem is, diplomacy works when things are relatively stable and neither party feels they're giving up too much. But nature itself, and the needs of the time often dictate more difficult situations where diplomacy breaks down, where it's no longer in someone's interest to agree to what amounts to surrender, or when resources are in short enough supply. It's easy to view the present as a stepping stone to an ever improving future. I believe it's more accurate to view the present as a luxurious bubble in time when things facilitated a relatively calm era where large scale desperation didn't fuel large scale calamity. Such bubbles have existed before, and they never last forever.

Also, Cortez arrived at just the right time, he found the Aztecs half dead and fighting each other along with their enemies. The Aztec empire was already crumbling from within. His own arrival also introduced smallpox which further weakened the Aztec over time during the campaign. Had he arrived a few years sooner, he'd have been cut down pretty quickly by a full strength empire. From the perspective of the Aztec, another case of just the wrong sequence of events happening at just the wrong time leading to disaster. Who'd have guess when they started a large scale violent power struggle while fighting a handful of small wars that the vanguard of a foreign empire's army would arrive at the same time while introducing a devastating disease and uniting their enemies?

The past always has the answers for the future. The past always defines the future.

But it's an undefined question in a philosophical sense. The common reaction to the question is to assume the future will be better than the present, especially if the present is better than (much of?) the past. But at any point in history that has been the common assumption when in fact the future often got quite a bit worse before getting better, and a few times the future nearly did not exist (Einstein famously begged Truman NOT to test the nuclear weapon as he believed there was a potential that it could in fact ignite the atmosphere and end all life on the planet instantly. Truman, being a politician, decided he was smarter than Einstein and ignored the warnings. Fortunately, it turned out Einstein was indeed wrong that time, and there's still an atmosphere. The 1930's sucked compared to today, but they'd have been glorious compared to a 21st century on a barren, desolate, frozen rock.) The future might be free of disease and war and poverty and rich with space exploration, and they'll be unicorns flying on rainbows. Or the human race may be extinct from a horrid disease or meteor hitting us before we ever leave the solar system. Or it'll be more of the same.

Or we'll be overrun by space squid and forced to fight over inking corners forever and ever as we arbitrarily get ranked from S to C+ to B to A- forever in a circle. ;)

Poor Callie & Marie had NO idea they'd spark these kinds of debates! :)

 

[BlackZero]

You know, I just realized: I'm not going to be able to play much of this Splatfest. Why's that? Because it'll take place at the same time as Arcade Expo 2016, and that, being a once-a-year thing, takes priority to me. Sorry, squid kids. (I'll also be participating in It Never Drains in Southern California, but I don't think I'll do so well with that.)



An ounce of preparedness is worth a pound of cure though. There may be more problems and bigger problems now, but we are at least aware of them, and there are people dedicating their lives to stopping or preventing them.

Until the 19th century, for instance, people didn't care one bit about endangered species going extinct. Then, the passenger pigeon incident happened, where a once-abundant creature was hunted down to extinction. People's eyes opened to the idea that, once a species dies out completely, it will never come back, and that people have not only the power to drive virtually any animal to extinction, but they also have the power to protect them. Currently, every remaining white rhinoceros has armed guards to protect it from poachers. Such a thing would've been inconceivable even 50 years ago, but here we are now.

It used to be that people would dump carbon monoxide and aerosols into the air, and so a hole had opened up in our ozone layer with an intensified greenhouse effect, which was growing (and still is). But once the public became aware of that, CFCs became banned, and there began a new wave of clean energy sources. We got nuclear energy (that's suspect, but it in fact pollutes less than fossil fuels), solar energy, wind energy, hydroelectric energy, and geothermal energy, and in the 21st century, there have been two new types: wave energy and tidal energy. All of these energy types (maybe except for nuclear) are gaining progress every year. I live in a region with little rain (maybe a bit too little, if you know about our drought), and I'm seeing more usage of solar energy all the time. The ozone hole still needs to be patched up, but we're on our way.

And then there's safety. There are the obvious ones, like the creation of the Food and Drug Administration and the regulation of hazardous waste, but when cars were first available to buy, those Model T's were roaming about everywhere with no traffic laws. So many people died, especially in areas of heavy population like New York City, that the newspapers didn't even bother talking about them. Plenty of people still die in traffic accidents today (but that might change drastically with driverless cars getting close to public consumption), but the proportion of deaths to motorists dropped drastically and has dropped with each passing decade due to improvements in vehicle design, new features to save lives both inside and out, and new laws to prevent unsafe driving with traffic cops going about enforcing them.

Really, I wouldn't want to go back to a time when non-whites were hosed on the street, to a time when a country that lost a war had its entire population put into slavery, to a time when people just dumped their solid waste onto the street below, or to a time when everyone lived in constant fear of the Mongols or the Huns or the British or the Romans or whatever dominant conquering, killing force was at the time. (Know how Hernán Cortez and his small band of conquistadors were able to take down the mighty Aztec Empire? Because he had a knack for persuading leaders of peoples the Aztecs had conquered and uniting them all against the Aztecs.)



As someone who consumed a lot of cartoons back in the day and am still an animation fan now, I'd say there'splenty of good animation on TV right now. Look at that, I have an avatar of Star Butterfly from Star vs. the Forces of Evil, and I usually have an avatar of Sunset Shimmer from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (as divisive as that show is, I personally quite like it, and the fact that it took off against all oddsshows there's still quite the demand for American animation).

You're not seriously going to compare Sonic BOOM to Sonic the Hedgehog voiced by Steve Urkel, are you?

...anyone want some chili dogs?




Well, I'd say that's one of the biggest problems we have with our "we're too smart for our own good" modern system. A dangerous arrogance where we believe we've identified all the problems and are working to solve them. Again, a classic error through history. We've identified the problems, except for the ones we haven't. And in working to prevent them there's the potential to create them. Science all to quickly assumes their new discovery is true. Then popular opinion swings to act on it, only for that truth the then be determined questionable by later science. The ozone hole you cite being one such (minor) example. I remember the hullabaloo of CFC's and the ozone hole. Recently however, further study of the ozone hole has determined it may actually be a natural phenomenon! That study is not concluded nor conclusive, but that means the original opinions that it was caused by CFCs was also inconclusive, but it didn't stop it from becoming "truth" back in the 90's. Too many times "a study" becomes "truth". Medical is plagued by that effect as well. But it's not new (once again, history shows the way!) Remember back when blood lettings were scientifically proven to reduce fever? When the earth being flat was scientifically proven? When shock therapy was a valid scientifically proven treatment for mental illness (sadly that's making a comeback...)? Humanity has a history to become "too smart for its own good". That's not an argument for not liking the "future", but an argument that the future is often just more of the past with updates.



All true, but it's also easy to have selective vision. It's easy to pull the most awful parts of history and view it as collectively affecting everyone in history, where much of the world was in complete ignorance of whatever atrocities and dangers were lurking. Slavery is still a thing in many parts of the world - to someone in those places it's no different than the past, and the Jim Crow era US would be an improvement from their present condition. It's easy enough, to either view too small a part of the picture or too large of one. You can point to the bad of any era and say "I'm glad I don't live in that time!" but were you were presently in one of the fairly awful places of the world today, you might easily look back to the time when the Romans were the greatest threat and say "you know, I bet that was a much nicer time." The question really is "Would I like to visit the better parts of the past, or the better parts of the future?" You can't really look at rosy parts of the future and the ugly parts of the past as part of the same context! Pessimist that I may be, diplomacy may have done great things today, but if we both time travel sufficiently far in the future and you read the history of WWIX and the total breakdown of diplomacy yet again I'll make sure to give you an "I told you so!" :) The problem is, diplomacy works when things are relatively stable and neither party feels they're giving up too much. But nature itself, and the needs of the time often dictate more difficult situations where diplomacy breaks down, where it's no longer in someone's interest to agree to what amounts to surrender, or when resources are in short enough supply. It's easy to view the present as a stepping stone to an ever improving future. I believe it's more accurate to view the present as a luxurious bubble in time when things facilitated a relatively calm era where large scale desperation didn't fuel large scale calamity. Such bubbles have existed before, and they never last forever.

Also, Cortez arrived at just the right time, he found the Aztecs half dead and fighting each other along with their enemies. The Aztec empire was already crumbling from within. His own arrival also introduced smallpox which further weakened the Aztec over time during the campaign. Had he arrived a few years sooner, he'd have been cut down pretty quickly by a full strength empire. From the perspective of the Aztec, another case of just the wrong sequence of events happening at just the wrong time leading to disaster. Who'd have guess when they started a large scale violent power struggle while fighting a handful of small wars that the vanguard of a foreign empire's army would arrive at the same time while introducing a devastating disease and uniting their enemies?

The past always has the answers for the future. The past always defines the future.

But it's an undefined question in a philosophical sense. The common reaction to the question is to assume the future will be better than the present, especially if the present is better than (much of?) the past. But at any point in history that has been the common assumption when in fact the future often got quite a bit worse before getting better, and a few times the future nearly did not exist (Einstein famously begged Truman NOT to test the nuclear weapon as he believed there was a potential that it could in fact ignite the atmosphere and end all life on the planet instantly. Truman, being a politician, decided he was smarter than Einstein and ignored the warnings. Fortunately, it turned out Einstein was indeed wrong that time, and there's still an atmosphere. The 1930's sucked compared to today, but they'd have been glorious compared to a 21st century on a barren, desolate, frozen rock.) The future might be free of disease and war and poverty and rich with space exploration, and they'll be unicorns flying on rainbows. Or the human race may be extinct from a horrid disease or meteor hitting us before we ever leave the solar system. Or it'll be more of the same.

Or we'll be overrun by space squid and forced to fight over inking corners forever and ever as we arbitrarily get ranked from S to C+ to B to A- forever in a circle. ;)

Poor Callie & Marie had NO idea they'd spark these kinds of debates! :)

Callie and Marie are bent on dividing the human race and starting a global civil war. Once humanity has eradicated itself in the "Callie-Marie" war, that will let squids take their rightful place as the dominant species. So, do you vote for the human past or the squid future? Either way, you're playing into their hands by taking a side.

 

[Award]

Callie and Marie are bent on dividing the human race and starting a global civil war. Once humanity has eradicated itself in the "Callie-Marie" war, that will let squids take their rightful place as the dominant species. So, do you vote for the human past or the squid future? Either way, you're playing into their hands by taking a side.

The human race will simply submit to Marie anyway.... :D

 

[Flareth]

At this point I've just accepted that the future will be what it'll be, and all we can do is make it suck less and delay the inevitable. If we really wanted to change the world for the better... well, I for one can't see it happening without a lot of killing. Killing to kill the ideas that hold all real progress back.

But then, I doubt we'd get that far. By the time we realize that's our only hope for the future, we'll have nuked half the planet already. Maybe not to The Road levels of aw-****-we're-screwedness, but probably something close.

That's not why I'd choose to go to the past, though. That's purely a biological endeavor, so I could see all the various ancient critters of the world, especially the more oddball ones like this guy, or these guys, or even this one. Running away from my time's issues is just a side-effect.

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

I didn't say all the cartoons on TV today were bad. In my opinion though the shows on today can't compare with the shows back in the 90's. Batman TAS, Cybersix, Powerpuff girls, Dexters lab, Samurai Jack, Johnny Bravo, and Edd Edd'n Eddy and What's with Andy were really amazing shows. Also was it really necessary to comment saying I never grew up? That was uncalled for pal.

At the same time, I remember back in the 90's, I was on various AOL forums and newsgroups seeing people diss THOSE shows and talking about how the shows from the 80's, like Thundercats, Captain Planet, The Smurfs, Gem and the Holograms, and Transformers (Generation I) were so much better.

It's all based on what you grew up with, and more importantly, what you remember growing up with. Do you remember Fish Police, Detention!, Hyperman, Santo Bugito, Space Goofs, Mega Babies, The Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat, or The Why Why Family?

By the way, I grew up in the 90's, and some of the stuff Cartoon Network produced left such an impression on me that I wanted to go into the animation business. But I knew there was plenty of junk back in the day too. (Even if I liked some of the junk in the paragraph above that, I knew most other people didn't and that none of them would last more than a season.)

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

You're not seriously going to compare Sonic BOOM to Sonic the Hedgehog voiced by Steve Urkel, are you?

...anyone want some chili dogs?

The Sonic Boom TV show is pulling in 1 million+ viewers every episode. For something that shows in the early morning on cable, that's pretty nice.

It's easy to pull the most awful parts of history and view it as collectively affecting everyone in history, where much of the world was in complete ignorance of whatever atrocities and dangers were lurking.

Don't forget that you're doing that regarding the future too. There are good and bad about both (just as there are good and bad about the present). Like any other Splatfest, this is all about personal opinion.

The way I see it, the optimist will more likely choose Team Future, and the cynic will more likely choose Team Past. I wonder if that means it's going to be like Team Nice vs. Team Naughty. (In any case, I'm gathering up sprites from Sonic CD to use in my video thumbnails, even if I can only get one video's worth of gameplay in.)

 

[Award]

Santo Bugito

I can't believe anyone else actually remembers that show. That show was amazing! My Saturday mornings existed for that show! :)

 

[Award]

The Sonic Boom TV show is pulling in 1 million+ viewers every episode. For something that shows in the early morning on cable, that's pretty nice.

Oh, I know it's financially successful (at least SOMETHING of Sega's is!) but from a purely critical and cultural standpoint for just plain weirdness, you just can't beat Jaleel White as a version of Sonic the Hedgehog that for some odd reasons loves chili dogs :) And the stories were fun!

Don't forget that you're doing that regarding the future too. There are good and bad about both (just as there are good and bad about the present).

Though the past definitely exists, and we know the outcome to date isn't utter ruin. The same can't be said for the future!

Like any other Splatfest, this is all about personal opinion.

NO! If it were like any other Splatfest it would be about which one Marie chooses. :p

he way I see it, the optimist will more likely choose Team Future, and the cynic will more likely choose Team Past.

Hard to say. Optimists will choose the future. Pessimists will choose Past. Realists (who know the past well enough to never put too much stock in the future) will also choose the Past. Marie fans will choose future regardless, because Marie.

But it won't be like Naughty/Nice. That one was too obvious. I'm not sure optimism vs. pessimism/realism fall so easily upon player types.

And never forget, for your little inkers and my little suicidal maniacs, the question is not a philosophical debate of optimism versus an established history. It's a debate of a derpy dinosaur versus spaceships.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

OBJECTION!

Callie & Marie didn't do this! Don't blame them or accuse them of instigating anything.
They just read the fax machine's message. They're the messengers.

 

[BlackZero]

OBJECTION!

Callie & Marie didn't do this! Don't blame them or accuse them of instigating anything.
They just read the fax machine's message. They're the messengers.

Do these look like the faces of mercy to you?

 

[chubbypickle]

i've only lost 1 splatfest out of many and my rule of thumb is pick opposite of my 7 year old and she choose team past... i think the young kids will go with dino's so i'm going team future.

 

[Zombie Aladdin]

Hard to say. Optimists will choose the future. Pessimists will choose Past. Realists (who know the past well enough to never put too much stock in the future) will also choose the Past. Marie fans will choose future regardless, because Marie.

But it won't be like Naughty/Nice. That one was too obvious. I'm not sure optimism vs. pessimism/realism fall so easily upon player types.

And never forget, for your little inkers and my little suicidal maniacs, the question is not a philosophical debate of optimism versus an established history. It's a debate of a derpy dinosaur versus spaceships.

But then, what's a realist? A cynic is not necessarily a realist. An idealist can be a realist too, like Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr.

In earlier times, the future was uncertain too. At the very least, we can be sure the human race can still survive for at least another 30 years. Roll back to the Cold War. The entire population of the world was on edge that they might not live to see the next week. Every US history class teaches the Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, because that was a time we were [ ] this close to all-out planet-destroying nuclear war. Could you imagine being an American or a Soviet during that time?

You could feel the worry in the fiction that came out during that time. Watchmen. War Games. Dr. Strangelove. Cyborg 009. Spy vs. Spy. Failsafe (which, sadly, has become so obscure that the Family Guy melted-telephone reference is more famous than it now). Everyone thought that the Cold War was going to keep going until one world power annihilated the other, and then everyone else would get annihilated from the nuclear fallout.

 

[Reyalin]

Oh my zapfish, the UK never gets awesome splatfests like these. </3 In my opinion I'd rather travel to the future, although this is a very hard decision to make. Ultimately the future will be more exciting since It's completely new to me, whereas the past has already been documented (and people would have to agree, not much about the past is great..). Although it would be nice to witness fundemental events.

 

[Award]

But then, what's a realist? A cynic is not necessarily a realist. An idealist can be a realist too, like Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr.

In earlier times, the future was uncertain too. At the very least, we can be sure the human race can still survive for at least another 30 years. Roll back to the Cold War. The entire population of the world was on edge that they might not live to see the next week. Every US history class teaches the Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, because that was a time we were [ ] this close to all-out planet-destroying nuclear war. Could you imagine being an American or a Soviet during that time?

You could feel the worry in the fiction that came out during that time. Watchmen. War Games. Dr. Strangelove. Cyborg 009. Spy vs. Spy. Failsafe (which, sadly, has become so obscure that the Family Guy melted-telephone reference is more famous than it now). Everyone thought that the Cold War was going to keep going until one world power annihilated the other, and then everyone else would get annihilated from the nuclear fallout.

I'll wrap this in a spoiler tag since it's all history stuff and pretty OT, that way it wont interfere with the main thread:

Spoiler

Oh, I wouldn't say that Abraham "Total War" Lincoln was much of an idealist. He was a realist through and through, and a brutally pragmatic one at that. There's tons of fun history discussion to be had far outside the past/future debate (and what history discussion ISN'T fun? :D Yeah, I'm weird like that...) I'm not sure I'd equate MLK as an idealist either. Certainly he was received that way at the time and presented himself that way, but I think he well knew that the future he spoke of wasn't in line with the way humanity generally works, but simply tried to promote the idea of striving for it. And like any political figure, he "tempered" his speeches to appeal somewhat to different audiences depending on the audience. In some cases that's pandering (saying whatever the audience wants you to say just to win their support), in others it's realism (knowing the different needs and viewpoints of each audience.) He didn't seem like the pandering type. I'd say if going with US political examples, Woodrow Wilson would be a much better example of an idealist to a fault.

I think the Cold War was one of those times when it looks scarier through the lens of history than most people perceived at the time. Oh, sure, there were people who were convinced the world would end soon, and just as now, the news and governments loved trying to scare people. But MOST people on both sides more or less shrugged their shoulders and went on with life. It was a background theme, but it wasn't an omnipresent terror on daily life. That wasn't a doomsday era for them, it was a bright new era, regardless of the threat. And the same was true in the USSR after the death of Stalin. Both places had something of a renaissance during that time. Khrushchev's railing of "we will bury you" aside. Khruschev also complained about getting green locomotives instead of the red ones on his train when he visited the US, and complained about Disneyland too. The guy liked to gripe. But he wasn't nuts, he was just bold and a little whiny. Stalin was the lunatic, and we managed an alliance with him of all people in WWII. Nukes are like sniper lasers in Splatoon. The point is that the enemy knows what waits them if they try something. The Cold War was like two snipers in splatoon charged and ready. Neither one is going to move into range of the other because they both know the best they'll get is a trade. Which was the entire point of it. It was an economic war. Neither country was headed by total lunatics willing to blow up the world. Both countries knew so. There was risk, but that risk looks so much more conflated in history books. The Cuban Missile Crisis was probably as close to armageddon as it really got, true. But think through the mind of a USSR that KNOWS if they did something, they'd end up nuked too? The nukes in Cuba were a squidbag. the US vowed that Communism would never exist in its hemisphere, and then helped install a leader that turned out to be a Soviet ally, and parking the missiles where they knew we'd see them was a giant squidbag for the camera. The Soviets knew that if they actually launched something at us, we'd launch back. We knew if we launched something at them, they'd launch back. Neither country was willing to sacrifice themselves for the other, and both countries knew that. Public perception or not, the Cuba situation was never actually much of a threat. Nukes & mutual destruction capability are for forced diplomacy. Both sides know they can't militarily engage the other, so they have little choice out of necessity to resort to diplomacy, even if they loathe each other. And it's still working to this day. Most of the nukes that were there then are still there right now, and all of them still pointed at each other. But we're here talking about Splatoon, and almost certainly have participants from Russia right here on the boards, and none of us are bothering to take notes about Vaul-Tec blueprints even though not much really changed since then, materially. ;)

The dark ages, WW1, WWII were genuinely almost universally bad. History has its points that there's no alternate view and few exceptions in its own time, they were just plain bad. And, sadly, so will the future. I don't think favoring the past over the uncertain future indicates "I want to jump to any random point in the past, including Paris in 1945." ;)

Oh my zapfish, the UK never gets awesome splatfests like these. </3 In my opinion I'd rather travel to the future, although this is a very hard decision to make. Ultimately the future will be more exciting since It's completely new to me, whereas the past has already been documented (and people would have to agree, not much about the past is great..). Although it would be nice to witness fundemental events.

Don't worry, in a few weeks you'll get "Travel to the past to study ancient minerals VS. Travel to the past to study ancient bacteria." :D

i've only lost 1 splatfest out of many and my rule of thumb is pick opposite of my 7 year old and she choose team past i think the young kids will go with dino's so i go team future so for 90 percent success rate

I don't know, kids love robots and spaceships too... It could be gender split. I'd associate a love of both dinosaurs AND robots/spaceships more with boys, but dinos, especially cute dinos like the picture might skew more girls while robots/ships more to boys. That wouldn't create as much a player skill split as past splatfests where kids in general all pick one over the other.

 

[PrinceOfKoopas]

Gotta say I like @Award 's Splatoon analogies in that explanation of history.

 

[ThaiTD]

Just super jumping into this convo. I chose team future.

 

[CM2]

Is anyone getting tired of the less popular team winning? I would like it if both sides have a chance to win and not a scenario where the less popular team wins so we all have to deal with it.