So it leads to this odd meta-commentary where it seems to imply that Free Market societies are pacifist. Which is... observably untrue? I'm not sure it was an intended expression of the mechanics, but it does add another data point to the "End of History" 90's-ness of the game.

This makes a lot of sense on it's face as a critique of capitalism, but the upshot in-game is that it's hard in particular to run a Free Market when at war, since that -5 Police imposes a "pacifism" malus that penalizes you drastically if you have any military units stationed outside your territory.

Also, citizens rendered suddenly poor by the actions of unscrupulous moguls may revolt against their
energy-fattened masters. +2 Economy, -3 Planet, -5 Police

Free Market. Free market economics turns market forces loose in your society. Unfettered market economics can produce great wealth quickly, but in the context of Planet’s fragile emerging economies can also lead to extremes of pollution and ecological damage.

One interesting quirk of the game comes from how it handles the "Social Engineering" choices, in particular the "Free Market" choice:

It occurred to me that one of the strengths over other Civ games is that the setting makes it a lot easier to roleplay. Civ always tends to feel very game-y to me, but SMAC feels more like a story simulator in the way a Paradox game usually does.

I think most of the target audience tried it once and then went back to DnD.

She's still preoccupied /
With twenty four-teen

" you're no better than f Scott Fitzgerald"

You say that like it's a bad thing

Kim Kitsuragi was clearly written to appeal to straight cis white women, so true bestie.

It sucks so bad, man.

Politics, mostly

Omar El Akkad never misses

Red Scare is the exception that proves the rule 🤣