Interesting, thanks for the news. Let's see how it plays out.
That's a fair assessment. The destruction/weakening or religion was a sort of gleeful pursuit for a while. Most participants may have truly meant well.
It reminds me of some of the summaries I've read of Nietzsche's work. From what I understand, he tried to address how a man (if not society altogether) could move on in life after religion is no longer an option. I'm a little embarassed that I have yet to actually read the related work, because I keep finding opportunities to use it in discussion here.
And yeah, totally agree on leadership. Would make things so much smoother. But I think about it sometimes and wonder what it'd take for us to accept some dude as a leader - not so much that he may lack qualities, as that we're all perhaps very jaded about opportunists, scammers, and controlled opposition. Would a new leader need to overcome that himself, or would the leader actually require that we're ready to accept him? I'd hope for the former, and that excludes me from the running because it's far beyond my ability.
I can't really refute that, but I wanted to share the shorthand I started using: that such people that have no capacity for self-improvement or a desire to question the world aren't really on the level of "human", they are merely "people".
I have already conceded that many people desire the authority and guidance present in religion. Others simply don't give a damn about anything greater than the present moment. I'm not convinced they're all hopeless, but I do try to rearrange my expectations in understanding the difference.
The two texts and their perspectives are fundamentally incompatible.
That's sort of what I'm getting at. There's an obvious schism between old testament and new testament. That's a terrible decision for established dogmatic texts. There should be a more unified vision.
Relatedly, it's been my view that the most successful way to read this mishmash bible is to rely heavily on personal interpretation. But this gets into other matters, like whether a religion should be taking the place of philosophical learning, or what the true purpose of a religious text should be.
Single player Ark on console. What I'm really engaged in is a metaphysical battle of wills against the developers - the stakes are simple: if I win, I gain fun, but if I lose, then I don't have fun.
The game is shitty (unfortunate pun), yet I keep playing it. The devs -do not- want me to play their game the way I want to, so I have to do my best to navigate their bad designs and nerfs. Every time I'm forced to use console commands, it's a small loss on my part, unless I'm cheating to circumvent an unfixed bug or broken geometry.
I think the appeal to me is the potential of their game. This potential will be forever unrealized by the devs, going by their sense of balance, priorities, monetization, and communication. But I can see it, even if they cannot. Their primary mistake was making the game revolve around pvp and multiplayer; this prevented them from looking more deeply into the experience of play.
From playing local co-op Ark on console, I finally understand what my programming teacher was trying to tell me about the importance of multithreading. The input of player1 should never affect the menu actions of player2.
Modern Christianity has created generations of weak men who turn the other cheek.
Kinda makes me wish I'd paid more attention in sunday school, because I swear there's gotta be some misunderstanding with this "turn the other cheek" business. The trope it's turned into doesn't match the other messages I've heard, so there must be some missing context.
Yet, I agree completely; this trope has been effectively made a reality thanks to weak men aplenty. The strong and righteous still exist, but they have little reason to announce themselves.
Sure. TERFS aren't worth inviting to the clubhouse. But "TERFS" are, because, like us, some people get labels dropped on them for the purpose of smear campaigns and behavior-correcting abuse. If someone called you a TERF, I'm not gonna take that at face value.
Labels are super useful communicative tools, but they can be wielded against us. We'd think twice before allying with someone labeled "sjw", though we'd hopefully look into the matter for proof before settling to conviction. Similarly, any other label we come to rely on will not have respect given to its linguistic merit because our enemies do not respect language outside of being an effective weapon to impose their wills.
This is what republicanism is for.
Why not democracy? Have a democratic voting procedure for every bit of legislation; give towns the opportunity to self-destruct. I don't think media's too big of a danger against it, people that really care will know to do more research than checking the news broadcast - people that don't care will make bad decisions regardless of being manipulated.
In fact, I think the bad decisions getting passed could be a great motivator for everyone to stop fucking around and get serious about legislation. As it stands, no one really has to take responsibility, they can blame the implementation/interpretation of their elected (and unelected) officials.
make them perpetually compete against each other
How is this possible for a government system? I know how it'd work in normal free market business (remove red tape to allow competition to arise), but I don't think that would apply for a government.
I feel pretty smug about my phone being dumb every time I hear this sort of news. When I'm eventually forced to get a smart phone, I'll just get a landline phone instead and go back to carrying a watch.
The best answer I can give is that they're trying to keep up conversation. It makes sense from the interpretation that conversation is about constant reciprocation. That it bothers you is rational because they're indicating that they didn't understand why you made the reference.
Here's an autistic rebuttal, though: what are you hoping to gain by making a reference? I get a lot of awkward situations due to other people trying to make references, and the only motives I can discern are either manipulation or simplicity. So making references "grinds my gears".
Are there at least three acceptable responses to being confronted with a reference? One is laughing, that's accepted. Second is to carry the reference with another reference to the same scene/character/media. But what's a third acceptable response?
Can you give an estimate to when this started being the case? I am not in touch with modern media content.
do you really need permission from internet strangers to do something
In their defense, moderator tyranny is pretty common on larger subreddits, so it'd make sense if they started intuitively defending themselves in that way because they were so unsure if they'd be struck down next. Though this is generous, I know what you mean and it's not like this most of the time.
That's a good point. Do you have any ideas for what a sign of potential redemption would look like from them?
If you were around for the whole 'talks' things, that was when people (at least vocal ones) were most angry, for the least cause by the way.
I was just lurking back then, but I was around. My final interpretation of the event was that you did every single thing you could to negotiate in good faith. I found it overkill...but afterwards, you were left without any real room for fault on that front because you went so far in trying to make it work; no one could say "well, if he'd only done ___ or avoided ___, then maybe a different result could have been achieved." Could be coincidental, but I think it ended up fine.
I don't think you needed to go such lengths simply because they were being bitches and you weren't.
I'm actually surprised at how little people protest against much more far-reaching stuff like taking the place private. And most people regard it as undesirable, it seems to me, unlike you.
I wonder about that first part myself. Could be as simple as people liking a boost to the 'secret club' aspect.
My personal defense of my position for keeping it private is how it went last time (and I am prepared to change this position if it proves false this time). There was a decrease in useless comments and an increase in useful comments. I can't explain why that would occur, but I didn't imagine it. I love seeing new and unique ideas, interpretations, and arguments, so I'll naturally support whatever gets me that.
Less selfishly, I've questioned you mildly about it in the past because staying public seems like it's just a big hassle for the mods. Dealing with the admins' crazy rules plus random attacks from counter-interest groups (and deranged individuals). It's honestly amazing the sub is still up, I wonder if it's due to being a low priority or just from people getting confused about us being kia2 while kia is totally different.
Here's hoping we get none of that bullshit going on here.
I do think TD bans 'wacism' and other wrongthink, so who knows?
I was actually keeping track of those social dynamics before we moved here, but then the tone of discourse started changing slowly on TD and that threw me for a loop because I couldn't understand it. It's kind of like birdwatching, in a way, seeing one type of poster get booted from a place and then finding a similar one pop up in a nearby site shortly after.
I'll give you a hint, if you don't follow E-news much. Voat shut down a about 2 months ago, leaving many /pol/ types without a place to talk. Surprisingly, I haven't noticed more than a few of them pop up here, so maybe there was a true scatter reaction. Perhaps they're just lurking.
The book sounds interesting, but perhaps more useful for engaging with "normies".
I'd sum this stuff up with: In a system where the strong are obligated to support the weak at their own expense, it is natural for observant new members to seek entry to the class of weakness.
This might sound like a strange argument, but aren't the ones that try and fail to kill themselves potentially salvageable humans? They attempt suicide due to regret, right? Having regret should mean that they're capable of introspection, and I'm fairly positive that our primary enemies cannot introspect.
I'd like to see some case studies for this, but I doubt there will be any for some years (if at all).
Make no mistake that any place that allows free speech attracts a good contingent of people who have an obsession with this particular ethnic group, and frankly, they ruin any forum with their nonsense.
Yeah, I get that. I find it exhausting at times. But any that cross the threshold to adapt to their new community instead of letting obsession rule their habits should be welcomed. Certainly not as common as I'd like.
In fact, I'd argue that it's a distraction.
Agreed. It's like an unripened fruit picked up off the ground. I want to see that fruit get turned into a pie, at least.
Like, Impossible1 is a bro sometimes, but he's kind of our local warning sign about getting too caught up in that type of obsession. It's shocking and humorous at first, but then you say "Damn bro are you alright".
Some people have told me that I need to learn what this place is, or accused me of being a Chinese bot. So at the very least, we are attracting some people not from Reddit.
Pretty sure I've seen that tossed at you even on r/kia2. I appreciate the efforts you've put in even if I disagree with how you handle things.
As for the new blood, it's a toss-up. We're neighbors with thedonald and several other "wrong think" groups now, even if the distance grows from here. I don't think our little hole here is the only place they can go to say naughty things now, so that helps. We may have successfully reached some people that we couldn't have reached on reddit, so that's pretty good.
That's fair. I'm not gonna try to defend people I'm not on personal terms with, and it'd be ridiculous to try to impose my standards of communication on either side of a conflict.
Personally, I can get real loose with my expressions around my irl friends. And I know how it sounds if a bystander overhears. My excuse is that it's one part lazy group labeling and another part emotional release.
I dunno - I don't expect us all to be buddies here, but I hope to see us all work towards similar goals with very little infighting. Maybe that's naive of me.
As far as general optics go, I think we've been improving here with some minor fluctuations. We have an odd bunch, so anyone doing their part to lurk before posting should understand what we're really about...but I have been surprised at the occasional "normie" stumbling in here. So I can understand some concern there.
The npr article is a little sensationally crafted, but I got the name Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from it. I don't know enough history to parse the wikipedia page for them, but the language in some sections to excuse some of the bad stuff is extremely telling when there's no jargon to hide behind.
I imagine this FDIC is one of those groups where you either become a member or your business gets shuttered for breaking the law.
I'm struck by what their implicit function seems to be: to do whatever it takes to prevent "bank runs". They could do a lot of meddling under that banner.
Troubling. I thought maybe the federal reserve was a primary roadblock, but if there's one crutch organization there's probably several.
Socialism relies on this idea of experts spending your money for you because you can't be trusted to spend it properly yourself, that's why your money has to be spent. And yes, that means teaching the society to shut up, sit down, and trust the banks.
It gets me thinking about how an optimal reversal might function, but then I keep thinking about how kickstarter doesn't even function optimally. I feel like governance systems are gonna trend towards kickstarter packages; you get the choice of yes/no to invest in the package, with no choice over what that package contains. I can't go invest in a kickstarter project and offer a thousand dollar bonus if a specific design element or production member is changed. If a commercial service can't even handle informed individual investment to the degree that we replace corporatism with crowdfunding, what hope is there for government?
With 10k gold pieces you just buy the dungeon. The running median house price over the history of the US is about 100 gold ounces..
It's kind of ignoring the solution to the logistics problem (even if you were content with treating the dungeon as a vault, you'd need to secure it somehow after bypassing all its securities), but it's still an interesting answer. I don't know how land ownership works in dnd because the economy is so screwed up (partially logical because magic distorts normal values of labor, but also a lot of lazy handwaving and powercreep design). Even taking it by the historical reference of medieval europe, I wouldn't know the exact procedure, just that it might require nobility status and that you might be able to purchase such status.
Actually, that'd be a good plot twist, making a dungeon full of riches be some other adventurer's vault. Finding out after looting it when he's coming to either deal with intruders or take back his treasure.
You've got a right to be biased against whatever stormfags are, but I hope you're not intending to turn away an ally because of their biases. If you think they're turning away allies over their own bias, I guess it'd be fair, but I haven't noticed them do so.
A bank that is being closed would be staffed by tellers that are federal agents and you'd have no idea.
Do you have more information about this? It sounds extreme. Is there a particular government agency responsible for such actions?
The whole point here is that the Keynsian system explicitly rejects saving as a good thing. Think about that: the monetary system is designed to prevent you from saving money.
Yeah, that's the key point about Keynesian economics I picked up from those videos you sent me on reddit. It has some far-reaching consequences that I might not be grasping, but it's not hard to understand why it's fucked on its own.
It reminds me of some class struggle arguments. I try to stay away from them because they aren't convincing, but Keynesian economics really gives the impression that it's being used to oppress the lower class. The useful takeaway from the argument is that the system punishes people that rely on common sense; people that understand saving money slowly should let them buy a house outright. Another step further and you see that it's a system that punishes a lack of reliance on the system, which must have been very attractive for power-wielders to adopt.
Further, I could suggest that this state-encouraged abandonment of common sense may have played a part in our current social justice predicament. Too many people trying to go with the flow, too many people not trying to question the world they live in. Kind of a perfect setup for this kind of attack.
You can take out special savings accounts that promise greater than inflation interest rates at specific amounts of money in the bank. They can lend that shit out, and you get a cut of the profits.
Hm. I'd been using credit unions for a long time, but never really noticed. I just went to them because they were the only banks I could regularly find that wouldn't try to bull the bullshit with overdrafts on debit cards after me telling the bank specifically that I wanted my transactions declined if I was going over balance. I've been hearing them mentioned positively for months online now, possibly a good sign.
If I had 5 digits of cash to invest, I'd probably look at foreclosed real estate before something ethical like the credit union special account. Real estate is retardedly easy money with a little luck and a big downpayment. We deserve another crash - a person should not be able to flip a house for such a huge profit. I'm not engaging in it, but I would sooner than playing with the stock market.
Imagine if you had to mail gold coins everywhere!
I do, often, for worldbuilding exercises. My understanding is that a lot of our inventions are born out of laziness - you make a tool for a job so now the job is easier and faster forever. In a way, it explains modern man's worship of convenience above all else lost; it's just a slight distortion of being motivated by laziness. If you went back in time to sell gameboys or calculators, you'd probably get a lot of excited buyers (the plot thread of getting chased out by the church is boring), but I'd honestly expect a decent percentage of the populace would refuse because they enjoyed their simple lifestyles. I could not expect the same of our current time being sold toys/tech from the future.
So I start with a setting that hasn't reached the modernization that sickens me, and try to find what developments/inventions are actually necessary and what could have alternate solutions. I can be obsessive about trying to understand things, so it's a convenient outlet.
But yeah, simple logistics problems that a dnd player might be confronted with: your 10k gold pieces weighs more than a horse can carry, how do you get it out of the dungeon? Despite the existence of supernatural stuff in most of these fictional worlds, I've found a lot of accurate reflections.
Now, I'm not saying we end banking (because what you just suggested kills banking), but it would be more proper to talk about making sure people gave consent to having their money lended out.
Well now I have to ask, what's the actual benefit of banking? From what I can parse from old media, a lot of the promise was that it's risky to secure your own wealth so you let the bank secure your wealth for you (for a fee, I guess, no details ever in these old things). That can't be all there is to it. Is it a natural extension of hiring mercenary guards for the transfer of physical wealth? Or is it more to do with the phasing out of physical wealth in exchange for receipts and the convenience of fast, remote transferral?
Somewhat ironically, I think interest could be used in fixing the non-consentual lending. Anyone who flips the "you may lend my money" switch for their account should get some interest on their deposit, if it isn't possible to get actual dividends like one of those broker things. But this is total nonsense as long as we have forced and planned inflation, because it's bordering on coercion for how we manage our savings.
Yes, informed consent is a big thing. I'm still struggling to imagine how it could be corrected, because I believe a lot of the obfuscation is directly tied to beaurocratic bloat.
I've been thinking recently, that even for the libertarian ideal, it's essential to maximise 'informed consent'. The ideal of the contract, I'd say, is founded upon maximal understanding of the terms/conditions by all concerned parties. If no one understands the terms, the contract is useless. If only one person understands the contract, it's likely a scam. If all but one person understands the contract, it's predatory.
Having a system set up to demand translators (lawyers) is a big warning sign. Needing professionals to translate jargon is the same.
The tipping point for me here was EULAs. What a load of shit these are. "By clicking agree, you agree to this 40 page document of fine print", with the subtext always being that you may not use the product without clicking agree. We could do without this, at the least. It should not be possible to sign away your rights without understanding that you're doing so AND it should not be a respected contract when you're effectively coerced into it.
Legend of Mana is getting an "HD remaster". Backgrounds and certain UI elements have new art, but everything else still uses the old sprites.
Excitement, but also despair.
Was one of my top 20 favorite rpgs. I do not feel confident that the aspects I loved will remain. That they are leaving sprites alone, but altering backdrops means they're ditching the fmv backgrounds that work perfectly well and should have never stopped getting used - worse, I have this nagging suspicion that they'll start using visual direction similar to that nasty pile Octopath Traveler.
Being an rpg, a lot rides on the text, too. We all know what to expect when things are localized for clown world.
Ahh, this gets my imagination going. What a big event it would be if aliens showed up, or we gene splice some super beings. It may sound a little sarcastic, but such things would blow the door off the hinges and really shake our foundations.
With our present course, perhaps an AI superlord? Not really the same impact, though.