It just doesn't come up for me much - I came from 8/pol, so I've seen most of the ideas explored. From there, I started focusing on culture, rather than race or religion. I always assumed that behavior (which largely comes from culture) was the real meat of the issue, anyway.
I know what you mean, though - I catch it with other users occasionally. As much as I'd like a free speech forum, this can't be it. They're very hard to make publicly accessible. Feds/JIDF are a serious threat. I saw how they handled 9chan; they just posted a ridiculous threat towards jews on the politics board and reported it, conspicuously gaining the attention of groups strong enough to take the site down within the hour. Null, being a big retard, decided it was legit and he didn't want to defend it.
So I'll eat the occasional unwarranted deletion in exchange for having a place to talk at all. Dom and Ant don't hold the same position, but it's easy for me to agree with them that a certain degree of anti-jewish sentiment is dangerous. When it's a known and proven strategy, I have to concede that it's dangerous.
most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard
Weren't there other trade metals? Was there an established conversion rate between gold and silver, for instance? I'm thinking of a situation where a merchant only accepts gold, even though silver has value as currency as well.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism.
I'd take whichever road led to solving the problem I have with people being unable to found their own society. The systems you describe sound like a possible route for the US to peacefully convert to, but while I might be happy in that society, I think others that are unhappy with it should have the option to go make a little nation off to the side somewhere. How to convince an existing nation to give up some of their land for this purpose? It could also be a source of experimental data to prove what systems can work and what cannot (as if governing bodies actually care).
Ancap seems like more of a disaster scenario. It should be a temporary system that occurs due to extreme instability. So while it would permit my goal, it's just temporary.
I'm wasn't arguing against the existence of legal/procedural systems so much as I'm aware that the whole "worker's comp" thing we have is an embarassment. Whatever the fuck went wrong with all that, I want that to not happen more. One of the examples of it I've seen (boomer extended family with nerve damage) made it seem like you basically sign away your medical autonomy in exchange for having procedures paid for that don't help you. They actually hit upon a device that cured it during the process and then took it away because they wanted to do something else. Definitely something wrong with the incentive structure in there somewhere.
Depression, anxiety, probably ADHD and OCD
Hm. You aren't on psychiatric medications, are you? 99% of the time, this stuff comes from problems you can fix without drugs.
Drugs will also hinder your ability to be self-reliant. Tying into self-reliance is confidence, which I'd wager you could use some more of.
plus abuse and a fairly horrific childhood and adolescence
Here, see, this could be causing all of it. I strongly advise you to talk to someone about it. Not here; not a public place. I had a poor youth, and spent half my life dealing with it. You have to learn some particular things to cope with trauma, and be willing to discard other ideas that block your path. I think it's too much of a burden for a man to bear on his own.
Finding someone trustworthy to open up to is a whole other matter. You say you're in college, right? Most colleges I've checked in on have some form of free counseling - usually operated by psych majors. A good friend is better, but most people don't seem to have friends that good. If they try to put you on drugs, just walk out.
Edit: Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention something important. I'm not sure how the system differs in your country, but I generally advise against telling the truth when a therapist asks if you have thoughts about harming yourself or others. You probably know how much of a hassle it is to be a failed suicider - you'll be made to jump through some hoops, like you're a fuckin' criminal. Best to just lie about that stuff if it's a therapist. Keep them on topic, you're there for you not for them.
Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
You could be offering a cent too little for the apple because you're prepared to perform some small task in addition, like providing your own bag or maybe you'll just do a little dance to please them. Ultimately, the merchant should reserve the right to refuse to negotiate; to even hear your offers. That's because it could be a mistake to refuse it and mistakes must be permitted.
If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.
I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.
How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?
I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.
I could argue allowing it with libertarianism, but entirely based off of how I view contracts. In my eyes, a contract is inherently null and void if it cannot be negotiated. Allow negotiation, though, and it should be technically okay to make some insane agreements (assuming you have enough escape from red tape for competition to arise). So it would be with consent from the concerned party.
Does that make sense? Not sure I'm presenting the idea well. It just seems really simple to me, that no agreement is really an agreement if only one side can set terms. I'd sooner call it coercion, or dictation. Those digital EULA things got me thinking about it, how it's nonsense to even expect a person to read the thing when it's impossible to negotiate the contents.
I don't expect employment contracts to be truly negotiable in modern society, so I have no problem with this ban.
I think it shouldn't be forgotten that part of his legacy was that rulings from the DM overrule any and all written rules. What this means is that everything written in the rulebook doesn't mean shit, you do what works best for your group. Subtext that people who play RAW (rules as written) are subhuman.
Regardless, I don't think it's bad to disconnect the person from the accomplishment. Dnd itself really isn't that important outside of being a stepping stone for the growth of gaming.
To address your OP:
I never read any of Gygax's direct lore/worldbuilding stuff, but even the books I read from 3/3.5e maintained that evil monsters were evil for cultural reasons. You can't expect a rational culture to develop from a monster with inhuman abilities like trolls or expect palatable morality from the slave-like kobolds. So I keep hearing about these ridiculous changes to modern dnd and being blown away by the worldbuilding implications and fanatic naivete it all reveals.
Beasts and Oozes, that are incapable of moral discernment
I like this part, they're creeping towards some dangerous wrongthink here. But it's same old same old for nu-dnd, we could highlight and banter about quotes from this article for hours.
All good. It's interesting that there could be any such cases. It drastically alters the incentive structures behind the organ donor system if there are situations where new hosts get no choice in having their donated organs taken back.
Just curious, do you know if they got the heart back afterwards? Specifically, does the hospital claim ownership of donated organs even after implantation? Or does the new host need to apply for donor status?
it relies upon actually being self-reliant instead of a leech
Tell me more. This isn't just because of the geographical frustrations, right? Do they have some anti-welfare policies or something?
I'd hope they have the sense to lie about this when the deadline comes. Publicly announcing the termination of hundreds of thousands of military men sounds a certain way to foreign powers that might not like us.
Is that the only issue you'd have? What if you could somehow guarantee that a father exists, at least at the time of insemination?
What he said made me think of a question for you: what do you think of sperm banks? It's a way that you could have genetic descendants without needing to directly deal with a female. I think they generally aren't allowed to get your identifiable data to hunt you down afterwards.
Just unsure of your stance with birthing when it's so indirect. Like, do you think men would be better off if all breeding used such an intermediary to prevent some of the legal woes of traditional relationships?
Lemme tell you, the selection of new local co-op vidya has become small. It's astonishing, considering just how many games are designed for multiplayer.
The expectation now seems to be that you pay the multiplayer rent (gold subscription on consoles), then you get a headset to chat with your long distance gaming buddies while you play. This process typically increases money spent by consumers, as the cost goes up by at least 1 system per player and 1 copy of the game per player.
The reality for children (from my experience with relatives) seems to be that they don't actually play any games, they watch streamers play games. Hard for me to say if they were neglecting real life friends for this, though.
If you don't want [snip]; then embrace Racialism
Did you leave out a negative or put in one too many? I think this is the opposite of what you meant.
Big ups.
Is this some kind of modern slang? What does it mean? Reference to upvoting?
You could try to pursue a different vocation, like some form of work-from-home. I don't know what your expenses are living with your mom. Be prepared for her to gradually turn the screws on you after she realizes you aren't going to give in.
You largely sound like you have some sound strategies to pursue. I recommend still engaging your friends to negotiate some form of cooperation.
I see...it's hard to hear any reports from China, so I just go off their media.
Surely no one actually is striving to copy China? I would expect globalists/multiculturalists to love the idea of a non-culture, but I would also assume they're smart enough to not recreate some of China's spectacular disasters. The globalist non-culture doesn't play nice with organic cultures, so the organic cultures need to be stamped out because some powerful buffoons think people are miserable when they can't expect the same lifestyle in every society.
Hm, I was hoping to be able to provide some recommendation, but there are few "light" games I have memorized that aren't also mainstream enough that you've surely heard of them already.
It's kinda funny, you've got basically the opposite problem as I do: I get restless playing a game I understand, so I'm constantly looking for new gameplay systems and leaving games unfinished.
moral foundations of a country
How much does this apply to China? Not meme-ing, I just don't see much of evidence of them having any culture left, and question the value of national morality without a culture to exercise it.
skill-less grind-fests
Not to criticize your pastimes, but have you tried the genre of RPGs? 80% of them are skill-less grind-fests, but at least have passable writing half the time. Should be simple to emulate no matter how rusty of a toaster you run. Specifically, the Disgaea series comes to mind for being a shocking grind.
If it's a facade of action you need, the Tale of ___ series would fit. If you want more action, then the genre of Action RPGs has a lot of neat stuff in it (scattered over many consoles and years).
Mostly curious how you'd end up on Genshin being the only game you play.
Admittedly it is a bit pedantic, but I was thinking more along the lines of how it might accidentally disincentivize the behavior you desire. But it's largely speculation on my part, because I am not irl buddies with any such person and so I don't fully understand how to motivate them.
I do agree with your general stance here, there is a surplus of talkers and those talkers can make people too comfortable to take action (because action is uncomfortable). This stuff would be a lot simpler if feds weren't paid a salary to muck up things and seed paranoia.
I've also become wary of posts like "you won't do anything" and "do something", because the vagueness reeks to me. In my mind, a man under pressure should receive some guidance more useful than that, especially since a lot of us are basically strangers and don't know how stable the other person is.
I have been tempted to threaten to shoot her to get her to back down would it work to make her see reason?
You're..suggesting that a threat of violence might be effective coercion? If so, please stop doing that.
I'm going to make a big guess that they may have reacted with hostility because some people NEED to hold what beliefs they do about determinism/fate, because shaking that foundation would destroy their minds.
Be open to motives, having everyone on a smart phone makes some people a lot of money and gives others a burst of power. It's not necessary for covid to be involved.
I've never gone to smart phone. I have noticed that covid got used as an excuse for some things (like making menus in restaurants be qr codes glued to the table), but I believe it's just an excuse and that those things were coming regardless.
It's no problem for me to eat somewhere else if a restaurant refuses to show me a physical menu. If they all do it, I can cook my own food.
If a person is posting then they're not doing.
As we speak right now I'm preparing
Is this not a contradiction, in your view?
I don't think I was being an absolutist, there was an initial statement about how 1% of the time a person really does need the drugs.
I've gone through the wringer on psych drugs, so I don't have a lot of faith in the system. I tended to get effects like brain fog, emotional numbness, and confusion - even with SSRIs. But the upside is usually stability; the pills will calm you down enough to take a step back and re-evaluate your life. Once that is done, the pills shouldn't be needed anymore (if everything goes to shit when the pills stop, you're probably in that 1%).
Bamboozler strikes me as a young guy, so I'm not confident he fully grasps the benefit and necessity of occasionally saying no when he's offered drugs. I'm advocating for him to build a relationship of trust first, anyway; he sounds lonely and it doesn't sound like he has a useful support group in his life. I'm wagering that he'll see more out of that than the direct effect of proper therapy.
What psychiatrists seem to neglect telling patients is that they should stop taking the pills if their condition worsens. They also don't make it clear that psychiatry is not an exact science.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I've had enough exposure to various forms of therapy to know most of it's not exactly what's advertised. But over the years, I realized that I felt better simply from talking about my problems and having anyone listen. I was basically renting a friend because my own friends didn't care to listen to my problems. Even if it sounds pathetic, I think it isn't a rare situation, so I'm taking the leap and pointing people to that because it's a lot more attainable and understandable than wishing some guy is gonna have the perfect thing to say to you that makes everything click.
And god help anyone that ends up with an "alternative" therapist, I ask every new therapist I get what their specialty is ever since I had a fucking dance therapist assigned to me.