This is exactly why it needs to happen. Easy memetic victory.

I question the real effect of this, but mostly because I wouldn't know how to make it effective while being immune to the reports of leftist infiltrators. You knew well enough to avoid discord, at least.

I'm a lot more interested in using any successful motion of this as a guide for use in other games (I'm not playing the new Halo, but I'd like to be of service in other games).

Best angle I can think of for me right now is if I started playing Warframe again on ps4 and started recruiting for my clan. But then I'd be using the ingame chat/social functions, and I would have little defense against the reports of infiltrators. (I'm also reluctant to start playing that time sink again) I also know I'm not really suited to running such a thing, as I'd implement rules like making groveling and appeals to authority bannable offenses.

I'd be interested to hear more about it. I dare not try reading that stuff myself. Something about how shallow and senseless it all sounds makes it more mysterious.

We have to do away with this notion that college, not experience, is what really matters.

I would highly recommend a test of ability/skill rather than relying on claims of experience. Years of experience might just mean you rode the clock and collected paychecks (you could call those references, but can you trust what they say?). You can't really fake a practical test. Might even save everyone a lot of time and money.

running an animal brothel

Fuck...any further details on this? This is one of those things I've always thought someone would try in a place where bestiality is legal, but assumed no one actually had the drive to follow through.

I've considered a non-sexual variant. Some people just want to go play with some cool dogs for a few hours without the responsibility of ownership. Probably not enough people to justify costs, so I don't pursue it.

If you're in aus-land, I can't rightly dissuade you from that. Just don't forget to make plans for handling the power vacuum.

Is there any single principle that could prevent that, though? I think vigilance and gatekeeping may be the only means of prevention there, and they still aren't guarantees.

Do you mean libertarian like the american "libertarian party"? I've always thought the non-aggression principle was more of a vow to not use violence except when confronted with violence rather than a promise to be a reliable victim.

Anyone unwilling to prepare for bad actors is doomed, regardless of the flags they wave.

I'm unfamiliar with the semantics of nation and state, apparently.

To approach from another angle, the state believes that it is legitimate even when it is not. This ideally shouldn't become an issue, but a rift between state and citizen should ideally never occur to such a degree as we hear about in aus-land.

So when I imply that the state should not be granted a monopoly on violence, I'm suggesting that it is not legitimate or worthy of authority.

Though I'm not really comfortable with this definition. What would you call a governing structure that does not hold a monopoly on violence? One where they merely hold most of the violence resources without trying to suppress the ability for violence to exist outside of their grasp.

Or we make a kia3

Go ahead, man. Make a thread here for it when it's ready. Then I can see who "we" is.

Why can the police openly plan and use violence, but we get removed for even suggesting a response to the brutality?

The state believes it deserves to hold a monopoly on violence. This alone explains many things.

I have not read the book, so it may be addressed within it, but couldn't it be as simple as needing an enemy? Having a common enemy is a great unifying force. I think that society would only have a serious us/them problem if they manage to run out of space enemies. The lack of opportunity for military men to risk their lives fighting would also diminish the value of citizenship, causing standards to slacken.

As far as our real life troubles, I'm comfortable saying we do not have an enemy to unify us. There are many "attempts" at creating an enemy, but they're all weak and ultimately result in us becoming even less unified. Add to this the problem of modern society largely being low-trust, and you get a lot of your citizens eager to attack their neighbors.

I wasn't really expecting such a response. I was just playing around so I could learn. It took hours for me to read all of the replies, so I can't respond to individual points. I'll give a broader, more meta response.

You do have some form of logical consistency. I can understand about 70% of the things you say in this strict syntax style - the rest is either out of my grasp or I can intuit since I'm a low-wit and rely on my intuition to understand things. It makes me think that you have simple/normal messages but then run them through this translation to get your usual writing style. This brings me to ask: what is the goal of communication to you?

There was a a section you wrote that pointed out a strife/argument section. It made me think that you were interpreting the common purpose of communication to be arguments or attempts to persuade the other party. And you wouldn't exactly be wrong, as I see that enough. But if you're intending on taking some third option to escape that trite win/loss setup, I don't know why you wouldn't go the way I did: trying to understand how the other person thinks (no one tells you directly how they think; it is always a puzzle and they react with hostility if they figure out what you're doing).

To me, the goal of communication is to gain understanding. If I determine that there's nothing I can learn by engaging, then I do not engage. It is a very rare case for me to try to change someone's opinion, no matter how retarded I may find their view. Because I have no interest in changing minds, I am fine shifting my position and speech patterns; I avoid rigidity. You, however, appear to speak very rigidly. A casual reading would cause a bystander to think you haven't addressed anything you're responding to (this is the primary reason you're viewed as a bot) - I think I've figured it out, though I am not prepared to prove it. Even so, I struggle to understand why you take this stance when you must realize that it is not trivial to decipher the things you say.

I'll share one of my foundations: I assume everything is true and only allow my beliefs to solidify after I eliminate falsehoods by finding contradictions. I cannot explain how, but your if/then reasoning made me think of it. Maybe because I don't rank my ideas as true/false, but as "this is true enough to rely on here"/"this is not sufficiently reliable". Ideas are just tools to help me make decisions, and sometimes I gotta use a screwdriver like a hammer, and other times a saw is all I have available when opening a jar. Really, I get the feeling that we'd agree on a lot of things if not for this communicative impasse, based largely on how I'm intuiting your statements.

I typically play solo as well. I've got the ps4 version, so I can play local co-op, but the devs bungled it up pretty well so none of the bugs are ever getting patched, nor are any content upgrades coming to me.

Wish it were better known, I'd like to see a more reliable dev pursue such an upgrade of minecraft.

Weird question. Do people normally make an effort to level in that game? I just run around until I find a cool place to build a stronghold, then I go at it. Usually get tired of it after 3 (in-game) weeks and start looking for a city to conquer.

I generally don't even care about the level up perks that much. I refuse to eat/drink because hunger/thirst is a garbage mechanic, so I get all the perks to minimize deaths caused by my playstyle, followed by the stamina regen perk so I can create caverns without taking a break - after that, I just put in random stuff. Fighting directly is for chumps, you drop a spike and juke out that zombie or eat shit.

Today I will engage you philosophically.

Choice cannot understand this world if it chooses among the suggested choices of others.

I can overlook some of your minor writing errors, but you really need to watch for grammatical conflicts like this. You've basically asserted that Choice itself is capable of choosing; this makes choice into a causal loop that discards the actual origin. Since this specific error is isolated here, I am calling it a mistake. Only an agent of will can make a choice (I don't think this agent must necessarily have freedom).

Our other choice is ignorance to do that, and that caused parasites to suggest us words as meaning for nature, in exchange for our consent to believe them; while ignoring nature as the only source.

Ignorance is a quality of the absence of knowledge, not an absence of choice. One can have knowledge without having chosen anything, even if denying the gift of choice makes one an insect.

Parasites? A parasite takes for its own gain without granting a benefit to host in exchange. Why must your "parasite" here never be a symbiote? Perhaps the agent of will is lazy or suicidal for a moment and feels glad for suggestions...if you maintain that this subjective symbiote is an objective parasite, then I ask why an agent of will must be concerned with the objective? A life can only be borne of experience, and all experience is inherently subjective - so to focus on the objective is to focus on the unlivable, the void, the other.

In so many smoke signals you call out "Think freely! Think for yourself!" Riddles should be reserved for the times and ideas that are strongly resisted. Yes, we're all here, betraying this ideal of choice you hold aloft, but do you think us so feeble that we cannot stand simply because we seek out discourse and opinion and - dare I say - suggestion?

The only thing to despise and rebuke is if an agent of will surrenders their will, for there is no guarantee that they can retrieve it. In so doing, they may as well be called an agent of the void, but more often they may twist into the dreaded agent of the master (because they surrender their will to the will of another). ...I like to think none of us are doing that, but it is hard to say for sure.

I question the focus on nature as well. Nature is respectable, of course. Nature perserveres with its mystery forces throughout all hardship. Nature forged our gifts in its brutality yet embraces us in its apathy. But as agents of will, we have our own internal natures that grant us the power (the will) to lash out against the agents of the wilds and to shield us from the churning of the planet organ (the external, classical Nature). Our internal nature also permits us to bring ruin to ourselves, so even if you were speaking of internal nature, I would say to bear caution.

We never question why teaching a dog word based commands to follow is called domestication; while educating each other to consent to believe words suggested by others is called being civilized...

As a generality, I agree. But consider: there really are agents of will who -desire- to degrade themselves by surrendering to outside wills. It's a riddle of society and civilization. Should master/slave relations be abided? Should we throw both away as rubbish? Perhaps only the eager slave is detestable and the master acting out of pity or utility.

My personal angle is that there is a deeper corruption in the idea of society. That, despite being "social animals", we should treat such a compulsion with disdain in a flex of our muscular wills. But then maybe the inclination to "solve" such problems should be dismissed, as it is merely another aspect of our (internal) nature that seeks to bubble up through the cracks in our foundations and permeate our very wills.

I'll also reach into the esoteric and suggest that dogs don't actually respond to the stimuli of our words. We train them to respond to our wills. If your dog responds to "biscuit", it will likely respond the same to "discus" - this is taken as evidence that our stimuli-response systems are superior to a dog's, but then why would this dog respond to "solar flare" when I say it with the same intent and will as if I were saying "biscuit"? I posit that the will of command is like an arm reaching out and grasping towards the target, and that dogs only need training to learn the shape of human will (which must surely have a different shape than the will of a dog, as our internal natures differ). Similarly, our systems of training/education for society prime the agent of will to more readily surrender to suggestion; at this I think we would both sneer.

Try to resist viewing what you read as true or false information (aka reasoning about suggested information). Instead try to adapt to it by means of implication (if/then) and keep doing. Why?

I'll add another reason in order to make a point: because it is robust to have many strong tools.

The average agent of will be glad to attain robustness. It will enable their wills to act more efficiently, to engage at different angles. It amplifies the power of the will in application - and, being the power of will, it is truly a power to aspire towards.

I will not condemn the agent of will who chooses to live narrowly and sharply, as he may accomplish great feats. But even this agent of purpose (his will is narrow to achieve this purpose or dream at all costs) would do well to have a few backup tools. When I say tool, of course, I mean figurative internal tools by which the agent of will may procure, shape, transform, and enact impulses (for lack of a better term - I mean the base particle that fills our machine wills).

I get it. I think the primary cause of misunderstanding the aus gravity is just that we're all primed to hear stuff about the USA, since that seems to be a major culture war hub of the world (some say we export it to other nations). And I suppose a bunch of us may be americans.

I also understand something I think you said earlier, about how you doubted how bad things were at first. That's some kind of psychology thing I've forgotten the name of, but it isn't limited to geo-politics or culture wars. It can be a very bitter pill for a person to accept that something wrong is happening. A symptom of civility, perhaps; we're all ready to put on our social masks and go to training camp or the factory, then come home for beer and tv because that's what "happiness" is and we can tough out any compromise for that baited hook.

The older guys often chime in to remark that things have been getting bad much longer than each of us has noticed - then we all start doing history research and associated rabbit holes of education.

I wonder if the world is starting to notice aus-land? Or if people remain wrapped up in their own local problems (which is understandable to a degree).

Just keep doing the best you can, bro. Not much other advice I can give. Your efforts will compound within yourself to grant you strength within and without that will aid you in the trials to come (and if by some miracle, the trials never come, you can enjoy your strength in peace). If you can obtain allies, even better. We might give some good advice here, but remember we can't substitute a real friend that has your back.

In all likelihoods...I hope it is a bot, because it overheats my brain trying to put myself in a mindset necessary to make their comments. It's more fun to treat them like a person, anyway.

Actually, I heard that .win has some kind of system that suspends/bans you if you get too many downvotes, so maybe that's why they stopped posting for a few months? I can understand why they get constant downvotes.

It's weird stuff, but like a little breeze after some of the trolls we get. I am really eager to see a troll get caught in an argument with them.

Fair enough; we'll see how the voting goes.

I cannot confirm, but I'll say I believe it. I got special permission to live in a campus apartment (not a dorm) by myself for having some silly diagnostics from a campus therapist. So while the space was not reserved for retards, I was given special retard priviledges over the space. This was about 20 years ago, so I can believe things have progressed further in that direction.

All good, had to ask.

Since this is a type of fanfiction, I have to ask: does it really make an effort at tackling the subject? It's certainly evocative of some interesting philosophical matters, based on your summary. But if it's as you say, merely some drivel, wouldn't it be more to the point to present the argument directly (as you've basically done here)?

I'll go ahead and share my immediate thoughts (based on your summary). If possible, I could see a sort of utopia coming from this for everyone - but only if the people choosing life over simulation are free from the gentle tyranny of this AI. In such an altered scenario, you've basically made a gate to "heaven" and everyone who wants to give up will do so. Once all such people have surrendered, you would be left with a much different world that I think the remainders may be happier with.

Whole lot easier than finagling penal colonies and wasting resources on our present civil strifes.

Perhaps in one week? Personally, it takes me anywhere between 3-16 days to fully digest a book - no clue where other people stand on digestion. While I am not an actual participant this time, I'm offering speculation.

Also, by having a "wrap-up" thread, you could invite people who are familiar with the book that did not feel like rereading it. Those people would then be able to share their thoughts without worrying about spoilers. Granted, they could just do that in this thread, but this thread is specifically for the final chapters.

Haha, I deserve this.

I can't really follow the thought process, though. I understand the words and phrases, but the arranged ideas aren't making sense.

Let me go out on a limb and say that I am not seriously diagnosing you with autism, it's just lazy shorthand that means you're not well-integrated into expected norms.

Okay, I read the above linked article a little more closely and you seem to be right. My fault for skimming, I suppose. That's unfortunate, but at least it gets used derisively (I'll actually ask one of my friends if and how it gets used by his young coworkers).

I'm not familiar with McWhorter, but his field of study looks appropriate on wikipedia. I assume he is not quite the essential reading as Sowell is, though. I have more fun engaging strangers directly about language use, so I generally don't research the field deeply.