I'm sorry to bring the burden of meta analysis, but I actually wondered about it after reading your OP purely because of the purity spiral angle. Purity spirals are used to tear communities apart. Openly suggesting that there are feds in our midst puts me on guard - even though I agree with you! Psyops is a murky field that breeds paranoia and cynicism. Just wanted to let you know that angle of doubt.
Having said that, I think you're still being taken seriously for the most part. I do not read the entirety of your post history, but I see a lot of the exchanges that occur in your threads and you get a lot of great, sincere advice. Do not allow some bad advice to spoil that value, even if it spoils your mood.
I actually missed this autism a bit.
Yes, there is an element of cultural and societal degradation. I don't think there's a dispute on the existence of problems.
I imagine your preferred focus would be to address the source of the problems, but honestly I think that's a pipe dream if one can't muster the strength to resist and live according to what they know is right. So I suggest viewing the recommendation for real life connections and activities as a stepping stone to that.
I agree with you, and it's why I've personally become fond of this place. Sometimes I consider posting the old /pol/ counter intelligence guide, but then I decide it isn't necessary.
We may just be lucky to not be a target worth resources, but I'll take the luck for now if so.
I think we've gotten to the point where an effective platform for a political candidate is just "I will leave you alone."
Via taxation.
An example from my state. I'm told it's like this because "north carolina elected to not expand medicaid" (my social worker family member tells me). So if you're poor in NC and apply for medicaid, they reject you but you get the second prize of free vasectomies (while technically being enrolled in medicaid for numbers that look nice to outsiders that don't realize there's tiers). I assume it's because we give incentives here for having children so it's practically a second welfare system.
Beaurocratic stuff makes my head hurt, so I may have some details wrong, but this is my best current understanding. They at least try to make it discreet by not saying upfront what it is, but "family planning" is the tip-off.
Ah, but see there, your willingness to use violence to enact your liberties gives pause to others who might infringe upon you. You might also identify such a mindset in your fellows. So in all interactions a subtle measure of risk/reward plays out, and if the risk outweighs the reward, then your right is granted.
"Should I grant this stranger a measure of personal space even though I don't know him or know if he's ready to die for such a right he might not care about? Am I prepared to fight to the death over it? If I were to deny him this thing he hasn't asked for, what are the odds he might defend it with his life? How much do I value that space around his body?" Such thoughts are not beyond engagement, regardless of how extreme it all sounds to a civilized man. These are the things that make the foundations of civility - it's merely that today's civil man has forgotten the foundations laid by his forefathers.
Things would be simpler if we were all a little more barbaric. But I still aim for peace and comfort even if my blood must spill on the way.
I realized that was the intent behind the joke, but I'd still like to see it tested. My prediction is that people would mostly be confused in response.
When this part in particular is mentioned, it's too easily dismissed. If their wish was a faster death, their wish will be denied because euthanasia is highly forbidden. This immediately robs them of real power and suggests that the power of the make a wish foundation lies in some rank beyond dying children.
I keep forgetting to test this.
I'd never even really noticed moral relativists or moral idealists before. It seems like an alien argument to me, so I actually found the thread novel for bringing it to my attention.
I lean libertarian, so I don't really see any problem as long as the basic premise of not fucking with your fellows is held up - whether moral relativism or moral idealism.
What I gather from the context I collected in the thread is that moral relativism is used as an attack vector to degrade the stability of societies. In that use, sure, I'll roll with it and say "fuck those guys" because they're starting shit. I'm just not comfortable assuming the label carries that intent (especially when I'm not sure if the label applies to me).
I was actually thinking about it earlier today, so I'm prepared to research it a little. [an hour of navigating a semantic minefield later] I think the major pitfall here is that there are moral relativists saying "right/wrong depends on variables" (I can accept this) but then following it up with "so we should permit all behaviors within our society" (I can't accept societal suicide on a large scale because it will kill people who disagreed with the suicide, which makes it murder).
Finally, a little awkward, but since I'm studying Nietzsche right now, I may be claiming myself to be an immoralist once I can grasp how he's defining the term. I imagine such a proclamation would eject me from the relevant argument.
[meta: I really dislike the ability to chase users for downvoting. Normally I wouldn't flinch, but this thread's buried now so it's basically just you and me, so it looks like I'm downvoting you when I haven't even started thinking about the matter. I don't know, weird gripe I guess.]
Nobody values me yet I'm carrying my own team.
Didn't really need to read the rest to know what you said. I am not going to give you the psychological breakdown on needs, but I must press that the current state of your vocation is a primary factor in your current anguish.
I do not know the specifics of your work. Perhaps it is non-negotiable. If you need to stay in that line of work, look for a new place to do it, which means new people to work with/under.
If the thought of packing up and moving over this makes your chest begin to tighten, all the better. No one is gonna take care of you better than you will, which makes you responsible for understanding you. Identify what's important. You may need to make a hard decision to lift yourself out of this hole. And if the decision is terribly hard, you should rejoice, because it means seizing the reigns of your life. If you fear failure, consider the alternative of this slow asphyxiation.
You WILL feel better if you take control of your life. It is not supposed to be easy.
All the meme shit isn't gonna help, what good's a lump of silver gonna do if you feel like you can't go on? Were you pursuing things you value or pursuing what others value?
Haha, I'll keep the book in mind, but my backlog is becoming difficult to manage lately.
Not to open the philosophical can of worms for defining the soul, but I try to keep some optimism about npcs being able to evolve into humans. This evolution takes a lot of energy and circumstance, if not outright trauma. I would have trouble functioning around others if I didn't believe they had any chance at all. But the general sentiment I understand; it's a waste to try to engage the empty as if they were full - and even in trying to proactively encourage an evolution, it is a waste to try more than once.
I agree about high fantasy usually not being high from a different angle: metaphors. Most stories that utilize firearms don't bother to make the firearms represent anything, and unfortunately it is a ditto for magic. A proper high fantasy to me at least puts a little metaphor artistry in so when you have the big dudes in an epic wizard duel it has a meaning deeper than flashing lights and funny sounds. I hear about books that make such efforts often enough, but I wish I could see it in games more. I would be taken aback if I saw such an effort put towards firearms, I simply don't expect it and I imagine it would be harder to pull off.
Senko is a good example. Man, what a fantasy. Coming home after a long day of soul-crushing modern work to find someone is there for you, cares about you, strives to improve your life and mend your heart, etc. Very direct, even skips the standard isekai because it really would suffice most men to continue their bleak daily lives for just a few hours of warmth and honest affection. I hear the japs have a more negative view of male/female relations than us, and it clicks for me when I think about some of their popular stories.
Perhaps ironically, the tech could provide some small salvation even though I feel the appeal of luddite life more every year. AIs and machinery could make commodified waifus. I think it would be a motivator strong enough to get a lot of girls to shape up and make efforts, though at worst it might need some form of civil war like a fanfiction written by our Impossible1. Not much else to look forward to in tech, I don't think we'll be getting flying cars or teleporters.
While I don't speak to as many creators as I'd like, I think you're the first I've seen share this insight about one of the driving forces of fantasy. I developed the insight in pursuit of working on tabletop game design (exploration is a big driving force in men that gets neglected in modern times). I try to share it with others, but they don't seem to appreciate the gravity of it.
Things like fighting will always be an allure to the masses. Modern people are afraid of it so they dare not try it themselves. I should perhaps ask a soldier/mercenary how they feel about it in fiction... But anyway this specific logic I've applied for tremendous insight into many things.
My creator friends cater directly to one or more classes of degenerate, despite avoiding the blue pill themselves, so I try to engage them with group psychoanalysis concerning what the vermin truly desire and how it's visible in even the sloppiest of their trends.
Too many people thought that handholding-as-a-fetish was a meme, not seeing that it was a genuine symptom of desire from people starved of human connection.
Thanks for the information.
You've ended up making a good sales pitch for your book. No offense, though, but I'm feeling pretty burnt by the isekai/litrpg genres due to how abused they are in anime/manga. You at least are taking it more seriously and give a purpose for the isekai - that's hopeful to me.
You could probably make a promotional thread sometime, I think we're allowed to make those for self-promotion.
A follow-up question, since you publish with it: do you pay any mind to what kinds of people may be most likely subscribing to the service? Or do you - as my creator friends tell me is a healthy mindset - publish without spending effort trying to minmax corraling an audience that's predisposed towards what you provide?
I am no marketing whiz, but what you say about the service and related products would make me hesitant to hope for an audience hungry for non-propaganda. You might not be publishing for the sake of earning a living, but I'm sure you are happier having your writing read than ignored.
Some of the ideas behind the service sound great to me, at least. I hope other services pop up that can build it better. Would be interesting to see this apply to a streaming service - subscribers wouldn't necessarily fund shows they hate then.
The main problem I see with it is a lot of people assume you need a kindle (propitiatory device) when you can read the digital books on any medium. And I am pretty sure kindles show ads, but other platforms, or at least regular computers do not.
I fell into this category until now. I try to stick to physical books, so no biggie, but I like knowing how things work.
I found the information on this KU system intriguing. Can you share any details on how this business model is functional? I am wondering if the readers are exposed to ads while reading, or perhaps if it is a paid subscription service. For someone to be able to read a book for free but the author still gets paid, that sounds impossible.
There isn't much reason to resort to violence unless they're using a totalitarian form of moral relativism that demands participation from people who disagree. Maybe you were making an ironic proposition intentionally and it went over my head.
I'd love to witness that, but I'd hate to see what the feds would do to punish them.
Do not get too excited, we regularly have comments removed for breaking rules. It isn't too difficult to navigate...just keep in mind most of the rules are to protect us from the american legal system (which is not as free speech as it ought to be).
I share your optimism on the matter. Steam's leadership should be aware that they don't actually hold a monopoly, and any unhappy customers are not forced to take it on the chin.
Of course, I've been wrong before about this sort of thing. Gamergate and all that. Here's hoping that we don't have to see even more institutions become compromised.
This is an important question for the topic. If it is possible to implement bad-man lists like reddit allows, then you can end up with some epic shitflinging. Some retard could decide that everyone who played X game for more than 2 hours needs to blacklisted, which gets you banned from 100 hubs that subscribe to the blacklist, which then bans you from the platform.
I don't think having it in your constitution would have necessarily prevented this mess. Even in the US we get old farts applying creative interpretations to our constitution that suit their desires, or even occasionally violating it because they know how many years it will take before the justice system can correct a violation.
Like all written law, it's not written to protect the citizenry, it's written to protect the elites. Just, in the case of liberty, it's that not agreeing to back off and give us some freedom means we will perform very naughty actions that I may not legally describe on clearnet. The nature of liberty is steeped in violence, and aussie elites might get a unique chance to learn this if the citizenry discards the notion that it must be gifted from above. In other words: granting liberty in a formal document primarily serves as a boundary for politicians so they don't end up being violently overthrown by organic responses to tyranny.
I like the other reply a lot better, actually
Ditto. Also attempts to engage the other party rather than attack or disparage them.
That was my belief on the etymology as well.
Do you think it's been co-opted by sjw types? They love grabbing words and changing the meaning, which then spoils the normal use of the words. Of course, it depends on your company; if everyone in the room uses the first definition, the word effectively means that when you say it (as far as their understanding is concerned).
The present common definition I see for it basically means "blue pilled". Which is practically the opposite of what the origin seemed to have meant. I think part of the misunderstanding was organic since it may have been intended as a companion rather than a replacement for "red pilled" (theory seems backed up by your link that I skimmed), and nuance in slang can be difficult. The rest of it I'm ready to blame on co-opt efforts, but I'm interested if you have any personal insight for this.
Edit: My theory was off, as expressed further down in coversation chain. Leaving this post as is to evidence logical processing.