Post by: helmacon on February 21, 2017, 07:30:59 pm
1. If a discussion becomes hostile/offencive as determined by either party, the discussion is immediately dropped.
2. By posting in this thread, you understand that people might not agree with you. The thread is entirely based around this idea. You agree to keep discussion civil.
3. By reading past this post, you understand that there is a possibility you will find ideas you find disagreeable/offencive. You agree to keep discussion civil.
Hopefully people on this forum are good enough that they won't need any more guidelines than this, but more may be added if necessary. If things do get out of control, I won't hesitate to lock this thread. (to be honest, I'm a little hesitant about opening it in the first place)
[\]
Now that thats out of the way, this thread if for any ideas or topics you want to talk about that may stretch the boundaries of "polite conversation". This could be anything from "consumerism is a positive force" to "I actualy like Trump" to "Imperialism was good for the world". This is also for people to openly discuss the merit (or lack thereof) of these ideas in a civil and constructive way.
Hopefully the discussion on this thread will allow us to better understand why each of us believe what we believe, and better understand why other people believe as they do as well. Stay respectful and courteous, and have fun!
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 21, 2017, 07:31:51 pm
Post by: helmacon on February 21, 2017, 07:32:57 pm
When people defend the hijab as an expression of culture, it is the same as people defending the confederate flag as a cultural symbol and I disagree with both.
edit: whoops, loud whispers got in a post before me. lol.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 21, 2017, 07:49:44 pm
An amusing thought, is the idea that all ideas are controversial, controversial?
If there's something you want to say that would fall within the rules, but you're worried about saying it because it's unpopular, well, don't be. Your opinions are yours, right or wrong, and they should matter to you more than those of random people on here who you'll never meet. If you want to open up a thread saying 'I like Trump' (though that would likely serve better as a post in Ameripol...) or 'Imperialism was great' or 'The hijab is analagous to the confederate flag', do it, and ignore the slings and arrows.Aye, moreover you could easily make those example opinions on bay12 and people would argue with you in polite manner. With exception to tree puns, American elections and the gender helicopter arsenal, bay12 is proper tolerant of disagreements. It's where you'll find jolly cooperation between all peoples even when leaders are redrawing the new world order for a laff
Post by: helmacon on February 21, 2017, 08:06:38 pm
Seems a poor idea to me - we already have guidelines for what is allowed to be posted on the forum, and the makers of the more contentious threads (say, Ameripol, Europol, etc) do a good job staying within them without curtailing them significantly.
Basically, anything that anyone wanted to say but was unable to in other threads, probably wouldn't be permitted on the forum by Toady anyway.
If there's something you want to say that would fall within the rules, but you're worried about saying it because it's unpopular, well, don't be. Your opinions are yours, right or wrong, and they should matter to you more than those of random people on here who you'll never meet. If you want to open up a thread saying 'I like Trump' (though that would likely serve better as a post in Ameripol...) or 'Imperialism was great' or 'The hijab is analagous to the confederate flag', do it, and ignore the slings and arrows.
It's a fair point, but whereas the expression of ideas in those threads would be perfectly tolerated and perhaps discussed there alongside the other topics, this thread was created specifically for the discussion of disparate ideas. Think of this as an experiment in empathy and perspective.
While the action in this thread is the discussion of theses ideas, the purpose is to understand the basis for them. That is, to understand the way of thinking that creates the ideas, and the worldview of other groups that hold them.
Posting your own controversial ideas is not for your own benefit, but the benefit of others seeking to challenge thier own worldview. (thus, no post it elsewhere and suffer the slings and arrows)
Still, if enough people think this thread is unnecessary, I may shut the thread down anyways. It's just something I thought id try.
Quote
An amusing thought, is the idea that all ideas are controversial, controversial?To argue against it only adds to its validity.
**To clarify, The three examples I put in the OP are only that. Examples.
Post by: George_Chickens on February 21, 2017, 08:14:25 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 21, 2017, 08:18:59 pm
Post by: George_Chickens on February 21, 2017, 08:19:40 pm
Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skullsWe need Genghis Khan times a thousand, plus one.
Post by: Starver on February 21, 2017, 08:25:45 pm
Post by: helmacon on February 21, 2017, 08:29:24 pm
I see what you mean in terms of grouping them together and allowing people to challenge themselves. For me personally, it just seems a bit apropos to nothing. Like, I know my opinion about the Streamline dub of Laputa: Castle in the Sky being vastly superior to the Disney version is a very unpopular one, despite being indisputably objectively correct for all of time and infinity+1. But I can't see myself bringing it up unless we were already having a discussion elsewhere about dubbing or the film or something similar.
I am interested to see unpopular opinions what other people have, though, so I hope it goes well.
Well, thank you. I think the fact that we were able to start off with such a polite discussion of our disagreements bodes well for the stability of the thread.
This is getting silly rather quickly. Lets try to stay on topic please.
edit:
In general ignorance on the subject, what do people say Huey Long did wrong?
Post by: Helgoland on February 21, 2017, 08:51:44 pm
Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skullsWell, Russia has been acting up lately... But I think there's better ways of dealing with that than going full Hitler on them.
My controversial idea:
We should split up Germany into several interlinked states. The German psyche is ill-suited to a powerful and semi-hegemonic country, our neighbors in Europe fear our power, and we are not living up to the responsibilities that come with it. My proposed New Little Germanies are:
- The Old Republic: North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, Hessia, the Saarland, and maybe the southern part of Lower Saxony join together in the spirit of the pre-1989 Republic. Bonn becomes its capital, and learning French in school will be mandatory.
- The New Hanseatic League: Lower Saxony (at least the costal parts), Hamburg, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern join together in a rough approximation of the Hanseatic League of old. Hamburg becomes its capital.
- The New East: Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, Thuringia, and Berlin join together in a truncated version of the GDR. Berlin becomes its capital, and the Trabant is put back into production.
- Bavaria: The current Bavaria, with Munich still as its capital. Seehofer rules surpreme as its emperor, and the New East starts supplying weapons to Franconian rebels longing for independence. The régime is propped up by Austria. The UN looks on, powerless to stop the many atrocities, and slowly the conflict warps into a religious one, pitting Protestant rebels against Catholic loyalists. The rest of Germany takes it as the final indicator that it was a good idea to get rid of the fucking Bavarians.
Post by: misko27 on February 21, 2017, 09:00:44 pm
Seems a poor idea to me - we already have guidelines for what is allowed to be posted on the forum, and the makers of the more contentious threads (say, Ameripol, Europol, etc) do a good job staying within them without curtailing them significantly.So would you call the idea of this thread unpopular, or controversial?
My controversial idea:I say this should have been done after WW1. You know what Machiavelli would say: there's no point to humiliating someone you've defeated. You either leave them be or destroy them utterly. Anything else is a half-measure and will invite revenge-seekers.
We should split up Germany into several interlinked states. The German psyche is ill-suited to a powerful and semi-hegemonic country, our neighbors in Europe fear our power, and we are not living up to the responsibilities that come with it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 21, 2017, 09:03:29 pm
Well, Russia has been acting up lately... But I think there's better ways of dealing with that than going full Hitler on them.Nah, the Finngolian Empire would not stop at Russia
My controversial idea:Protestants and catholics but tfw no caliphate? I think you're neglecting the might of neo-umayyads in a Germania devoid of Charlemagnes. Likewise, it is preferable to fix the broken psyche than break the body to fit the unstable mind, for these broken states would naturally still be led by broken psyche. Also Hannover, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is rightful English clay
We should split up Germany into several interlinked states. The German psyche is ill-suited to a powerful and semi-hegemonic country, our neighbors in Europe fear our power, and we are not living up to the responsibilities that come with it. My proposed New Little Germanies are:
- The Old Republic: North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, Hessia, the Saarland, and maybe the southern part of Lower Saxony join together in the spirit of the pre-1989 Republic. Bonn becomes its capital, and learning French in school will be mandatory.
- The New Hanseatic League: Lower Saxony (at least the costal parts), Hamburg, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern join together in a rough approximation of the Hanseatic League of old. Hamburg becomes its capital.
- The New East: Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, Thuringia, and Berlin join together in a truncated version of the GDR. Berlin becomes its capital, and the Trabant is put back into production.
- Bavaria: The current Bavaria, with Munich still as its capital. Seehofer rules surpreme as its emperor, and the New East starts supplying weapons to Franconian rebels longing for independence. The régime is propped up by Austria. The UN looks on, powerless to stop the many atrocities, and slowly the conflict warps into a religious one, pitting Protestant rebels against Catholic loyalists. The rest of Germany takes it as the final indicator that it was a good idea to get rid of the fucking Bavarians.
Post by: Helgoland on February 21, 2017, 09:13:33 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on February 21, 2017, 10:07:08 pm
didn't Timur basically kill 5% of the entire worlds population at the time? i wonder what % Genghis killed.Genghis Khan was right and we need more mountains of skullsNo no no no. Timur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur). Though be wary if you try to dig up his corpse; it didn't go well the last time. He was exhumed the 19th of June, 1941 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa), and re-buried in the middle of November, 1942 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus). I'll quote the Wikipedia article here:QuoteIt is alleged that Timur's tomb was inscribed with the words, "When I rise from the dead, the world shall tremble." It is also said that when Gerasimov exhumed the body, an additional inscription inside the casket was found, which read, "Whomsoever opens my tomb shall unleash an invader more terrible than I."
Post by: Max™ on February 22, 2017, 01:03:28 am
Also, unpopular/controversial idea? A column of gas of any composition suspended above a surface in a gravity well will be warmer at the bottom, which isn't actually unpopular or controversial, but if you contend that the surface itself would also be warmer than it would be in the absence of said gas column? Now you've got a problem.
Post by: MaximumZero on February 22, 2017, 01:06:54 am
Post by: Max™ on February 22, 2017, 01:38:11 am
Post by: misko27 on February 22, 2017, 01:49:56 am
Post by: MaximumZero on February 22, 2017, 02:15:16 am
Here's an unpopular criticism and invective: why do people on the internet, when comparing genocides, treat human lives as if their sole value varies inversely to the degree that it is expendable?Monkeysphere. People don't value each other unless they actually know the other people in question. 7 billion anything is hard to wrap even the most intelligent mind around, and people are no exception.
Post by: misko27 on February 22, 2017, 02:53:07 am
Sure. But arguing Timur's deathcount is comparable to Genghis Khan's, purely because they killed a similar proportion of the world population, seems... I mean, when people quote Stalin's "A million is a statistic", it's not to recommend it as a way of viewing the world. Because that's exactly what this is. I mean yeah you need to get a grip on the numbers somehow, but ultimately the actual number of lives is more important than their relative value. And when we talk in terms of the "killing XYZ number of millions is 5% of the people who are alive", its easy to forget that "5%", "one-in-twenty" are all semantic games we play, and not what's actually important. 5% is just supposed to be a mental tool to mentally grab onto what matters, but when you start comparing Timur and Genghis Khan, and you hear "well they both killed 5% of people on earth" it's easy to start thinking "well I guess they did the same amount of damage" and "those two things were basically equivalent". Well no, the Mongols killed about 40 million more people than Timur. That's not comparable at all. Not in the slightest. That's every single person living in Poland, dead, and you're still 2 million short.Here's an unpopular criticism and invective: why do people on the internet, when comparing genocides, treat human lives as if their sole value varies inversely to the degree that it is expendable?Monkeysphere. People don't value each other unless they actually know the other people in question. 7 billion anything is hard to wrap even the most intelligent mind around, and people are no exception.
My point is it's one thing to use things like "oh this killed every x of y", but as soon as you start comparing proportions, you lose sight of the fact that the proportions do not have any meaning in-and-of-themselves. The proportions are like metaphors: means to an end, where that end is understanding something that is difficult to comprehend. Comparing the proportions is like confusing metaphors for reality; like if you describe a tense diplomatic situation as being like chess, but then start going into the minutiae of Chess rules and forgetting the reality. In short: It's missing the point.
Post by: Max™ on February 22, 2017, 03:18:26 am
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 04:03:55 am
Post by: Egan_BW on February 22, 2017, 04:17:48 am
Post by: Folly on February 22, 2017, 04:31:26 am
How about those age of consent laws? Huh? 8 year olds are totally up for it, don't believe what the government and media would have you believe.
The idea behind the laws is that children lack a comprehensive understanding of the world sufficient to compose an informed and reasoned decision, thus making any consent that they might grant invalid. In short, children don't know what's best for them, so grown-ups make the decisions for them. Of course it's typically their legal guardians who make those decisions, not the government. An exception was made in the case of sexual liaisons due to a determined propensity for progressive mental damage that can be incurred from sexual contact during formative years.
At least, that is the explanation commonly given. In reality, it's clear that children mature at vastly differing rates. Some are prepared to deal with life at ages much younger than the legal limit, and some are not prepared until much later. It would make more sense to have some sort of test for determining maturity, rather than a simple age limit. And indeed the current age limit has caused a lot of harm due to guys at parties having a quick fling with some jailbait and ending up being imprisoned for years and then being labeled a sexual predator for the rest of their lives.
The existing laws are imperfect, but the social bias against pedophilia is so strong that the likelihood of anything being done about it in our lifetimes is basically nil. c'est la vie.
Post by: MaximumZero on February 22, 2017, 04:34:17 am
Humans spent a lot of time as dumb animals while basically the same genetically as modern humans. Therefore maybe we should check out some of the other claver animals on the planet and try to bring them into civilization as-is, no genetic modification or anything required.
That would be what, various cephalopods and/or dolphins? I'm gonna hard pass on both of those.
Post by: Egan_BW on February 22, 2017, 04:37:03 am
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 04:43:07 am
Humans spent a lot of time as dumb animals while basically the same genetically as modern humans. Therefore maybe we should check out some of the other claver animals on the planet and try to bring them into civilization as-is, no genetic modification or anything required.
Well they're trying that. Lucy the chimp for example would greet people at the door then make a cup of tea. So chimps can actually grok basic food prepartion. But one of the problems is that chimps who've been taught to talk with sign language haven't tried to pass that on to other chimps, so we can reinforce learning but they don't seem to grok the cycle of teaher/student/teacher.
Dolphins however seem to have advanced language already. We're actively trying to crack that code. But the lack of hands on a dolphin is the problem getting them to bootstrap a dolphin civilization. Hands + speaking seems to be the key. Remember, the oldest known human tools are literally 2.6 million years old. We have in fact been playing this "tech" game much longer than previously thought. It's been integral to our entire evolution. In fact, they've now found even older stone tools dated 3.3 million years old, and that predates the entire Homo genus itself. They're no homo tools.
Post by: ein on February 22, 2017, 04:43:19 am
When people defend the hijab as an expression of culture, it is the same as people defending the confederate flag as a cultural symbol and I disagree with both.
the two honestly aren't even close to comparable. keep in mind too that hijab is not interchangeable with burqa or niqab†, which i think are what people generally think of those poor oppressed muslim women. similarly, there's a fundamental difference between a nation enforcing antiquated religious laws in order to oppress a populace, and someone consciously choosing to engage in their religion. there is zero practical difference between a hijab and a dastar, habit, kippah, or any other piece of religious clothing. arguing against one but not any other is plain and simple hypocrisy. more than anything else, it shows a complete and total lack of understanding of what islam is, complete with misogynistic undertones, when people single out hijabis. what this does, effectively, is push blame off of the corrupt governments that follow fundamentalist interpretations of religious laws
Spoiler: † (click to show/hide)
contributing my own opinion to the thread:
the olympics are fucking stupid and so heavily detached from the practical applications of the skills events are derived from that they feel more like a parody of human athletic capabilities than anything else. running is alright i guess, but then you've got shit like olympic fencing which is nothing like actual fencing, or the long jump, where competitors land on their fucking asses. like, what the fuck are you gonna do with that? who gives a shit how far you can jump if you're just gonna be lying on the floor afterwards
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 04:50:08 am
Also google "arab male headwear" and the traditional headwear covers almost as much as the hijab anyway:
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mab8f62a5cdd06af90a057fc932b2fa7do2&w=259&h=172&c=7&qlt=90&o=4&dpr=2&pid=1.7)
And we forget that almost everyone in the West once wore hats, male or female. If you lacked a hat you were considered pretty poor. Victorian girls bonnets are similar to the amount of coverage of a hijab.
Post by: ein on February 22, 2017, 04:50:56 am
Post by: Harry Baldman on February 22, 2017, 04:58:27 am
if you wear lederhosen you're a nazi, confirmed
Spoiler: Don't wear leather shorts, kids (click to show/hide)
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 06:30:25 am
Post by: ein on February 22, 2017, 06:36:41 am
Post by: Jopax on February 22, 2017, 06:43:38 am
Do you mean flavoured black/green tea or actual herb teas like mint, fennel and the like?
Because I agree on the former, at best they just smell really nice while tasting rather poorly- The latter tho is pretty damn great stuff, heck, proper mint tea is miles better than most other things.
Post by: Criptfeind on February 22, 2017, 06:52:57 am
the olympics are fucking stupid and so heavily detached from the practical applications of the skills events are derived from that they feel more like a parody of human athletic capabilities than anything else. running is alright i guess, but then you've got shit like olympic fencing which is nothing like actual fencing, or the long jump, where competitors land on their fucking asses. like, what the fuck are you gonna do with that? who gives a shit how far you can jump if you're just gonna be lying on the floor afterwards
I think sports are generally super arbitrary anyway. If you wanted a practical olympics it'd be like preparing your tax returns or making a healthy meal on a budget. Those are real practical life skills, but they'd be boring to watch people do. So I don't see an effective difference between normal fencing and olympic fencing or long jump onto your ass vs long jump onto your feet, none of them are really widely applicable to real life. They are just optimizing for different arbitrary results. So basically, eh, why not?
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 07:02:47 am
Post by: Criptfeind on February 22, 2017, 07:03:54 am
Edit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
Post by: Starver on February 22, 2017, 07:10:38 am
I think sports are generally super arbitrary anyway. If you wanted a practical olympics it'd be like preparing your tax returns or making a healthy meal on a budget. Those are real practical life skills, but they'd be boring to watch people do.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Summer_Olympics#Unofficial_sports
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_Summer_Olympics#Art_competitions
Post by: Criptfeind on February 22, 2017, 07:15:31 am
Post by: ein on February 22, 2017, 07:43:14 am
I think sports are generally super arbitrary anyway. If you wanted a practical olympics it'd be like preparing your tax returns or making a healthy meal on a budget. Those are real practical life skills, but they'd be boring to watch people do. So I don't see an effective difference between normal fencing and olympic fencing or long jump onto your ass vs long jump onto your feet, none of them are really widely applicable to real life. They are just optimizing for different arbitrary results. So basically, eh, why not?
for what it's worth, i've always enjoyed watching actual, proper swordsmanship. there's a lot more depth that goes into real fencing than any kind of sport fencing. even with something like kendo, which imo is leagues ahead of olympic fencing, it's still drastically oversimplified compared to actual sword techniques. at least with kendo, most techniques do carry over to actual fencing, it's just that you're restricted to a very limited number of targets and techniques. olympic fencing is about as detached from real fencing as you can get and still have your weapon somewhat resemble a sword
i'll concede on the long jump, but even then, watching people land on their ass is just as boring as watching people land on their feet, while the latter, tho not widely applicable, still has objective potential to be somewhat useful. something like olympic parkour would be a practical application of the skills that go into performing a long jump, while also being a million times more interesting to watch
Edit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
while i haven't really seen any hema sparring done with traditional armour as opposed to modern safety gear, i'm sure it's a thing some people do. people honestly underestimate the efficacy of medieval armour, especially against medieval armaments. between video games being video games and the ubiquity of morons performing weapon tests against completely ahistorical butted mail, there's a lot of misinformation out there about how effective armour actually is, especially mail, and to a lesser degree padded cloth armours
Post by: Starver on February 22, 2017, 08:19:56 am
I've kinda missed your point. Although your links are interesting enough further reading for people I'm not sure why you quoted me specifically, often a direct quote feels like it merits a response, and this one feels like it should at least, but since I don't know what you mean I'm not sure how to respond.It just seemed like a useful point to make that the Modern Olympics have strayed beyond mere demonstrations of faster/stronger musculature before...
Post by: Frumple on February 22, 2017, 08:32:50 am
i'll concede on the long jump, but even then, watching people land on their ass is just as boring as watching people land on their feet, while the latter, tho not widely applicable, still has objective potential to be somewhat useful. something like olympic parkour would be a practical application of the skills that go into performing a long jump, while also being a million times more interesting to watchWhile the last bit's true, even landing on your arse has objective potential to be useful. On the feet and moving moreso, but when it comes down to needing to cross a gap what matters first is getting across it, not landing gracefully.
Though saying that, I did just realize I'd be a lot more interested in watching a long jump competition specifically dedicated to what amounts to crash landing. Get as far as you can and to hell with how you land so long as not too much gets broken.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 08:34:24 am
I think the issue is then they kill themselves even more then they already do and push out anyone who's not willing to poison themselves. There's a sliding scale between entertainment and safety. And I don't think either extreme is correct.well, the idea is that if olympic competitors want to act as guinea pigs for the latest medical advances, might as well standarize and learn from it :p
Edit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
Post by: ein on February 22, 2017, 08:36:19 am
~
i suppose that is true. i also still feel like the long jump is one of the most boring events in the olympics and really anything you do to spice it up would be an improvement
imagine a stunt actor olympics, that would be rad
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 08:52:54 am
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 22, 2017, 09:04:07 am
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 09:19:59 am
Quote
Cognitive neuroscientists have shown that Pollock’s fractals induce the same stress-reduction in observers as computer-generated fractals and Nature's fractals.
While I'm not a fan myself, they have shown that there is some measurable subjective quality in Pollock's paintings not found in knock offs or derivatives.
And, as soon as he became famous for the "drip method", he abruptly stopped doing that and started experimenting on completely different styles, which negatively affected his popularity because collectors were hoping for "more of the same". So he wasn't a "hack" in that sense.
Post by: feelotraveller on February 22, 2017, 10:48:46 am
How about those age of consent laws? Huh? 8 year olds are totally up for it, don't believe what the government and media would have you believe.
The idea behind the laws is that children lack a comprehensive understanding of the world sufficient to compose an informed and reasoned decision, thus making any consent that they might grant invalid. In short, children don't know what's best for them, so grown-ups make the decisions for them. Of course it's typically their legal guardians who make those decisions, not the government. An exception was made in the case of sexual liaisons due to a determined propensity for progressive mental damage that can be incurred from sexual contact during formative years.
At least, that is the explanation commonly given. In reality, it's clear that children mature at vastly differing rates. Some are prepared to deal with life at ages much younger than the legal limit, and some are not prepared until much later. It would make more sense to have some sort of test for determining maturity, rather than a simple age limit. And indeed the current age limit has caused a lot of harm due to guys at parties having a quick fling with some jailbait and ending up being imprisoned for years and then being labeled a sexual predator for the rest of their lives.
Nah, the laws are an authoritarian power play designed to produce
The informed/reasoned consent line imports culturally dominant values (masculine, devoid of emotion, calculated, etc.) and denies the freedom/expression of individuals not actively displaying such traits. (In the example the 'guys at parties' are deemed to have these qualities whilst being unable to demonstrate them, yet the 'jailbaits' are thought not to be capable of having them.)
Quote
The existing laws are imperfect, but the social bias against pedophilia is so strong that the likelihood of anything being done about it in our lifetimes is basically nil. c'est la vie.
Agree with this sentiment, but the pedophilia (=demented authoritarian power play :P) phobia does nothing to explain why 2 or more eight year olds are prevented from getting it on together.
Prohibition and the black market has caused a massive drug problem, same goes for sex.
Post by: tonnot98 on February 22, 2017, 11:11:55 am
Jackson Pollock was a hack. I don't dislike all abstract or "out there" art, I just specifically hate Pollock and his style and the heaps of praise he gets for obscure methods of splashing paint.It's all in how you explain your bullshit that gets it sold.
Post by: Ardent Debater on February 22, 2017, 12:21:53 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 12:32:08 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on February 22, 2017, 12:39:36 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 12:56:08 pm
If you can't survive without life support you don't have an automatic right to it. Hospitals already have the right to deny you treatment that would save your life.
So fetuses having their life support revoked is the same rights as anyone else.
It's no more murder than taking you off dialysis because you can't pay for it anymore. Which is completely legal may I add.
Post by: MaximumZero on February 22, 2017, 12:57:19 pm
Look up M1 Knight Fights. It's a between rounds spectacle that is very much a thing in Russia.I think sports are generally super arbitrary anyway. If you wanted a practical olympics it'd be like preparing your tax returns or making a healthy meal on a budget. Those are real practical life skills, but they'd be boring to watch people do. So I don't see an effective difference between normal fencing and olympic fencing or long jump onto your ass vs long jump onto your feet, none of them are really widely applicable to real life. They are just optimizing for different arbitrary results. So basically, eh, why not?
for what it's worth, i've always enjoyed watching actual, proper swordsmanship. there's a lot more depth that goes into real fencing than any kind of sport fencing. even with something like kendo, which imo is leagues ahead of olympic fencing, it's still drastically oversimplified compared to actual sword techniques. at least with kendo, most techniques do carry over to actual fencing, it's just that you're restricted to a very limited number of targets and techniques. olympic fencing is about as detached from real fencing as you can get and still have your weapon somewhat resemble a sword
i'll concede on the long jump, but even then, watching people land on their ass is just as boring as watching people land on their feet, while the latter, tho not widely applicable, still has objective potential to be somewhat useful. something like olympic parkour would be a practical application of the skills that go into performing a long jump, while also being a million times more interesting to watchEdit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
while i haven't really seen any hema sparring done with traditional armour as opposed to modern safety gear, i'm sure it's a thing some people do. people honestly underestimate the efficacy of medieval armour, especially against medieval armaments. between video games being video games and the ubiquity of morons performing weapon tests against completely ahistorical butted mail, there's a lot of misinformation out there about how effective armour actually is, especially mail, and to a lesser degree padded cloth armours
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 01:27:14 pm
It's no more murder than taking you off dialysis because you can't pay for it anymore. Which is completely legal may I add.
... I don't think it is, at least in Europe. Then again we have public healthcare.
Post by: Sheb on February 22, 2017, 01:32:51 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on February 22, 2017, 01:41:39 pm
Look up M1 Knight Fights. It's a between rounds spectacle that is very much a thing in Russia.
Yeah, I've have watched one (which is why I brought it up) and they look cool, but a bit unsatisfying, first because I don't speak Russian so I can't follow much more then just the fight, secondly because the one I watched at least seemed to be more like "MMA fighters with swords fighting" rather then "swordsmen fighting." Not that I'm an expert enough to know I guess. But even so watching some dudes play with swords for a bit before taking down to the mat wasn't as cool as I was hoping for when I heard medieval knight fights.
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 01:50:57 pm
It's no more murder than taking you off dialysis because you can't pay for it anymore. Which is completely legal may I add.
... I don't think it is, at least in Europe. Then again we have public healthcare.
Yeah, but I was thinking of this in terms of the anti-abortioner who is 50%+ likely to be American, and be conservative, so not be in favor of unliimited free medical treatment at need.
Post by: Silverthrone on February 22, 2017, 02:14:24 pm
I believe that as unborn fetuses are actively growing, developing, and have human genetics, they are living humans and have the same inherent rights as fully developed humans. Following that, I believe that abortion is nothing more than industrialized murder and should be treated as such.
I do agree, in part. It is a baby, and an abortion means that it is being killed. However, I still think that abortion is necessary, albeit terribly unpleasant. I do not like that the baby concerned is dehumanised to make the procedure less confrontative. A baby is being killed, but I maintain that sometimes it is best to do so.
But then again, I suppose my main point is that I do not like the idea of abortion being taken as a light procedure, just "removing a foetus", when it involves a baby and its death. None of the people I have met who have gone through an abortion has taken it lightly. It is, I realise, very anecdotal, but I do not believe that a thoughtless detachment over the fate of the child is as common as it may seem.
Of course, it is all under the caveat that I do not truly know, and the best I can do is idle speculation.
Post by: Folly on February 22, 2017, 02:19:50 pm
I believe that as unborn fetuses are actively growing, developing, and have human genetics, they are living humans and have the same inherent rights as fully developed humans. Following that, I believe that abortion is nothing more than industrialized murder and should be treated as such.
As I see it, it's an issue of what something is vs what it has the potential to be. If we start assigning rights based on what something has the potential to be, then every time you masturbate you're a mass murderer. You can't sell a pile of bricks and lumber claiming that just as good as a house. We have to treat things as what they are, not what they might become. And scientific analysis shows that prior to a certain stage of development, fetuses lack the level of brain activity requisite to being classified as living humans, and therefore their termination is not considered murder. It's simply a disposal of biological waste which might have eventually become something more.
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 02:28:13 pm
Since brain activity is the legal definition of a living human, fetuses only qualify after passing the bar of having enough brain to be somewhat self-aware. But that's only one of the criteria for a human who must be provided with life support when thery'd otherwise perish.
But we can all support birth control, can't we? Less abortions needed then.
Post by: Folly on February 22, 2017, 02:37:03 pm
Spoiler: Don't wear leather shorts, kids (click to show/hide)
I feel like Hitler had some pretty good ideas.
No, not the religious and racial bias, and not the use of lethal military force to accomplish his goals. But the underlying premise of purifying the human genome. Obviously there is a lot of potential for harm in this territory, but just think of the good that could be done. Future generations of humanity could be stronger, smarter, healthier, live longer. We could eradicate diseases and everyone would be happier and more productive. All it would take is an assembly of scholars determining which traits are universally detrimental to humanity, and then petitioning lawmakers to impose tax penalties deterring the reproduction of individuals possessing those traits.
And before you respond, think of all the hospitals full of terminally sick kids who will never get to grow up, just because their genetically defective parents had no incentive to control themselves.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 22, 2017, 02:46:59 pm
Moreover there is screening for genetic diseases and there is eugenics
Also what is non lethal military force, and what is wrong with using it to accomplish one's goals?
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 03:06:34 pm
One of the big problems with traditional eugenics is that they didn't actually know much about how much those traits are inheretible. e.g. they have some gene-based metric for intelligence they worked out by regression analysis, but it can only predict a spread of about 1-2 IQ points. e.g. normally intelligent people have all the same normal genes for intelligence, because they're valuable genes for literally everyone, so they're widespread in the population.
Basically any gene that's super-great for everyone to have is almost always already possessed by everyone. The ones that you may/may not have aren't strongly correlated with survival. Or, they have good and bad effects. e.g. some "genius" genes might mess up other things making those people have aspergers or synethesia. And those "super genes" that cause those things might make 1/3rd of people with the gene a genius and 2/3rds of people with the gene a madman. Basically, in some geniuses they seem to have "unusual" brain wiring, caused by rare genes, but they don't "wire" each brain the same. That's why an Einstein's kids are almost never another Einstein, or even close.
Post by: Folly on February 22, 2017, 03:13:06 pm
Also what is non lethal military force, and what is wrong with using it to accomplish one's goals?
I'm picturing guys in riot gear with those big plastic shields and batons, lining up in a human wall and throwing tear-gas-grenades at people.
Now I'm picturing this non-lethal military force being used to deter people from breeding. ROFL.
Post by: TempAcc on February 22, 2017, 03:15:17 pm
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 22, 2017, 03:19:07 pm
Non lethal military force is when you get the enemy to concede without a fight because they want to avoid the lethal kind.Lethality is a quality of death-dealing capability, not a confirmation of death having been dealt. Thus battleships and nuclear weapons are the highest lethal arms mankind currently has available in its arsenal. If I employ my army, armed with howitzers and rifles, to chase away some geese - the lack of any death does not make the artillery and rifles any less lethal
Gunboat diplomacy for example, or nuclear weapons stand-offs.
Also, any time you have an army as a deterrent. It could be lethal, but that's only if it's deterrent mission fails and you resort to the lethal kind of force.
I'm picturing guys in riot gear with those big plastic shields and batons, lining up in a human wall and throwing tear-gas-grenades at people.Hydrocannon demands you cease multiplying
Now I'm picturing this non-lethal military force being used to deter people from breeding. ROFL.
CEASE
Post by: Antioch on February 22, 2017, 04:05:24 pm
Post by: Starver on February 22, 2017, 04:28:11 pm
To equate an individual act probably associated with a big yes/no internal conflict (before anyone else adds their own polarised version of external pressure) with any kind of "out of the door, one cross each, line on the left"-type production(/destruction)-line process is an emotional misrepresentation that you really should be able to do without.
IMO.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 04:55:48 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 22, 2017, 05:13:45 pm
I suspect hypnotism is a load of male bovine manure and every time I see a show on TV I am firmly convinced the players are faking it.
Depends what you refers to by hypnosis, but at least the medical kind is fairly established now.
Post by: Draignean on February 22, 2017, 05:16:26 pm
It's an interesting problem. At what point does a fertilized egg, the most basic state of a creature that can one day turn into a human, attain the intrinsic value that we associate with human life? Do we base meaning upon potential, or do we base it upon actuality?
If we find meaning in potential, then we encounter a conundrum: at what point is potential established? When we have brain activity? When we have a hearbeat? When we have a mass of cells the size of a peanut? A flea? A pair of cells? A single fertilized egg? Should each egg in the female be treated as an irreplaceable entity?
The latter is an interesting point to consider, largely because it's true, and presents a argument to the point of absurdity with regards to the idea that humanity is based on potential. Women don't get more eggs, which means that each one represents a unique person. If the woman does not become impregnated during her cycle, that egg is wasted. That person is wasted so that it never comes to be. A living, breathing human, capability of expression, laughter, and life, is sacrificed every monthish that a woman of reproductive age chooses to not become pregnant. Because of the conscious action of one human, another will never experience a sunset, or friendship, or a loved one's touch.
Now, clearly, it would be utterly ridiculous if we were to actually be terribly upset about that. That sounds really callous after I just spent a paragraph building it up, but it's the truth. We persecute murderers for the murder they committed, not the potentially cataclysmic actions they may have instigated by exterminating the gene-line of random Joe. Eggs aren't people. Sperm aren't people. Fertilized eggs aren't people. The point at which we decide that a bundle of cells is a human life with inherent value is arbitrary- whether that be conception, first, second, third trimester or crowning.
A further point to consider is how bizarrely this looks, objectively, from the purpose of preserving human life. We worry, debate, and dither constantly over whether or not the process of abortion constitutes murder and when does it cross the line. However, the average cost of a vaginal birth is a bit less than 10k, and the yearly cost of a child is a bit more than 10k after that, with steepening penalties. Google tells me that the total cost is somewhere around 230k. An abortion, depending on the time implemented, costs between 0.5k and 3.5k. Now, GiveWell is a well known charity feeder which takes in money and distributes it to charities that work well. The charities they use (link (http://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/our-criteria/cost-effectiveness)) have a cost-per-life saved of about 5-50k. Big range, so we're going to take the high end of 50k per life. So, if we assume that abortion sets at lives 0, we can still score 4 lives for the money we save raising the child to end up with a net life total of +4, as opposed to a standard +1 or +2.
Now, this isn't a justification for why you should never have children. Subjectively, if this was my baby, I'd probably fuck someone up if they tried to tell me that my infant wasn't cost effective. However, when your argument boils down to 'You're committing murder', you're really letting a lot more people die than you're saving. Personal opinion, it's a lot better to take care of the people who are already in this world and dying than to force an mother to take care of a child she doesn't want and potentially tank her quality of life in the process.
Ooh... Eugenics is a fun topic too. I'll put my two cents in there later.
Post by: McTraveller on February 22, 2017, 05:33:35 pm
...likely to be American, and be conservative, so not be in favor of unliimited free medical treatment at need.I think most Americans would be all for unlimited free medical care. Trouble is, basically 100% of people are opposed to providing unlimited medical care with no compensation.
This post not sponsored by the Verizon School of Defining Unlimited and Free.
Post by: helmacon on February 22, 2017, 05:46:00 pm
When people defend the hijab as an expression of culture, it is the same as people defending the confederate flag as a cultural symbol and I disagree with both.
the two honestly aren't even close to comparable. keep in mind too that hijab is not interchangeable with burqa or niqab†, which i think are what people generally think of those poor oppressed muslim women. similarly, there's a fundamental difference between a nation enforcing antiquated religious laws in order to oppress a populace, and someone consciously choosing to engage in their religion. there is zero practical difference between a hijab and a dastar, habit, kippah, or any other piece of religious clothing. arguing against one but not any other is plain and simple hypocrisy. more than anything else, it shows a complete and total lack of understanding of what islam is, complete with misogynistic undertones, when people single out hijabis. what this does, effectively, is push blame off of the corrupt governments that follow fundamentalist interpretations of religious lawsSpoiler: † (click to show/hide)
-snip-
To your first point, I wasn't singling out the hijab but rather I chose the most mild example I could think of assuming my opposition to the wearing of the burqa or niqab ect. would be implied. That's my bad. I apologize for the ambiguity.
Quote
similarly, there's a fundamental difference between a nation enforcing antiquated religious laws in order to oppress a populace, and someone consciously choosing to engage in their religion.
There do exist places in which antiquated religious laws are enforced to the oppression of the population. We can agree on that. Some of those laws involve the required covering of female citizens in public. We can also agree on that.
Regardless of how large a role these particular laws play in the general oppression of different groups of people, the hijab and related garments have become a symbol for people both inside and outside the system of that oppression.
Compare this now with the confederate flag, which was never actualy the official flag of the confederacy or the confederate battle flag as some people claim. There is a large population for which the flag is a powerful cultural symbol and is held in reverence. The majority of this population holds no animosity or racist sentiment in association with it. Nonetheless, there is another population that very much does so. For this population it is a symbol of oppression and and racism and the antiquated jim crow laws.
In my opinion, regardless of the intentions or goodwill of the initial group, the feelings and experience of this second group takes precedence, and the flag should not be flown.
The same applies to the religious coverings. Regardless of personal affiliation, intent, personal importance or reverence for traditions, it has become a symbol of oppression and suffering for people. Thus, it should not be worn.
As for the argument that other people sometimes wore scarves or hats, well... thats not really related to the discussion at all.
I'm pretty sure hypnotism is real. They used to hire a guy to do school functions in my home town, so i've seen it first hand. Groups of about 10 high school students at a time. High School students, who would love nothing more that to mess up the guys performance and be "That kid" but none of them ever did.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 22, 2017, 05:59:03 pm
Hitler didn't make the trousers, he wore themHitler didn't make those ideas, he adopted themYou know what that's begging for, LW.
Post by: Baffler on February 22, 2017, 06:16:21 pm
-snip-
Potential is a common argument, but it doesn't really make sense if you don't have a theistic worldview, at least not by itself. I think it's interesting to consider it from a point of action vs. inaction. An egg can never be fertilized (at least in humans) without sex. A blastocyst however will eventually develop into a baby on its own, provided it isn't interrupted by sickness, miscarriage, or physical trauma. At conception, then, the situation goes from avoiding an action, to taking an action - interrupting the development of a baby that will be taken to completion provided nothing stops it. You see similar ideas in the medical field, like in the USA where both legal and ethical distinctions exist between withholding treatment necessary to preserve the patient's life and euthanasia using a lethal dose of some drug.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 06:32:36 pm
There're also further consequences from these kind of reasonings when carries to their logical conclusion. For instance, I heard a bioethicist (my uni bioethics teacher, as a matter of fact) argue that in the clinical dillema of separating a couple of cojoined twins sharing vital organs to save one of them, the moral thing is to abstain and let them both die. With which I strpngly disagree.
A more recent and real, not hypothetical, example: I've been present in argument arguments about curettage in pregnant women with leukemia, with some people arguing that treatment should not be administered because it would be deadly for the foetus. Nevermind that there is not a chance in hell for the pregnacy to come to term.
(For the record, in those cases I was present we did carry out the treatment in the end.)
Post by: Helgoland on February 22, 2017, 06:44:14 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 09:41:53 pm
I suspect hypnotism is a load of male bovine manure and every time I see a show on TV I am firmly convinced the players are faking it.
Depends what you refers to by hypnosis, but at least the medical kind is fairly established now.
I kind of wonder. There was the whole 1980s repressed memories thing in which it turned out almost always the memories had been suggested by the researchers. It was linked with the "satanic daycare" moral panic. I wonder how much hypnosis was actually discredited when all of that broke.
I'm pretty sure hypnotism is real. They used to hire a guy to do school functions in my home town, so i've seen it first hand. Groups of about 10 high school students at a time. High School students, who would love nothing more that to mess up the guys performance and be "That kid" but none of them ever did.
Look into the history of those shows. They predate the hypnosis technique and early practitioners claimed to either use telepathy or supernatural powers. The shows had the same effect regardless of completely lacking anything resembling hypnosis techniques. Later, when hypnosis became a fashionable medical idea, the same shows adopted the label hypnosis as the justification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_hypnosis
Basically it's in the same vein as psychic stage shows and other charlatans, but they co-opted a pseudoscientific idea of "hypnosis" to validate what's going on as "not magic" once magic started to make people skeptical. Many of the shows don't even use hypnotic induction, and it makes no difference at all. That's a red flag for pseudoscience: when doing or not doing the main thing doesn't change your results:
Quote
Mesmeric and other stage performances changed their names to "stage hypnotist" in the 19th century. They had originally claimed to produce the same effects by means of telepathy and animal magnetism, and only later began to explain their shows in terms of hypnotic trance and suggestion. Hence, many of the precursors of stage hypnosis did not employ hypnotic induction techniques. Moreover, several modern stage performers have themselves published criticisms which suggest that stage hypnosis is largely the result of sleight of hand, ordinary suggestion, and social compliance, etc., rather than hypnotic trance. Most notably, the well-known American magician and performer, Kreskin, has frequently carried out typical stage hypnosis demonstrations without using any hypnotic induction. After working as a stage hypnotist and magician for nearly two decades, Kreskin became a skeptic and a whistleblower from within the stage hypnosis field.
Quote
An outspoken skeptic regarding stage hypnosis, Kreskin not only actively debunked stage hypnotists' claims, but went so far as to offer a substantial monetary reward, $25,000, to anyone who could prove the existence of hypnotic trance. The reward has been unsuccessfully challenged three times.
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 22, 2017, 10:05:33 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 10:07:11 pm
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 22, 2017, 10:09:25 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 22, 2017, 10:14:55 pm
Anyway, reading into the history of modern hypnotism has me more convinced that at least some stage hypnotists have actually been able to cause trances. James Braid, the guy who invented the word "hypnosis" and is often considered the first modern hypnotist, didn't invent the idea of a suggestive trance whole cloth. He was trying to come up with a scientific explanation for a phenomenon that the stage hypnotists of his day credited to magic. He based his techniques on theirs - if they couldn't actually achieve hypnosis then we wouldn't have modern hypnotism.
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 10:15:12 pm
Which is what I wrote is a "red flag" for pseudoscience. When you can just skip huge chunks of the supposed process and the outcome is completely the same, then occam's razor suggests you should abandon that part of the theory.
Post by: helmacon on February 22, 2017, 10:15:40 pm
I've seen an entertainer-hypnotist, not a supposed therapeutic hypnotist. I was extremely tired, it was part of a post-graduation celebration so I honestly have no idea how much of it was "real hypnosis" and how much of it was just me subconsciously wanting to be part of the show.
Hold on, we had post graduation hypnotist shows at my highschool too. I didn't realize that it was a common thing.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 22, 2017, 10:17:31 pm
I've seen an entertainer-hypnotist, not a supposed therapeutic hypnotist. I was extremely tired, it was part of a post-graduation celebration so I honestly have no idea how much of it was "real hypnosis" and how much of it was just me subconsciously wanting to be part of the show.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: penguinofhonor on February 22, 2017, 10:26:03 pm
spoiler
Maybe my earlier post was an oversimplification then. I apologize for rushing to judgment.
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 10:33:27 pm
Sometimes we replace the "quaint" ideas we laughed at with worse ones, then science debunks the new version, and we get headlines "who would have thought X is true" which implies it's a new idea and not original "folk wisdom" handed down for generations.
One example was in the 1990s I saw on TV a nutrition segment and one reporter mentioned some old Slavic saying or something that if you boy is always going for an extra potato at dinner, you need to watch that or he'll get fat. The food reporters both laughed: "potatoes don't even have any fat!" Uhh, that was pre-Atkins, and they were laughing at the idea that carbs could make you fat. Look who's laughing now.
Another interesting one is to do with cold viruses and the "cold makes you cold" myths. For a long time smug educated people have scoffed at this as simple folk superstition. Except now, scientists have discovered that the exact temperature in your nose can make a huge difference in how fast rhioviruses replicate. Which actually validates your mom.
http://scienceline.org/2015/01/cold-viruses-thrive-in-cold-noses/
So people went from believe being cold causes you to get a cold, and veered all the way to "how cold you are makes no difference whatsoever". Both extremes are wrong.
Post by: redwallzyl on February 22, 2017, 11:00:02 pm
Meanwhile, our overzealous use of multivitamins is doing absolutely jack shit to help us health-wise.regardless milk is delicious and i will never stop drinking it.
Hell, here's a good one: milk making your bones strong is a myth. It is fortified with vitamin D, which prevents rickets (at least in the US). Great if you live in Alaska. Otherwise, doesn't really help that much at all. Though I will admit, the commercial motivation to keep that myth around is probably part of the reason why it is still around.
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 11:04:53 pm
(I think anyone can see the oxymoron in the idea that milk must deplete bone calcium, considering what milk is, and what it's for).
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 11:13:25 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 11:45:22 pm
When I started trying that I did look into the health effects of "fizzy water", and it turns out that nobody can find any negative health effects if it's just bubble and water. Sugar/sweeteners account for at least 99+% of the negative effects of soda.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 22, 2017, 11:51:54 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 22, 2017, 11:53:45 pm
I could get a sodastream TBH, but I worked out that the break-even point for that vs cheap bottled soda water is > 300 litres of Soda, and you'd have to use your one starting CO2 bottle two times over with the cheaper refill option before even breaking even. Considering that the Sodastream takes up space, is another thing I'd have to pack if I move, costs electricity to run, and might actually start to break if you used it that much, i decided to stick to the bottled stuff.
Post by: Folly on February 23, 2017, 02:17:47 am
That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 23, 2017, 02:29:41 am
re: cold and viruses. The cause of the disease is still a virus, not cold itself. A link between temperature and immune function has been known for a while, but as far as I know it hasnt been proved yet that it has an actual, significant impact in the population dynamics of the disease: http://www.nature.com/news/cold-viruses-thrive-in-frosty-conditions-1.13025
nevertheless I daresay that the data to date is enough to suggest that at the very least keeping warm will probably help you fight off the disease *if* you are exposed. But that is a far call from "I got a cold because I went out without my coat".
*in fact going by the article, the general environmental temperature likely has a bigger impact than whether wear an ushanka or not, unless you're using some kind of air rebreather. Also: when it's cold people tend to stay more time indoors, and more cramped. that probably has an impact too...
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 03:16:20 am
I believe that gender is something determined by a person's genetic programming, not by their choice of lifestyle.
Not genetic programming - hormones are the direct cause. Genes are the indirect link. There's actually a correlation between "cliched gender traits" after birth and testosterone in the womb, but this crosses "gender" boundaries. The advantage of this as a theory is that it explains why gender traits are correlated with biological gender, but it also explains the outliers. However, while there are measurable correlations between testosterone exposure and "gender typical behavior" within each gender, social gender does play a role in amplifying and normalizing the differences throughout your life. But your pre-natal brain development's pattern (part of which is chance itself) sets your natural "tendencies" towards different types of gender-behavior, and it's strong enough to show a mesaurable signal even against the background of social/environment effects.
Let me give a real example.
Finger length ratio is highly correlated with pre-natal testosterone, so men have a different finger length ratio than women. This is backed up with reasearch. For lesbians, their finger length ratio is more towards the "male" ratio than non-lesbian women. Drilling down into the data further reveals that that was only "the average lesbian". "Femme" lesbians actually have the normal female finger length ratios, while "Butch" lesbians have a much more masculine finger length ratio. So what you can see is that within lesbians specifically, gender expression / sex roles are in fact highly correlated with testosterone exposure in the womb. It's pretty good science because things like the exact ratio of your finger lengths aren't something we code with any specific cultural meaning. However, you have to note that finger-length ratio is only itself correlated with testosterone exposure, so the true correlation between testosterone exposure (if you could go back in time and measure that) and these behavior traits is likely to be a lot stronger than the finger-length ratio studies.
Post by: wobbly on February 23, 2017, 05:04:12 am
That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
Having seen this a fair few times at festivals I file it under gross but understandable. Sometimes you've just got to go & urinal queues are a heap quicker.
Post by: Sheb on February 23, 2017, 05:27:56 am
That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
Having seen this a fair few times at festivals I file it under gross but understandable. Sometimes you've just got to go & urinal queues are a heap quicker.
What's so gross?
Post by: ein on February 23, 2017, 05:42:49 am
edit: tangentially related controversial opinion, but most dudes should pee sitting down too anyway. i don't really give a shit about dudes leaving the seat up (tho i am of the opinion that you should always put the seat and cover down, it really doesn't save you any time to skip this step, don't be lazy), but i've known too many guys who stink up the place because they can't aim for shit. if you can't get your piss in the water like a civilised person, sit your ass down and take a moment to think about what a failure you are
Post by: ein on February 23, 2017, 06:01:14 am
now, teratomas. those are the stuff nightmares are made of
Post by: TempAcc on February 23, 2017, 06:09:30 am
Post by: ein on February 23, 2017, 06:31:17 am
also fucking shit i can't believe i completely forgot about john kellogg
Post by: Starver on February 23, 2017, 06:52:50 am
too many guys who stink up the place because they can't aim for shit.Oh, they definitely should be sitting down for that... ;)
As to seat/etc up or down, we men do sometimes have a prior complacency (or current urgency1) which means that the fractions of the second required can be vital, even/especially with the ability to manually crimp the outlet pipe as the very last-gasp inhibition of release.
But this is just me. And I have not fully explored the needs of women to perhaps similarly require the seats (but not lids!) down as an urgent default, through their own urgencies (during which their hiking up and down of clothing is mostly not possible to prep whilst making those last few steps).
1 I have a 'territorially anti-moderated urinary urgency' thing, sometimes. Five minutes from home2, I'm ok. I've been ok enough not to need (or usefully make use of) any public facilities/handy bushes I could pop into all this way. Two minutes from home, there's an urge3. One minute from home, the urge is urgent. As I'm unlocking the doors I'm worried and I'm soon dashing up the stairs and possibly multitasking the preparatory fly-work if I'm not in polite company. Add the stuff with the seat-raising (or extra disrobement necessary to accomplish a sit-down) and I'm in danger of not surviving the process with the grace I would wish.
2 Or selective 'home surrogates' that I consider my own, like the natal/parental house, to some degree my workplace, etc..
3 With the distinct feeling (if not proof) that hanging around in the shopping centre/wherever for another five minutes would not have brought on the need so quickly. I personally theorise a psychosomatic offshoot of the ancestral need to 'mark' one's territory, affecting the hindbrain!
Post by: wobbly on February 23, 2017, 07:44:56 am
Yeah like Covenant said not the greatest look. I don't know, I guess I switch pretty quickly into not pay attention mode same as with guys after the initial surprise.That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
Having seen this a fair few times at festivals I file it under gross but understandable. Sometimes you've just got to go & urinal queues are a heap quicker.
What's so gross?
Post by: Frumple on February 23, 2017, 07:54:07 am
easy there john calvin, it ain't that weirdFor what it's worth, folks both male and female have been leaving the seat up where I'm living. It's not a time thing, it's the fact that if you leave it down one of those folks that have occasional trouble aiming will get the seat instead of the bowl, when they're in too much of a hurry or just forget to lift it when they go themselves. It may not save time so far as pissing goes, but it definitely saves time from not having to clean the toilet seat.
edit: tangentially related controversial opinion, but most dudes should pee sitting down too anyway. i don't really give a shit about dudes leaving the seat up (tho i am of the opinion that you should always put the seat and cover down, it really doesn't save you any time to skip this step, don't be lazy), but i've known too many guys who stink up the place because they can't aim for shit. if you can't get your piss in the water like a civilised person, sit your ass down and take a moment to think about what a failure you are
... that said, if you're not somewhat incontinent elderly you probably shouldn't need that kind of consideration.
Post by: McTraveller on February 23, 2017, 08:03:51 am
But I also have an internal philosophical debate with gender dysphoria - when the mind is in opposition to physical reality, when should the mind win? Or, which parts of physical reality (genitals vs. brain structure+chemistry) should win? Or put another way - why is it perceived that changing the mind to match genitals is "bad" but changing the genitals to match the mind "acceptable"? Especially given that in many other areas of life, changing the mind is favored over changing physical things. Maybe there isn't a rule that can be applied to all situations.
Post by: Frumple on February 23, 2017, 08:40:19 am
That, and as near as I can recall very, very few people that have tried to change the mind to match the body (in the sense of buggering the brain chemistry into matching the plumbing rather than the other way around) in the considered situation actually managed it, particularly in any way that was even remotely healthy. There's virtue in reasonableness and proper consideration, not so much self-flagellation and psychosis-inducing denial.
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 09:02:10 am
I think it's odd that people have conflated masculine / feminine gender roles with sexuality. I put them on orthogonal axes.
Really? I think all those things are part of nature's toolbox to cause babies to be made, which is the only thing that nature cares about. Everything else is an incidental occurence. Just because two things are orthogonal in principle doesn't mean that every possible "box" in the grid is equally likely.
In D&D terms it would be as if you had alignments, but 90% of people fell on the one diagonal between Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil. While they're not in principle connected, the low number of people not on the axis makes it appear they're linked.
If you are a male with "straight" orientation, then you're atracted to female-appearing people. And those people are only going to like you back if they're interested in male-appearing people. But apart from that, people are attracted to mates who have the appropriate behavior, this is true of all species. So gender role performance is in fact part of the process of mating. And this is the entire engine that drives procreation, so there's a bias to aligning gendered behavior and sexuality in this direction.
Sure you can point to "outliers" who buck the trends, but nature doesn't care whether their are outliers, as long as there are enough "regulars" that do actually breed. One set of designs must be able to create both male and female based on a shared set of chemical signals. So of course, those signals can get crossed. Genetics is messy, so of course nature can't guarantee a perfect result every time, it just needs to guaranteed a good enough result, enough of the time, that enough babbies get made.
And the "regulars" do the vast bulk of baby making. e.g. women who are attracted to male "provider" types and have "maternal instinct" are just naturally going to have more resources invested in their kids than ones who don't, so their kids get ahead in the game. Basically, there's a co-evolution here between the hormone signals and the gender-related traits. The process is constantly optimizing to differentiate the sexes in a way that maximizes baby making. Sure, it's not PC, but nature doesn't know or care about offending our sensibilities.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 23, 2017, 09:39:35 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 23, 2017, 09:44:53 am
Post by: overseer05-15 on February 23, 2017, 09:48:06 am
Because I'm literally too lazy to stand
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 09:48:33 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYcv6odWfTM
Plus they end the debate about seat up/down forever.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 23, 2017, 09:52:02 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 23, 2017, 09:53:39 am
What is the toilet seat debate? Hole in ground or toilet?No. Toolet seat up or down.
I've never liked holes in the ground...
I find the lack of bidets in the US and UK disturbing btw.
Post by: Loud Whispers on February 23, 2017, 09:59:11 am
Post by: overseer05-15 on February 23, 2017, 10:03:54 am
What is the toilet seat debate? Hole in ground or toilet?No. Toolet seat up or down.
I've never liked holes in the ground...
I find the lack of bidets in the US and UK disturbing btw.
I find the concept of bidets disturbing.
Post by: Dorsidwarf on February 23, 2017, 10:07:21 am
People wear modern safety gear because, quite honestly, they dont want to get hurt, medieval armor is heavier and can be expensive as all hell, and the organisations dont want to have any form of legal trouble if someone's subpar ringmail tears and they get the pointy bit where the blood's supposed to be. You can strike real armor a lot harder and faster than safety gear, and that means that if something goes wrong, it's going to go wrong a lot more seriously.Edit: That said I would like to see old fashion weapon and armor use become part of mixed martial arts so maybe I'm just a hypocrite.
while i haven't really seen any hema sparring done with traditional armour as opposed to modern safety gear, i'm sure it's a thing some people do. people honestly underestimate the efficacy of medieval armour, especially against medieval armaments. between video games being video games and the ubiquity of morons performing weapon tests against completely ahistorical butted mail, there's a lot of misinformation out there about how effective armour actually is, especially mail, and to a lesser degree padded cloth armours
Post by: TempAcc on February 23, 2017, 10:09:41 am
Post by: Starver on February 23, 2017, 10:12:48 am
Spoiler: Overthinking the problem (click to show/hide)
Post by: Criptfeind on February 23, 2017, 10:14:28 am
Maybe we should discuss the use of martial arts and armor in the toilet.
This is why chainmail is superior to plate, as it's easier to take off and to go bathroom.
Eat a dick plate lovers, in your search to protect your life, you've ruined the very thing you're trying to save.
Post by: overseer05-15 on February 23, 2017, 10:16:43 am
Maybe we should discuss the use of martial arts and armor in the toilet.
This is why chainmail is superior to plate, as it's easier to take off and to go bathroom.
Eat a dick plate lovers, in your search to protect your life, you've ruined the very thing you're trying to save.
Live long and shit.
Prosperously.
Post by: helmacon on February 23, 2017, 10:27:16 am
I believe that gender is something determined by a person's genetic programming, not by their choice of lifestyle.
That being said, if a chick really wants to pee standing up at a urinal next to me in the men's bathroom, I'm probably just gonna file that one under 'Cool' and move on with my life.
Well, there's this (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083947) going against you.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 23, 2017, 10:53:06 am
Note I say "believe," not know for a fact. :(
Post by: Antioch on February 23, 2017, 12:02:52 pm
The genocide of more than 2 million people could have been prevented by not giving in to anti-war protests.
Post by: McTraveller on February 23, 2017, 12:14:19 pm
I'll see your journal article and raise you a researchers fail (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778) article.
Well, there's this (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083947) going against you.
Science is great, unless it isn't.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 23, 2017, 12:26:37 pm
That's a nonsequiturI'll see your journal article and raise you a researchers fail (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778) article.
Well, there's this (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083947) going against you.
Science is great, unless it isn't.
Post by: Baffler on February 23, 2017, 12:27:26 pm
I believe that automation of many life-critical industries (mostly food production and distribution) is totally possible within our lifetime, and the only thing preventing it is human shortsightedness and corporate interest.
Note I say "believe," not know for a fact. :(
Mechanizing a farm is obscenely expensive and most farmers aren't able to easily afford it, but they need to in order to stay competitive. That's why the size of a "small farm" has been growing over the years (since a farm operator can work more land now than he could even just 20 years ago) but they're still losing ground to major agribusinesses - the economies of scale just don't work in their favor, and we're already in a situation where the government has to pay people to not grow things. Likewise I'm sure trucking companies would love nothing more than to be able to run their fleet 24/7 without having to pay drivers; and retail outlets and fast food places would be happy to trim some staff.
It's corporate interest that's driving the trend, not putting the brakes on it, and I don't think it's shortsighted for the people who'll lose their livelihoods over it to not want that to happen. If it ever gets to the point where people in the service industry can be economically replaced on any kind of scale, it's going to result in ‼problems‼.
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 12:32:06 pm
But seriously, the Cambodian genocide shows that continuing the Vietnam war wasn't such a despicable choice after all.
The genocide of more than 2 million people could have been prevented by not giving in to anti-war protests.
Hell no. It was Nixon who dragged Cambodia into the war. They were peaceful and stable before he messed it up.
http://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Bombing_of_Cambodia?rec=1611
Quote
In March 1969, President Richard Nixon authorized secret bombing raids in Cambodia, a move that escalated opposition to the Vietnam War in Ohio and across the United States.
Nixon believed North Vietnam was transporting troops and supplies through neighboring Cambodia into South Vietnam. He hoped that bombing supply routes in Cambodia would weaken the United States' enemies.
The bombing of Cambodia lasted until August 1973. While the exact number of Cambodian casualties remains unknown, most experts estimate that 100,000 Cambodians lost their lives, with an additional two million people becoming homeless. Enhancing the destruction, in April 1970, President Nixon ordered United States troops to occupy parts of Cambodia. Nixon claimed that the soldiers were protecting the United States' withdrawal from South Vietnam. American soldiers quickly withdrew, but their presence, along with the air strikes, convinced many Cambodians to overthrow their government, leading to the rise of the Khmer Rouge, a communist and despotic government.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khmer-rouge-cambodian-genocide-united-states/
Quote
The US began bombing Cambodia in 1965. From that year until 1973, the US Air Force dropped bombs from more than 230,000 sorties on over 113,000 sites. The exact tonnage of bombs dropped is in dispute, but a conservative estimate of 500,000 tons (almost equal to what the United States dropped in the entire Pacific theater of World War II) is unquestionable.
...
Pol Pot’s insurgency was indigenous, but as Kiernan argues, his “revolution would not have won power without U.S. economic and military destabilization of Cambodia.” Previously apolitical peasants were motivated to join the revolution to avenge the deaths of their family members. As a 1973 Intelligence Information Cable from the CIA’s Directorate of Operations explained:
"Khmer insurgent (KI) [Khmer Rouge] cadre have begun an intensified proselyting campaign among ethnic Cambodian residents . . . in an effort to recruit young men and women for KI military organizations. They are using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda."
The US-backed coup that removed Sihanouk from power in 1970 was another factor that dramatically strengthened the KR insurgency. (Direct US complicity in the coup remains unproven, but as William Blum amply documents in his book Killing Hope, there is enough evidence to warrant the possibility).
And it was actually the Vietnamese who overthrew the Khmer Rouge. And you know what USA did? They put the Khmer Rouge back in power in the 1980s just to spite Vietnam. Thanks, guys.
Post by: Antioch on February 23, 2017, 12:44:47 pm
But seriously, the Cambodian genocide shows that continuing the Vietnam war wasn't such a despicable choice after all.
The genocide of more than 2 million people could have been prevented by not giving in to anti-war protests.
Hell no. It was Nixon who dragged Cambodia into the war. They were peaceful and stable before he messed it up. The US bombing is actually what devastated most of the farm lands, that was the ultimate cause of the famine, the complete collapse of farming due to the bombing of all the country areas.
Nixon was elected on an ending the war platform, and instead launched a full-scale war in Cambodia to wipe out a small number of rebels. But they used aerial bombing of farmlands to achieve that, because they knew they couldn't send US ground troops. They killed so many Cambodians and destroyed so many villages with the bombing that everyone flocked to join the rebels, which was the ultimate reason that Cambodia fell to the communists.
The Khmer Rouge already waged armed insurgency since 1967. The North Vietnamese were already vastly involved in Cambodia with their supply lines and sanctuaries long before the US expanded their operations to include Cambodia.
The cambodian genocide was way more than a famine, it was institutionalised mass murder performed by a totalitarian dictatorship.
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 12:54:21 pm
Between the bombing and backing a military coup against a neutral government who was already recognized by all the regional nations (which did include Vietnam), it's ALL on Nixon, this one. e.g. Vietnam already supported the existing Sihanouk government as the rightful rulers of Cambodia, NOT the Khmer Rouge, and it's actually the Vietnamese who defeated the Khmer Rouge and removed them from power.
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on February 23, 2017, 01:06:05 pm
It's corporate interest that's driving the trend, not putting the brakes on it, and I don't think it's shortsighted for the people who'll lose their livelihoods over it to not want that to happen. If it ever gets to the point where people in the service industry can be economically replaced on any kind of scale, it's going to result in ‼problems‼.Nonetheless I look forward to it. There will be a rough transition period, but the closer we get to something like The Culture, the happier I am.
Post by: Antioch on February 23, 2017, 01:17:12 pm
There's ample evidence from numerous sources that the KR were a very small force before the bombing, they managed to recruited 20 times as many people as they originally had in just in the three years the bombing campaign continued, and that was their main selling point: that if you follow us, we'll stop the bombs. 2 million people were rendered homeless (i.e. 10% of the nation had their villages destroyed) by the bombing, 200,000 of those went and joined the Khmer Rouge, who had numbered only 10,000 previously.
Between the bombing and backing a military coup against a neutral government who was already recognized by all the regional nations (which did include Vietnam), it's ALL on Nixon, this one. e.g. Vietnam already supported the existing Sihanouk government as the rightful rulers of Cambodia, NOT the Khmer Rouge, and it's actually the Vietnamese who defeated the Khmer Rouge and removed them from power.
Then again, I didn't say it was good to involve Cambodia into the war, I said it was bad to leave at the time they did.
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on February 23, 2017, 01:35:34 pm
Post by: Antioch on February 23, 2017, 01:44:55 pm
One thing I don't understand: Why didn't the US just straight-up invade and occupy North Vietnam and cut off the snake's head?
It was very much believed (not unfounded) that doing so would bring China and/or the USSR into the war.
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 01:58:50 pm
And the fact is, all of Vietnam is in fact controlled by the left now and it hasn't actually gone to shit - especially given the way the fascist South Vietnamese government was carrying on. What was the last time you head of "vietnamese rebels" or people speaking out about the terrible treatment from the Vietnamese government? ever? And you can bet if they had ANYTHING bad to tell you about Vietnam after the war, they'd be yelling it from the rooftops. The general silence on how Vietnam went after the war is actually the giveaway, there are effectively no horror stories of life in modern vietnam to account.
If America had won, they'd have installed a hardline military dictator, because that is how America did things in the 70's and 80's. And then America would have had to fund his military basically forever, while he conducts widespread purges of dissidents, with things simmering away and probably ensuring another Vietnam War around the late 1980s or early 1990s.
And it's NOT a given that the right-wingers in South Vietnam would have even had the balls to invade Cambodia and defeat the Khmer Rouge. They'd be too busy trying to suppress all the really pissed of Vietnamese.
Also, at this point North Vietnam and South Vietnam were separate countries. Invading random nearby nations to solve a civil war in one specific nation is basically fucked up, and you should question why you think your nation has the "right" to do that. Are you saying America had the right to invade South Vietnam but North Vietnam didn't have the right to aid their fellow countryfolk against the US invasion? And if they dare to support their countryfolk, America should invade them too? Seriously, fuck that attitude, fuck it with a stick.
Post by: Max™ on February 23, 2017, 02:46:13 pm
Japanese style squat toilets. Western toilets cause more back problems, as well as hernias, since you need to push harder when not in squatting position:I rigged up one of these, it's not as high as it could be, but seriously the difference between feet on the floor and feet 7 or 8 inches off the floor is HUGE when it comes to how difficult it is to crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYcv6odWfTM
Plus they end the debate about seat up/down forever.
Fuck the piece of shit who invented the throne style toilet with the turd that killed John Wayne.
Indeed, and now I think I will post what may be the most unpopular and controversial idea in the thread to date: Star Trek is a horrific setting.It's corporate interest that's driving the trend, not putting the brakes on it, and I don't think it's shortsighted for the people who'll lose their livelihoods over it to not want that to happen. If it ever gets to the point where people in the service industry can be economically replaced on any kind of scale, it's going to result in ‼problems‼.Nonetheless I look forward to it. There will be a rough transition period, but the closer we get to something like The Culture, the happier I am.
A post-scarcity society that has a virulent anti-transhumanist ideology to the point that they just let people die from ordinary disease and old age despite having literally magical medical capabilities, oh, your lungs got destroyed by a fire down in the engine room?
No prob, we'll just point this little doohickie at them and they'll grow back by tomorrow, though you'll probably have a cough the rest of your life because I didn't really pay attention or whatnot since your life means so very little to me.
Now what were you asking about again? Wait, you want artificial replacements? With superior oxygen storage, full chemical filtration, and vastly improved CO2 extraction?
...
Well yes, we could do that, easily, but we won't, go join the Borg you filthy transhumanist bastard! Now get out of here before I pull out my phaser and make a point of changing it to a non-lethal setting... why isn't that the default again?
Never mind, let's just sit back and enjoy our arbitrarily limited lives as we whoosh across the galaxy in an "exploration vessel" which incidentally has been involved in accidentally or deliberately wiping out the biosphere of... well, I can't even remember how many planets honestly, but it's ok, the aliens that lived there were the kind that look like really ugly but still remarkably humanoid people, no worries!
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on February 23, 2017, 03:06:02 pm
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 23, 2017, 03:08:39 pm
Regarding medicine, Star Trek is probably one of the most inconsistent sci-fi settings. Established rules will change without explanation, technology will randomly regress or leap forward, problems that were solved in a previous series will suddenly be a problem again. Besides that, while they do have technologies that are miraculous, the general presentation is that it's still a lot of intense, time-critical work to save somebody on the edge of death.
The reason they dislike the Borg isn't because CYBORGS BAD, it's because the Borg are a nigh-unstoppable force that will blow you up, kidnap your civilians and glass your colonies for not wanting to join the hivemind. It also helps that the Borg are pale, emotionless ghouls highly resistant to most of the setting's weaponry and lacking any individual personality, and there's a possibility that any Borg could be a friend, family member or fellow crewman assimilated against their will. They're more like zombies than the shiny augmented humans of Deus Ex.
Voyager gains an ex-Borg crewmember, and it's implied in First Contact that Picard kept some Borg goodies from his time as Locutus. Both become accepted members of Starfleet, after some hesitance. Because the Borg are hostile and not totally incapable of subterfuge.
Post by: Helgoland on February 23, 2017, 03:09:12 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 03:09:29 pm
The irony is that they wipe out completely unique experimental cultures with the goal of "everyone not being the same". The implication is that if you do any culture that's not exactly like post-war USA culture everyone is a drone.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 23, 2017, 03:12:41 pm
A big part of what you're describing is just 'The Amish have a point', no?
I thought what I was describing was that besides the fact that artificial organs are totally cool with them, as evidenced by Picard and Seven of Nine, The Federation has a big Borg-shaped reason to be afraid of too much transhumanism.
Post by: Helgoland on February 23, 2017, 03:15:01 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 23, 2017, 03:15:50 pm
And even then, they mess around with stuff like the Doctor. The sentiment against it is strong, but they're also a lot like anti-nuke folks that can actually point to a great deal of instances where shit melted down and exploded.
You can say a lot about the writers bias, but so far as in-setting reasoning goes I'd say it's pretty defensible for folks in the star trek universe to be incredibly leery about pretty much everything transhuman or moving in its direction.
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 03:39:06 pm
I just thought up "nuclear toothpaste" off the top of my head, then googled that and it was a real thing:
http://awesci.com/radioactive-toothpaste-shocking-ad-50s/
not to mention, I also just thought "radioactive condoms", and those were also a thing:
http://gizmodo.com/5869753/once-upon-a-time-we-used-radium-condoms-for-glow-in-the-dark-sex
Basically what self-respecting up to date 1950s gent didn't have radioactive everything?
Post by: Starver on February 23, 2017, 04:10:18 pm
Post by: misko27 on February 23, 2017, 04:36:16 pm
One thing I don't understand: Why didn't the US just straight-up invade and occupy North Vietnam and cut off the snake's head?We tried this in Korea.
Two things jump to mind: One, the US lacked the security council's good-graces and thus could not act with the same openness that they did in Korea. Two: China.
The problem with "Invade north Vietnam" is exactly who are you going to put in there to run it?Ahh but see this isn't answering the question. It's a moral answer to a practical question, which is to say that its an answer stemming from false premises. You have to take "we are at war with Vietnam and want to win" for granted, because you aren't answering "Was it a good idea?" but "Why did the people who did think the Vietnam War was a good idea not want to invade with a land invasion?" If you take for granted that the war is stupid, that solves a question that wasn't asked. How are we to "fuck [that logic] with a stick" if we don't know what that logic is in the first place?
And the answer is that marching military forces into North Vietnam is, legally speaking, a military invasion, and a military invasion with the US portrayed as the aggressors. Sure the US would have reasons to do it, but legally speaking, and from the perspective of the war, it would have been far different from Korea in terms of international support (since the US would absolutely have not had the support of the Security Council, and it would not have been portrayed as a defensive war) while being similar in substance. But similar in substance would open again the possibility of the PRC intervening militarily.
And finally, from the beginning the presidents wanted Vietnam to defeat it's own problems. The problem they had was that they saw them losing, then escalated and ramped up support. But if you take for granted that the US should help, but cannot do it for Vietnam, then you can understand why each President would see the situation and decide to escalate it (but not to the point of invasion), rather than wasting the prior investment. This turned out to be bad logic, since ultimately the only thing that *could* have won was the escalation that they were unwilling to do, but this wasn't obvious to them at the time. No one wants a quagmire. But its also true that no one wants to just cut your losses.
Post by: Max™ on February 23, 2017, 04:39:14 pm
A big part of what you're describing is just 'The Amish have a point', no?I'm super confused, I'm a fan of transhumanism, and looking back at episodes of TNG and TOS now vs watching them when I was 9 it's just hard to not take all the sci fi and such I've read and look at Trek through those lenses.
There are "token cyborgs" in Trek, we're getting to the point today where an artificial heart is boring, lord knows they have the technology to put all the shit in that visor Geordi wears into a package that could fit on the head of a pin and just implant it into the replacement biological or cybernetic eyes which they could easily make for him, it isn't like it's plausible to assume they just started backsliding on processor technology, we can stick chips in an eye nowadays that can restore a significant level of eyesight, we should be reaching the whole "broad spectrum crazy analytical function having" level of gee-whiz gadgetry which the visor has within the century, except we'll be doing it with something like a mesh of graphene or silicene or something on the back of the eyeball, and besides the awesomeness of planar molecular structures, all of this technology was old school shit in sci fi.
Back in 87 Baxter published The Xeelee Flower, the roots of all the crazy godtech the Xeelee have, the exploration of human development and expression vs the later insanity as humans decided to beat these godlike and ineffable beings the only route was to make damn sure they remain completely human, locking their genetics down, banning augmentations, and breeding en masse to throw generations of child soldiers against the fortifications of a race that was fighting a war on a scale so large the humans never even noticed it.
I look back through the stories in the Xeelee Sequence and notice the similarities with a lot of things from the Federation and the Coalition/Third Expansion which are really unsettling. In the Xeelee books humans developed anti-senescence technology and banished death, until a neighboring species discovered how primitive we were and occupied the planet to make money, they made use of controlling the AS tech to keep people in line until things turned towards genocide, we poisoned the oceans (they were aquatic hive minds) to kill them, so they set up some crazy ass heat-sink system and froze the oceans solid to punish us. We finally managed to break loose and regain our immortality and freedom, helped by the tech which we acquired from our former conquerors and lived well, until another race caught wind of how pitiful we were, even with the stolen tech, and once again withdrew AS treatments, bringing back death, only this time after getting free they were inspired by a guy who insisted that humans are best when they are what they were during the occupation.
A brief life burns brightly.
...then you get Star Trek, for the most part they are waaaaay behind the Xeelee, but there is shit that Trek has that competes with magical alien godtech, replicators, cloaking devices, matter deconstruction/reconstruction, crazy force field tech, and then you're faced with a couple of explanations. They don't try to improve their bodies, extend their lives, and so forth because of anecdotes from all these other races that fuck shit up, so even given the technological prowess they clearly possess, and supposed rational and scientific outlook they espouse, they'd be better off leaving it alone.
...oooorrrrr, they're utterly incompetent and literally couldn't think of any of the numerous ways to apply their absurd tech level to make things better for themselves and others?
Still, there's one thing you can say for Trek and their fucked up priorities or incompetence: at least they never made a handgun you could kill a star (http://xeelee.wikia.com/wiki/Starbreaker) with!
Do note though: the Xeeleeverse is depressing, I mean, it's cheery compared to Manifold: Space, but so's a trip to a holocaust museum, most goddamn depressing story ever, but Trek is supposed to be inspiring and cheer you up, "to seek out new life, and new civilizations, to boldly go, where no one has gone before!" and all that jazz.
Don't forget the 'problem' of transhumans like Khan Noonien Singh posed to the pre-Federation (and not exactly unproblematic to the UFP). And Dr Bashir had to keep a secret...Oh god, yeah, I'm like straight up, more Montalbans/Cumberbatches running around isn't a problem... wait, you meant the character part didn't you? The Monalban Khan was charming and admirable even as he was casually discussing why it is in your best interest to just get it over with and submit to his whims, he'll treat you like a beloved pet, and it's easy to believe. The Cumberbatch one was angrier, but still had that rich rolling delivery and sense that he's already figured out which cards you're holding and knows you're trying hard not to kiss him, I mean not that I'd kiss him, I'd give him a hug though.
Sadly that's the only way transhumans get presented: sexy and scary bad boys like Khan or ultracompetent and powerful but utterly meek and emotionless dolls like Data. Can't have a normal transhuman, can't have someone who is just an ordinary dude that replaced 90% of their body with artificial parts, he's gotta be a battle scarred warrior left behind by his comrades out for vengeance, it's just weird and unsettling seeing people talk about it like it's a future to strive for.
Post by: Starver on February 23, 2017, 05:38:44 pm
There are "token cyborgs" in Trek, we're getting to the point today where an artificial heart is boring, lord knows they have the technology to put all the shit in that visor Geordi wears into a package that could fit on the head of a pin and just implant it into the replacement biological or cybernetic eyes which they could easily make for him
Spoiler: ...from First Contact onwards (click to show/hide)
Quote
More that the Eugenics Wars appear to have dissuaded humanity from such 'self'-improvement. (Or at least of improving the next generation.) Hence why Julian is in a fix, if his secret is discovered.Don't forget the 'problem' of transhumans like Khan Noonien Singh posed to the pre-Federation (and not exactly unproblematic to the UFP). And Dr Bashir had to keep a secret...Oh god, yeah, I'm like straight up, more Montalbans/Cumberbatches running around isn't a problem... wait, you meant the character part didn't you? The Monalban Khan was charming and admirable even as he was casually discussing why it is in your best interest to just get it over with and submit to his whims, he'll treat you like a beloved pet, and it's easy to believe. The Cumberbatch one was angrier, but still had that rich rolling delivery and sense that he's already figured out which cards you're holding and knows you're trying hard not to kiss him, I mean not that I'd kiss him, I'd give him a hug though.
Other races have done their own thing to themselves (like the Kilngons, as retro-explained and fitted into on-screen timeline by Enterprise) or others (The Caretaker upon the Ocampa? Or am I misremembering? But definitely it was imposed upon the Jem'Hadar and the Vorta by the Founders). Any significant on-screen effects only rarely seem to work as planned (but of course that's under the influence of Plot, and as a technobabble cure of a single person's illness under limited conditions to correct an illness, a doctor tended to have better success thsn otherwise), although obviously much off-screen development may have produced the various functionally re-developed end products that more often than not formed the particular and distinctive disanthropomorphic traits of the current Alien Civilisation Of The Week.
(I'd check this all on the Trek Wikia, but it always makes my browser unstable! Maybe you aren't so affected.)
Quote
Sadly that's the only way transhumans get presented: sexy and scary bad boys like Khan or ultracompetent and powerful but utterly meek and emotionless dolls like Data. Can't have a normal transhuman, can't have someone who is just an ordinary dude that replaced 90% of their body with artificial parts, he's gotta be a battle scarred warrior left behind by his comrades out for vengeance, it's just weird and unsettling seeing people talk about it like it's a future to strive for.I see the Trek future as more 'expanded minds' rather than 'improved bodies', in philosophy. Or at least 'peace of mind' and an absolute minimum of bodily interference (c.f. Christopher Pike). But you can also blame that on the writers and the eras they were writing in.
Post by: Frumple on February 23, 2017, 05:55:16 pm
Post by: Max™ on February 23, 2017, 05:58:32 pm
Heck, that might be why I always loved Q, besides Delancey being so damn entertaining (got a chuckle out of the one with him trying to bang Janeway.
"what are you doing here with that mongrel"
*Janeway and Q look at the dog*
"I wasn't talking about the puppy."
*Q: OoO*
'Dude, you are totally messing up my game.'
"What game, I wasn't interested at all!"
'Now look what you've done.'
Post by: overseer05-15 on February 23, 2017, 06:38:49 pm
Post by: Taricus on February 23, 2017, 07:13:25 pm
And to further add in, immortality, by it's very nature, is an immoral thing for anyone to have; between the exponential rate of population expansion and the fact that ideas that people hold aren't dying effectively proclaims a stagnation in ideas and knowledge since new ideas aren't able to gain traction, which only compounds the more generations that are born.
EDIT: Pressed post early, whoops
Post by: Max™ on February 23, 2017, 07:36:19 pm
He was based on Soong physically and personality-wise, and it seems probable that the same mind which could make something like Data could figure out how to upload into one, he's just another of many possible extensions of transhuman potential left fallow by the Federation.
Then you get Lore, what happens when you take helpful and polite and capable Data and let him feel the richness of human emotions? He writes poetry so beautiful it makes you weep? He becomes a religious icon who travels the stars helping those in need and spreading the wisdom of some amazingly rich yet logical belief system he founded? Maybe he'd just be Data but better, funnier, more exciting and passionate, but still in control?
Hah, nope, he's a psychopath, good luck everyone who doesn't have a supercomputer for a brain!
The big issue with transhumanism is that it does force a societal divide between those that are augmented and those that aren'tYou have a massive external memory and recall faculty available at all times if you want it, you have the ability to record and replay video of absurdly high resolution at will, you can access the minds of a vast segment of all humans alive, see them if you want, talk to them, you can determine your location at any point without the slightest bit of effort, perform all sorts of calculations ridiculously quickly, obtain definitions and spelling and pronunciations as needed, and even speak to someone in a language you don't actually understand, plus many more things, just by pulling the fondleslab out of your pocket.
That thing went from being a unique gadget made by a mad scientist, to a complex gadget which took at least a feat and some wealth, to a high end but still common piece of equipment, to a standard issue sort of thing (rope, two torches, three sacks, two weeks rations, smartphone, waterskin, flint, etc), and now it's over in "assume everyone has this equipment because I don't feel like having to specify that all of you aren't naked" territory.
You may have glasses, filled teeth, repaired bones or joints, corrected lenses so you don't need glasses, artificial limbs of ever increasing capability, and so forth.
Arguably transhumans are here, who said it has to be "full conversion cyborgs" or "genetically engineered superbeings" when "surpassing the limitations of unaugmented humanity" suffices perfectly well?
Post by: McTraveller on February 23, 2017, 07:43:46 pm
Personally I'd eliminate patents entirely and limit copyright to lifetime of the author, no transferral to any third party or company ownership, zero extensions.
Second fun topic: lifetime wealth limits. I'd put the limit at 1000x the average mean annual salary. That is, once you amass about 10 average-person-lifetime's worth of wealth, you get no more*.
Other fun topics: property tax. (Kind of ties into the first one - maybe if you want to keep IP, it needs to have property tax imposed.)
EDIT: *In the US, this means about $55M. Kind of astonishing how many lifetimes' income the ultra-wealthy have. Think about it.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 23, 2017, 07:57:49 pm
Post by: Taricus on February 23, 2017, 08:03:18 pm
]You have a massive external memory and recall faculty available at all times if you want it, you have the ability to record and replay video of absurdly high resolution at will, you can access the minds of a vast segment of all humans alive, see them if you want, talk to them, you can determine your location at any point without the slightest bit of effort, perform all sorts of calculations ridiculously quickly, obtain definitions and spelling and pronunciations as needed, and even speak to someone in a language you don't actually understand, plus many more things, just by pulling the fondleslab out of your pocket.Well, I'm that much of a luddite that I don't have a smartphone, but still :P
That thing went from being a unique gadget made by a mad scientist, to a complex gadget which took at least a feat and some wealth, to a high end but still common piece of equipment, to a standard issue sort of thing (rope, two torches, three sacks, two weeks rations, smartphone, waterskin, flint, etc), and now it's over in "assume everyone has this equipment because I don't feel like having to specify that all of you aren't naked" territory.
You may have glasses, filled teeth, repaired bones or joints, corrected lenses so you don't need glasses, artificial limbs of ever increasing capability, and so forth.
Arguably transhumans are here, who said it has to be "full conversion cyborgs" or "genetically engineered superbeings" when "surpassing the limitations of unaugmented humanity" suffices perfectly well?
As for what is transhuman, while I do agree the latter definition is it, what defines is augmentative rather than corrective. Things like prosthetics, glasses, dentures and so forth aren't transhumanism per-se, as they're corrective device to bring an individual up to the 'baseline' of a healthy, unhindered human rather than surpassing it.
Post by: Starver on February 23, 2017, 08:08:08 pm
Sunshine and warm weather are fucking bullshit. It should be overcast and breezy all day, every day, until the end of time.Good for the Wind Turbine industry. PV-cells would be less useful, but not completely and (day by day) they'd at least be consistent, so you could re-engineer to that spec.
And I'm not good with 20C+ temperatures, so I have really have no complaints if the lower ground-level insolation balances out with better insulation against cold temperatures (the continuous horizontal air movements evening things out even better, between latitude).
Post by: misko27 on February 23, 2017, 08:15:34 pm
If you are going to water down transhumanism in that way, of course it's already here! It's been here since at least the 11th century when glasses were invented. And "unaugmented humanity"? We've had glass eyes since the 15th century if that's what you mean, but if you are going to water it down that much we may as well cease to discuss transhumanism at all, since it is obvious that it is a very uninteresting topic. Come now! And fake teeth even? Romans had fake teeth! To speak of "ancestors" and "predecessors" would do you much more good than looking at a Venetian who is contemporary with the Byzantine-damn-empire and calling him an early transhumanist.The big issue with transhumanism is that it does force a societal divide between those that are augmented and those that aren'tYou have a massive external memory and recall faculty available at all times if you want it, you have the ability to record and replay video of absurdly high resolution at will, you can access the minds of a vast segment of all humans alive, see them if you want, talk to them, you can determine your location at any point without the slightest bit of effort, perform all sorts of calculations ridiculously quickly, obtain definitions and spelling and pronunciations as needed, and even speak to someone in a language you don't actually understand, plus many more things, just by pulling the fondleslab out of your pocket.
That thing went from being a unique gadget made by a mad scientist, to a complex gadget which took at least a feat and some wealth, to a high end but still common piece of equipment, to a standard issue sort of thing (rope, two torches, three sacks, two weeks rations, smartphone, waterskin, flint, etc), and now it's over in "assume everyone has this equipment because I don't feel like having to specify that all of you aren't naked" territory.
You may have glasses, filled teeth, repaired bones or joints, corrected lenses so you don't need glasses, artificial limbs of ever increasing capability, and so forth.
Arguably transhumans are here, who said it has to be "full conversion cyborgs" or "genetically engineered superbeings" when "surpassing the limitations of unaugmented humanity" suffices perfectly well?
None of the things you pointed to are "surpassing unaugmented humanity", they are "bringing others up to speed with unaugmented humanity". The only different case was your argument about phones, which is another barrel of oddness; what about a computer is qualitatively different than any other information storage that existed previously? Why isn't carrying a book around a sign of transhumanism? Is it just the quantity of information held? Or does it have to do other things? If so, how much stuff does something we carry around have to do before it becomes transhuman? I mean really. Transhumanism isn't just a really useful swiss-army knife you know. It's like how a man with a sword has a better shot in a fight than an unarmed man: It's just tool-using, and using tools is human, not above human. There's nothing a person born today has that can make them intrinsically better at a given task than a person born two thousand years ago, only superior tools for those tasks. Transhumanism is the idea that after you strip a person down, the base of the augmented human is a cut above the rest. It's called H+ for a reason. Humanity Plus. If I was stripped and left naked in a field, I'm just a regular naked human. I could blend seamlessly with the humans of 16,000 years ago because I'm really no different than they are. More educated, but that's nurture, not nature. Transhumanism must change the nature part of that equation to qualify.
So no. Your smartphone is not transhumanism. And even if it was, you haven't explained why superior augments will not lead to a divide between the rich and poor. Does everyone have a phone? Sure. But are all phones equal? No. And what happens when the phone is actually part of you, and has far more powers, and far more influence on your station and abilities in life? What happens if the difference is qualitative, not quantitative (i.e. how much memory/processing power it has)?
Post by: Egan_BW on February 23, 2017, 08:33:47 pm
Also, I believe that we have a transhumanisim thread somewhere.
Post by: misko27 on February 23, 2017, 08:43:03 pm
What the smartphone is a good example of, is how quickly even incredibly advanced technology can become available to nearly everyone, not just the ultra-rich. So I don't buy the idea that transhumanisim would lead to an underclass of the unaugmented.Ugh, the smartphone analogy is fundamentally dependent on the specifics on a single technology; namely, the shrinking size of chips and the general dropping price of processing speed and memory. Rich people always have better phones than poorer ones, but technology evolved such that the difference doesn't matter. But if that is only a specific situation and not generally applicable, there is still a problem. If, for example, the technology is more medical in nature, then there is the potential for a great divergence: the only reason poor people haven't fallen behind in medical tech is insurance. But insurance only covers the fixing of things that are broken, not making things better than they were before. So there's a potential gap right there. Will any charity build augmentation clinics in the third world like they do regular clinics? I think not.
Also, I believe that we have a transhumanisim thread somewhere.
Post by: Max™ on February 23, 2017, 08:44:53 pm
I've also never heard it as "it only counts if they're ahead when nude with nothing else" and I'd have to wonder, do prosthetics count? What if they're more like the powerbocking things I linked down below? Neural interfaced bionics? They could probably be removed, but I don't agree on the "has to be at our most base state" bit at all.
Well, I'm that much of a luddite that I don't have a smartphone, but still :PMe either, real computers have big chunky cases, real keyboards have number pads, and real monitors have real estate dammit! Get back to me when the smartphone VR thing is full blown and omnipresent.
As for what is transhuman, while I do agree the latter definition is it, what defines is augmentative rather than corrective. Things like prosthetics, glasses, dentures and so forth aren't transhumanism per-se, as they're corrective device to bring an individual up to the 'baseline' of a healthy, unhindered human rather than surpassing it.Some of them are merely correcting damage or errors, but in the process it raises the whole definition of what baseline itself is. We're getting closer and closer every day to seeing people deliberately removing limbs for better ones, especially with dudes like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDsNZJTWw0w) doing their thing. I loved being the fastest kid in my group of friends, loved being a powerful and healthy teenage male crashing through the woods because fuck it, I don't see why a fucking hill should get to decide which way I go, I don't care how tall it is!
My feet though, my running gait barefoot was more natural and comfortable, but I could fuck up even my hardened and calloused soles pretty quickly with a bit of bad luck or glass or whatnot, but shoes are so damn annoying. Hacking them off for something which behaved more like say, these crazy kangaroo boot things (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH5og6sjcHM), that's got some appeal to me.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 23, 2017, 09:00:41 pm
What the smartphone is a good example of, is how quickly even incredibly advanced technology can become available to nearly everyone, not just the ultra-rich. So I don't buy the idea that transhumanisim would lead to an underclass of the unaugmented.
Also, I believe that we have a transhumanisim thread somewhere.
Smartphones were hardly some crazy mad-genius invention. Proto-smart devices like PDAs, MP3 players and portable gaming devices existed decades before the advent of the smartphone, many even had touch screens (shitty ones but still). What was missing was things like Wi-Fi, Blutooth and 4G to make the applications of a smart device really apparent or even possible. Things like watching Youtube anywhere you have cell signal. Miniaturization has been an area of research about as long as personal computers have existed, you've probably seen the old briefcase computers that cost thousands upon thousands and were marketed to businessmen. Those were among the first "traditionally-sold" (available in shops, not sold through a hobby magazine) portable computers, and smartphones are just the most recent manifestation of that thirty-year-old inspiration.
Post by: misko27 on February 23, 2017, 09:29:19 pm
I've also never heard it as "it only counts if they're ahead when nude with nothing else" and I'd have to wonder, do prosthetics count? What if they're more like the powerbocking things I linked down below? Neural interfaced bionics? They could probably be removed, but I don't agree on the "has to be at our most base state" bit at all.Then how is it transcending human? It's not. It's entirely social and cultural and all those other things; if augmentation is external to the human being, then it is not a change in human beings, it is a change in society. Short version: nurture.
If you want me to buy that A: I am already Transhuman, and B: I am transhuman because of something that is, quite emphatically not a part of my body or being in any way, than what I want you to describe to me where, precisely, we became transhuman, historically speaking. What invention, or what idea, or what did it, and more importantly, why. Why did this invention, or this tool make us transhuman? If not whatever the lingo "fondlepads" is supposed to be (if not something obscene), than how about phones? Was the jump from phones to pads transhuman? If so, why? If not, then how about PDAs-to-phones? Was that the human/transhuman divide? If so, why? If not, how about beepers? Or radios? or gramophones? etc.
Here's a point: it's not transhuman if it's just a tool, because a tool is already the most human thing there is. We had tools 16,000 years ago, which is when the species settled on the modern Homo Sapiens. Humanity, 16,000 years ago, was not Transhuman, since it the species had just began to be human. You are stating that Humanity, in 2017, is Transhuman. Ok. So when between 16,000 years ago and now did we precisely become transhuman?
My argument is that if you can't identify that point, or if you argue Transhumanism happened 16,000 years ago, than Transhumanism is a bankrupt word that means nothing very useful at all, and Transhumanists are just futurists by another name. You are essentially defining Transhumanism as "technological progress", and if you are going to do that, we may as well just stop discussing transhumanism as if it meant something and just say "technological progress". So in a nutshell: how is transhumanism by your usage not just a catch-all word for all human technological advancement?
Post by: Starver on February 23, 2017, 09:58:06 pm
I miss playing games on my dad's old palm pilot.Hmmm. I had a palm-pilot. (Three, actually. One was lost in '99, another was handed back in to work when I quit, the third is somewhere upstairs, unfairly abandoned.)
Post by: Max™ on February 23, 2017, 10:17:48 pm
We had tools 2.3 million years ago, we didn't have tools which integrated with our mental state, our memories, our ability to communicate, and so forth in the way that the computer began to when they went from being a room of machinery to a household feature. Smartphones themselves took another big step because it went from being a thing at a place where you need to be to use it, to being a thing that you always have with you. Comfortable long battery life VR headsets will do the same thing. As will implanted devices and if we can figure out how to hack into a cortex, that'll be yet another step along the "I'm in here, and out there is in here too" path.
What they do as hardware isn't really the amazing part incidentally, though they are getting more clever, but no, the main point is what they do to connectivity. The internet is becoming something like a shared external memory and a weird sort of personality/awareness branch.
Do you have a smartphone? If not have you used one? Assuming you have your own, have you noticed the difference in how you approach problems, conversations, plans, and the like since you gained an everpresent link to the internet? On the other hand if you don't have one, you must have noticed how everyone seems to be walking around staring down at this little bit of glass like it's a magic window to Narnia, right? It's not just rudeness or whatnot, our brains are rather accustomed to being somewhat underfed with gossip and such about the folks who live just a little too far away to see regularly, they've also developed in an environment and culture where information and knowledge was something you had to seek, there were places that collected it and you had to go to them.
Now we've got an absurd number of people linked together in a qualitatively different way than anyone ever has been, people who are more and more familiar with things which their ancestors would literally never have had a chance to encounter. Is our discussion here, with all the other participants, and the instantly available nature of replies, really the same as it would have been say, 30 years ago? Sure, there were a few groups of people on the early networks discussing various things, but we're getting closer and closer to the point where the people who aren't making use of modern communication networks will be down to a few groups in places where it's simply not possible to consistently link up, or people who choose to stay offline.
My argument is that if you can't identify that point, or if you argue Transhumanism happened 16,000 years ago, than Transhumanism is a bankrupt word that means nothing very useful at all, and Transhumanists are just futurists by another name.I'd hardly say we're Humanity 2.0, but we've certainly increased the version number past 1.0 to some extent, and just since you implied I can't identify that point: I'd say around 1990 the counter started ticking up from like 1.00000001 or so, and over the last half of the 2000's and the 7 years since then it's been speeding up faster and faster. A connected and aware humanity composed of connected and aware humans is not the same as what came before, you can argue it's not as sexy as "we're all space cyborg wizards now, wooo" and that is totally right. What point would you insist on before it would seem like enough? Integrate the display in contacts? Implanted visuals? Cortical interfaces? These are more intimate than a fondleslab, but the important thing is that they all enable constant connectivity.
Post by: helmacon on February 23, 2017, 10:25:35 pm
Quote
The big issue with transhumanism is that it does force a societal divide between those that are augmented and those that aren't. And given that the costs of such augmentation are going to make it impractical for most people in general to actually obtain such augments so there's effectively another layer of societal divide to deal with.
And to further add in, immortality, by it's very nature, is an immoral thing for anyone to have; between the exponential rate of population expansion and the fact that ideas that people hold aren't dying effectively proclaims a stagnation in ideas and knowledge since new ideas aren't able to gain traction, which only compounds the more generations that are born.
The industrial revolution was a terribly chaotic thing that led to class divides and suffering and oppression and the death and birth of a number of new industries. Not to mention the prolonged damage to the environment. Even hundreds of years later we are still sorting out the effects.
Despite all that I am damn glad we went through the industrial revolution, and if sent back in time and given the choice I would have us do it all over again.
Likewise, I am in favor of a transhuman revolution. We are already poised for it with crispr tech and designer babies, to super advanced prosthetics and full body transplants, to advances in neural networks and advanced AI.
I say, bring it on!
Post by: Max™ on February 23, 2017, 10:55:03 pm
I am rather pleased that this ended up being such a contentious topic btw, since it's actually on topic!
I do appreciate frustration at this not being the sexy exciting space cyborg wizard future, instead we got the weird banal drone smartphone memeninja future.
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 10:57:15 pm
We had tools 2.3 million years ago,
Actually 2.6 million years ago is the most well-known find
But even further, they've found shaped stone tools from 3.3 million years ago, which is even before the Homo genus is believed to have come into existence (about 2.5 million years ago). Tools shaped us to be human in the first place, so we can't separate the existence of tools from our own existence.
But nobody "chose" to be reshaped by tools, the force of natural selection did that. And that force still exists, so even if we go "no transhumans" and live like that for a million years, our ancenstors probably won't resemble us any more than we do Homo Erectus.
Post by: Max™ on February 23, 2017, 10:59:35 pm
Post by: helmacon on February 23, 2017, 11:09:46 pm
Speaking of neural networks and networks of neurons and neurons firing as they watch cat videos on mobile networks, where is the internet going to take us that would leave us unchanged from the baseline stone age human models? Wouldn't we need to pull back and avoid doing things like trying to link it right into our brain stems, chill on the VR development, and start going to libraries to use the internet instead of wading around through it constantly like we're doing now?
I am rather pleased that this ended up being such a contentious topic btw, since it's actually on topic!
I do appreciate frustration at this not being the sexy exciting space cyborg wizard future, instead we got the weird banal drone smartphone memeninja future.
I do go to the library to use the internet. I don't have internet at my house.
Actually i'm in the library right now.
Post by: misko27 on February 23, 2017, 11:14:09 pm
Fondleslab: a slab of glass and metal or plastic plus silicon and some other metals which people like to fondle to make it show them cat videos.Well it sounds gross and isn't actually shorter or faster than calling them tablets. Stop trying to make "fondleslabs" happen, it's never going to happen.
Speaking of neural networks and networks of neurons and neurons firing as they watch cat videos on mobile networks, where is the internet going to take us that would leave us unchanged from the baseline stone age human models? Wouldn't we need to pull back and avoid doing things like trying to link it right into our brain stems, chill on the VR development, and start going to libraries to use the internet instead of wading around through it constantly like we're doing now?I'm not at all frustrated about sexy space cyborg whatevers. That spooks the shit out of me. The social implications are terrifying. But you haven't conclusively proven that what exists today (which is what you are calling Transhumanist, not me) is what exists in 20 years. To do that, you need to show that the future will be like how it is now in such a way that the lack of wealth boundaries will continue to exist.
...
I do appreciate frustration at this not being the sexy exciting space cyborg wizard future, instead we got the weird banal drone smartphone memeninja future.
Quote
blah blah blah digital revolutionTell me: is that not just merely a social change? How is that different from the Industrial Revolution? Or the rise of Colonialism and Imperialism? Surely society has changed irrevocably, but it's not irrevocable.
Quote
I'd say around 1990 the counter started ticking up from like 1.00000001 or so, and over the last half of the 2000's and the 7 years since then it's been speeding up faster and faster. A connected and aware humanity composed of connected and aware humans is not the same as what came before, you can argue it's not as sexy as "we're all space cyborg wizards now, wooo" and that is totally right. What point would you insist on before it would seem like enough? Integrate the display in contacts? Implanted visuals? Cortical interfaces? These are more intimate than a fondleslab, but the important thing is that they all enable constant connectivity.All right. 1990. Why 1990? What was different? What was qualitatively different about the year 1990 from 1989? They also had computers you know. And so did the year before that. We had computers in 1965.
My point is that I am trying to nail you down to something I can argue against. What is transhumanism? What is the fundamentals, or essentials, of Transhumanism? What is true about transhumanism that is not true about any other hypothetical word, like "technological progress". I'm trying to draw the transhumanism out of your examples and ask: what is the nature of this thing that they all have in common? What is it about transhumanism that distinguishes it from social change in response to technology in general? Is it a certain technology? If so, what technology, and why is that technology is transhumanist and why the technology that preceded it was not? Is it just "social change in response to technology, but in the digital era"? If so, then the argument essentially becomes about haves-and-have-nots in the digital age, which is just economics. And further, it states absolutely nothing about the future, because the digital age is just today.
Put another way: As I understand your argument, you are saying
- The Internet is transhumanist
- We use the Internet
- Therefore we are transhumanist
- We are transhumanist
- We are not divided into technological-haves-and-have-nots.
- Therefore, Transhumanism will not lead to this in the future
My argument in a nutshell:
- IF it is true that Transhumanism can refer to different things,
- AND different things can potentially have different social effects,
- THEN we cannot meaningfully extrapolate the social effects of one part of transhumanism to another part
Post by: Taricus on February 23, 2017, 11:22:10 pm
The industrial revolution was a terribly chaotic thing that led to class divides and suffering and oppression and the death and birth of a number of new industries. Not to mention the prolonged damage to the environment. Even hundreds of years later we are still sorting out the effects.The industrial revolution is acceptable, because that brought our production capabilities forward and as much as it did further class divides (There were always divides prior to it), it also ended up spawning methods to reduce those class divides. Furthermore, it meant that we, as a collective whole, had to adapt socially and mentally to it.
Despite all that I am damn glad we went through the industrial revolution, and if sent back in time and given the choice I would have us do it all over again.
Likewise, I am in favor of a transhuman revolution. We are already poised for it with crispr tech and designer babies, to super advanced prosthetics and full body transplants, to advances in neural networks and advanced AI.
I say, bring it on!
With a transhuman revolution, we change out bodies to sidestep the necessity to change socially and mentally, and to sidestep those is to lead straight into stagnancy in ideas and philosophy. To embrace the transhuman revolution is to fundamentally forget what it is to be human
Post by: helmacon on February 23, 2017, 11:27:50 pm
Quote
The industrial revolution is acceptable, because that brought our production capabilities forward and as much as it did further class divides (There were always divides prior to it), it also ended up spawning methods to reduce those class divides. Furthermore, it meant that we, as a collective whole, had to adapt socially and mentally to it.
With a transhuman revolution, we change out bodies to sidestep the necessity to change socially and mentally, and to sidestep those is to lead straight into stagnancy in ideas and philosophy. To embrace the transhuman revolution is to fundamentally forget what it is to be human
I don't see where you get the idea that transhumanism is escapism from societal/personal change. To even accept transhumanism in the first place would be a huge social/mental change. Just because you become harder/faster/better/stronger dosent mean we stop changing or dying. Transhumanism is just the next step, not the final step.
Post by: Reelya on February 23, 2017, 11:44:47 pm
Quote
To even accept transhumanism in the first place would be a huge social/mental change.
I don't think it would. For example, for vision we've gone from spectacles, to contact lenses, to lasering your eyes within a minute amount of time on the cosmic scale. Now we're talking about head mounted displays that beam images directly onto your retina and people just see that as the next step. It won't be long before CRISPR will be able to perhaps improve your eyesight with an injection, and not counting any other technical achievements.
One thing that can't be avoided is that technology substitites for our evolved characteristics. And when that happens, there's no natural selection pressure on tht specific trait, so the species changes. One aspect of transhumanism can be that: becoming symbiotically dependent on technology to the point we lose the evolved ability that would have done that job (although not as well). That happens with physical skills, and there's no reason to think it won't also happen with mental skills. The types of cognition abilities which are selected for will be the ones that make a difference in reproduction. If we offload tasks to computers then those will do things we used to do, and there will be less selection pressure in that direction. In that sense we are in fact in a symbiotic relationship with technology.
Post by: helmacon on February 24, 2017, 12:09:13 am
As far as the idea that our technology is removing important selective pressure, well, it's been doing that for a long long time already. Think about it. It's not like stupid or ugly people don't have kids nowadays. We really have very few selective pressures left, and our genetics are becoming more and more varied in the modern age.
Crispr tech lets us take that into our own hands, and solve a problem we already have.
Post by: Reelya on February 24, 2017, 12:24:53 am
There are still just as many selection pressures as ever. That is where we get smug, get it wrong. We like to tell ourselves we've transcended evolution, that we're the pinnacle of creation. How could you even imagine something better than us? Clearly evolution plateaued when it thought of us, it found the "ideal form" that will last forever. But really ... this is just a projection of Christianity's "Humans = God's Image" into the science era. It's bullshit, "Emperor's New Clothes" type bullshit.
People in the third world have high infant mortality, they have high selection pressure in childhood. People in the first world have low infant mortality, but very low birth rates, they have high selection pressure for a mate and to procreate. You don't have / don't want to have kids? You're part of the selection pressure. Any genes that you have that correlated at all with your lack of kids are the ones being selected against.
"No selection pressure" would be a world where everyone has a high chance of reaching adulthood and then went on to create large families. No such world exists.
Post by: TheBiggerFish on February 24, 2017, 01:25:14 am
Post by: Max™ on February 24, 2017, 01:33:01 am
I don't think you understand me Max. Or you are talking past me, or me you, or something.We're both talking past each other, the internet is an enabler of human development in a new way, along a path which there is no reason to think won't end up square in transhuman territory, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't try to make things happen and lack the ability to begin trying to care if they do, just can't do it, but it is what I call them, and you asked for clarification.Fondleslab: a slab of glass and metal or plastic plus silicon and some other metals which people like to fondle to make it show them cat videos.Well it sounds gross and isn't actually shorter or faster than calling them tablets. Stop trying to make "fondleslabs" happen, it's never going to happen.
One thing that can't be avoided is that technology substitites for our evolved characteristics. And when that happens, there's no natural selection pressure on tht specific trait, so the species changes. One aspect of transhumanism can be that: becoming symbiotically dependent on technology to the point we lose the evolved ability that would have done that job (although not as well). That happens with physical skills, and there's no reason to think it won't also happen with mental skills. The types of cognition abilities which are selected for will be the ones that make a difference in reproduction. If we offload tasks to computers then those will do things we used to do, and there will be less selection pressure in that direction. In that sense we are in fact in a symbiotic relationship with technology.This is what I'm saying is happening with so much of our cognitive resources and interactions moving out into the internet, which was technically open to the public in 89, with the web starting in 90, hence those dates, while the smartphone thing started to really pick up around 2007.
Post by: helmacon on February 24, 2017, 02:01:00 am
Quote
We have this notion that we're outside evolution, it comes from the same place as all those old charts with Man at the top of creation. But that comes from the same place as e.g. the aristotlean world view with Earth at the center, then we moved to our sun as the center of the solar system. Then when we realized there was a galaxy, we decided that our sun was the center of the galaxy, and that there was only one galaxy. It was only fairly recently (post hubble) we realized that this pattern of "but surely we're at/near the center?" was itself bullshit on every level.
There are still just as many selection pressures as ever. That is where we get smug, get it wrong. We like to tell ourselves we've transcended evolution, that we're the pinnacle of creation. How could you even imagine something better than us? Clearly evolution plateaued when it thought of us, it found the "ideal form" that will last forever. But really ... this is just a projection of Christianity's "Humans = God's Image" into the science era. It's bullshit, "Emperor's New Clothes" type bullshit.
People in the third world have high infant mortality, they have high selection pressure in childhood. People in the first world have low infant mortality, but very low birth rates, they have high selection pressure for a mate and to procreate. You don't have / don't want to have kids? You're part of the selection pressure. Any genes that you have that correlated at all with your lack of kids are the ones being selected against.
"No selection pressure" would be a world where everyone has a high chance of reaching adulthood and then went on to create large families. No such world exists.
um. The pinnacle of evolution is not perfection. Arguable, by evolutions standards, ants are far more successful than we are. Ants are 20% of earth's terrestrial biomass, (give or take) and damn near impossible to suppress. so what if we have fancy tools and big fat brains.
Anyways, social darwinism is a bunch of crap. We developed cities and cultures and 3rd and 1st worlds so rapidly on an evolutionary timescale that that selective pressures have become so convoluted as to be effectively meaningless. Genes going everywhere for factors that really don't relate to relative fitness at all. It's genetic chaos.
That's besides the point. The point is, even if we don't have selective pressures present to push us along at an infinitesimally slow rate of evolution, we can just figure out the genetics and do it ourselves. That applies if there are selective pressures too.
We can use these tools much more efficiently than evolution does too, as in, we can actualy use them. Evolution just sort of scrambles the genetics around until something sticks. (well, except symbiogenesis, cause thats a pretty important thing, except not really anymore).
We can conceivably design and disseminate meaningful and beneficial genetic improvements in a single generation, whereas evolution takes a LOT of generations and mistakes to make eveny the most trivial improvements.
Another huge thing. Evolution requires each previous iteration of something to be functional and beneficial before you can reach something else. No complex system can occur on it's own. (though it can appear that way, because evolution will take away the underlying steps afterwards.) Crispr technology allows for us to design and implement complex dissociative systems because we can design and implement all the necessary parts at the same time.
I... I think i'm rambling a bit. It is 1am, so... yea.
Point Being, I disagree with the evolution through society thing. It aint that fast. I also think that we have the potential to drive our own evolution much more efficiently than nature.
Your argument, as I understood it was
Transhumanism = lack of selective pressures = loss of evolution = stagnation of humanity = bad.
My counterpoint is that we can cut that chain at the third step, because we can do that ourselves.
Weather selective pressures exist today is irrelevant.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 24, 2017, 02:42:15 am
- As I've stated a few times before on the forum and gotten into massive arguments about, I believe that by all rational resource calculus that we are already massively killing our environment and if the governments of the world were responsible they'd have already enacted strict and global population control measures including two or one child policy, transferable child rights, subsidies for temporary and permanent birth control, and education on sustainable living. I am not advocating Reddit eugenics bullshit (people seem apt to believe I am), all child limits should be globally equal and indiscriminate. The human population needs to be decreasing, not stabilizing.
- Pineapple is not a fucking pizza topping.
- Anti-vaxxers are a threat to public safety and there should be no exemption to vaccination except medical necessity.
- Circumcision of male babies is as much child abuse as it is with female babies even if the latter has more severe consequences, and the procedure should only be available to adults or if medically necessary. Also, people's reactions to the thought of trying to convince 18-year olds to get their dicks chopped prove they already know it's inappropriate.
- Improving oppressive nations is primarily a financial and memetic task, and the free world needs to realize the fire is under its ass because of new style dictators like Putin and Erdogan (and a certain Orange, even if he isn't a dictator) using counter-memes to make people love hatred and autocracy.
- Speaking of politics, I'll just go ahead and steal LW's point about yesterday's irony being tomorrow's truth and say that the next wave of politics needs to be of those who abandon pragmatism and cynical dealing for straightforwardness and utter integrity. Playing Game of Thrones with the government used to work, but now people are aware of that and have no confidence at all in anything because of it. What would have once been naivety holds a hidden power, and the mere perception of this was what allowed Trump to get powerful.
- Morality is as much subject to the progression of knowledge as anything else in philosophy, and is in most cases not timeless. We should be open to new discoveries on this front and should also not bother with judging those in history by our standards. Their acceptance of what is to us is obviously evil is the same kind of thing as their ignorance of electricity.
- Even taking mental illness into account, people have an inherent right to self-harm and suicide. If a person is doing so publicly it's alright to intervene because we reasonably know that when people do it publicly it's sourced in a desire to be helped, but the actions of law enforcement and medical personal towards the (typically post-attempt) suicidal while well-meaning are often stepford-esq and are a violation of their personhood. The Baker Act in particular goes even further beyond this and should be repealed or strictly amended as it is frequently used to abuse people not in an active crisis state and even maliciously against those who are under no mental stress at all. A society that cares about freedom must, to be consistent with its own values, accept that the right to life comes paired with the right to refuse that life.
- In order to solve our endemic economic problems, we're going to need a new order of economic thought on the level of Wealth of Nations or Das Kapital to deal with the stockholder system, new monopolies, and automation. If you thought communism was a radical proposal...
Post by: ein on February 24, 2017, 02:48:32 am
that gave me a nice, hearty laugh
Post by: misko27 on February 24, 2017, 02:56:08 am
Well that's just, uninteresting. That's not controversial at all! Begone!I don't think you understand me Max. Or you are talking past me, or me you, or something.We're both talking past each other, the internet is an enabler of human development in a new way, along a path which there is no reason to think won't end up square in transhuman territory, nothing more, nothing less.
Quote
I don't try to make things happen and lack the ability to begin trying to care if they do, just can't do it, but it is what I call them, and you asked for clarification.You know, they have a pill for that now.
- Speaking of politics, I'll just go ahead and steal LW's point about yesterday's irony being tomorrow's truth and say that the next wave of politics needs to be of those who abandon pragmatism and cynical dealing for straightforwardness and utter integrity. Playing Game of Thrones with the government used to work, but now people are aware of that and have no confidence at all in anything because of it. What would have once been naivety holds a hidden power, and the mere perception of this was what allowed Trump to get powerful.Perhaps its only the perception that matters.
Quote
- Morality is as much subject to the progression of knowledge as anything else in philosophy, and is in most cases not timeless. We should be open to new discoveries on this front and should also not bother with judging those in history by our standards. Their acceptance of what is to us is obviously evil is the same kind of thing as their ignorance of electricity.True enough, but I'll ask ya straight: what exactly is the nature of morality? Not necessarily what is moral, but what is its nature? Because you seem to know quite a bit about it, and I want to hear your thoughts.
Quote
- Even taking mental illness into account, people have an inherent right to self-harm and suicide.Well fucking hey! Here is something I should have said earlier in the controversy thread.
Quote
If a person is doing so publicly it's alright to intervene because we reasonably know that when people do it publicly it's sourced in a desire to be helped, but the actions of law enforcement and medical personal towards the (typically post-attempt) suicidal while well-meaning are often stepford-esq and are a violation of their personhood. The Baker Act in particular goes even further beyond this and should be repealed or strictly amended as it is frequently used to abuse people not in an active crisis state and even maliciously against those who are under no mental stress at all. A society that cares about freedom must, to be consistent with its own values, accept that the right to life comes paired with the right to refuse that life.If I could make gifs work, I'd have the one of Citizen Kane applauding.
Quote
- In order to solve our endemic economic problems, we're going to need a new order of economic thought on the level of Wealth of Nations or Das Kapital to deal with the stockholder system, new monopolies, and automation. If you thought communism was a radical proposal...Is this supposed to be controversial? If it wasn't for the last line you could insert this into most online discussions without getting more than a raised eyebrow.
Post by: Reelya on February 24, 2017, 02:58:36 am
Quote
social darwinism is a bunch of crap.
It's a good thing then that nothing I wrote has any connection to social darwinism.
The idea of competing for a mate and limited resources meaning you have to decide whether to have kids or not : that's normal Darwinism. Social darwinism is about the idea of superior beings rising to higher social classes, a totally different thing.
And if we do genetically engineer ourselves, it will be subject to selection pressures anyway dictating what we decide to do. It's just that now our tables and data are part of the selection pressures.
Darwin's theory doesn't dictate where mutations come from, they just have to arise. And any CRISPR-created mutants will still need to prove that they're actually an improvement or they will naturally not be continued. So natural selection still at work.
Just because a selection involves people's thoughts doesn't mean it's outside the theory of natural selection. People don't want to fuck ugly people, therefore ugly people are selected against. That's pure a concious decision made by individuals therefore it's "social". But its still part of the selection criteria.
This is back to Humanity's Great Conceit. We view human actions as "rational" and "outside nature" e.g. if some human decision shifts the genome we cry that this wasn't "evolution" because we worked "outside the system". But you know, animals make concious decision all the time which affect who they mate with, and these decisions shape their species. We are in fact not outside that system despite being smarter.
Post by: helmacon on February 24, 2017, 03:00:06 am
-snip snoop-a +1 to most of this in general, and the pineapple pizza topping thing in particular.
Post by: helmacon on February 24, 2017, 03:03:27 am
Quotesocial darwinism is a bunch of crap.
It's a good thing then that nothing I wrote has any connection to social darwinism.
The idea of competing for a mate and limited resources meaning you have to decide whether to have kids or not : that's normal Darwinism.
ok, sorry. I guess i misinterpreted that.
Still, the existence or lack thereof of selective pressures is irrelevant to the initial argument.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 24, 2017, 03:05:55 am
It is, by the way. Hawaiian pizza is delicious, and some day I'll experiment with other combinations. One day pineapple will be in all foods. You can't stop progress.
Quote
Circumcision of male babies is as much child abuse as it is with female babies even if the latter has more severe consequences, and the procedure should only be available to adults or if medically necessary. Also, people's reactions to the thought of trying to convince 18-year olds to get their dicks chopped prove they already know it's inappropriate.
I've never seen this opinion as controversial. I haven't asked everybody I know "Hey how do you feel about circumcision," but everybody I have asked has an opinion much like yours.
Post by: Reelya on February 24, 2017, 03:11:28 am
Quotesocial darwinism is a bunch of crap.
It's a good thing then that nothing I wrote has any connection to social darwinism.
The idea of competing for a mate and limited resources meaning you have to decide whether to have kids or not : that's normal Darwinism.
ok, sorry. I guess i misinterpreted that.
Still, the existence or lack thereof of selective pressures is irrelevant to the initial argument.
You misinterpereted my parody of the "human elitist" view. I was talking about the traditional "pyramid of life" charts which shows humans at the top of a pyramid of "lesser species", and how bullshit they were. Early "evolution" materials didn't show the radial tree structure, but a pyramid with humans at the top and all the lines of lesser species converging on us. Since you can't go above the top of the pyramid it was strongly implied that humans are a "Golden Form" and the ultimate end-form of evolution.
Since you didn't understand what I was arguing for, the rest of your points are non-sequiters thus I have no response for them.
Post by: helmacon on February 24, 2017, 03:23:11 am
Yea, human elitism can be some bullshit.
The rest of the points were in regards to crispr technology being a viable alternative to natural evolutionary process, which I still think is very relevant to your argument for resisting transhumanism.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 24, 2017, 03:24:15 am
Perhaps its only the perception that matters.I guess we'll see. If Trump keeps up the song and dance for four years successfully, than yes. If he's forced into substance or everybody realizes he's a terrible person, than no. Regardless, actually reliable people in government will always be better than those who just look reliable, so seek that no matter what.
Quote
True enough, but I'll ask ya straight: what exactly is the nature of morality? Not necessarily what is moral, but what is its nature? Because you seem to know quite a bit about it, and I want to hear your thoughts.Morality is the definition of when and why some actions should be accepted or not, and is inherently subjective in nature (to the extent that even should an objective moral standard exist in the universe, all actual standards set by human beings will be subjective, including those that claim objectivity). As a concept it's really not more than that, and to say more would be to delve into actual discussions of the morality of certain actions. Morality is inherently linked to actions by (for now) humans, however. An orphanage of children burning to death in an accident is wrong, but it's wrong in the sense that it's an undesirable occurrence because it was accidental. The moral dimension would only come in if, say, you had people opposed to righting the fault in electrical wiring that makes such fires likely. Of course, if the likelihood of the fault causing a fire is so low that using the money for fault correcting for it instead of other things causes even further deaths and saves none, yadda yadda and now we're down the rabbit hole of magnitude and probability.
Quote
Is this supposed to be controversial? If it wasn't for the last line you could insert this into most online discussions without getting more than a raised eyebrow.It's only not controversial because I didn't start laying into my proto-first draft of how I'll become the next Marx. Once you get to proposal level people start freaking out, or perhaps nodding in rapturous agreement. One of the two.
I thought saying that pineapple is a pizza topping was the controversial one?I'm generally against genocide, but you pineapple folk are starting to get at my utility function.
It is, by the way. Hawaiian pizza is delicious, and some day I'll experiment with other combinations. One day pineapple will be in all foods. You can't stop progress.
Quote
I've never seen this opinion as controversial. I haven't asked everybody I know "Hey how do you feel about circumcision," but everybody I have asked has an opinion much like yours.It depends on a lot. It's not controversial among young Americans or most Europeans, but outside of that group you start to encounter resistance, some hysterical in nature. Also, people who circumcised their children because a doctor told them to and always secretly questioned if it was alright, they tend to panic when these things are discussed.
In short form, gun ownership in the United States (that distinction will be important) should be subject to reasonable restrictions on things like straw purchases and military equipment, but otherwise permitted. It is my almost one and only shamefully center-right opinion, though I don't see it that way and would probably clash with those sorts in spite of alleged agreement. Strict scrutiny should be applied to measures that seek to disarm particular elements of the population due to, in particular, a history of arming whites and disarming blacks. Any further on this line and I'll run straight into my controversial policing opinions, but the thread is young. I also think that this is an issue that it is alright to have different standards on for different societies, because it is in many ways based upon the historical ethos of different nations. It's like how South Africa has a long, long amount of law that pertains to the protection of the unique post-apartheid stability attained there, it's a necessity for them but not for anywhere else.Anti-vaxxers are a threat to public safety and there should be no exemption to vaccination except medical necessity.
Out of curiosity related to this point, what are your views on gun ownership?
This is the case for the Second Amendment as well, which along with gun ownership has always been an inherent element of American culture. The more practical benefits....that goes back to policing controversy. And as for the consequences, a lack of gun culture doesn't seem to have stopped spree killings in nations without it, nor has it made them all that more deadly statistically speaking. Not to mention, as we've seen, it isn't overly difficult to smuggle guns for an act of terrorism.
Specifically regarding its relation to anti-vaxxers, I don't think it's at all the same anyway. Guns don't multiply through the population forcing everybody to shoot each other, nor do they occasionally change form to make people who have been...gun-vaccinated....start dying as well. The public health difficulties are on a whole other scale, and disease has always been more dangerous than guns, or any human weapon short of nukes. Not to mention, it's alright or at least not a major problem if a few people own guns, but it is a major fucking deal if vaccination rates are below herd immunity, which is a high percentage for most diseases.
Post by: Reelya on February 24, 2017, 03:57:26 am
The rest of the points were in regards to crispr technology being a viable alternative to natural evolutionary process, which I still think is very relevant to your argument for resisting transhumanism.
What argument for resisting transhumanism? I never made that argument.
See, I'm just not following on how anything you're saying is connected to anything that I said, except for the bit where you "contradicted" me by agreeing with the point I was trying to make.
~~~
Basically I was arguing that we're still "inside" nature, and this was in response to exactly one argument: that we've transcended evolution. Nature is rocks, it's light, it's all of physics. It's not just the biosphere. The "natural world" is the entire universe. We are just arrogant to think we're separate from that, that things we make are "above natural". It's actually a belief with it's origins in western religion, not science.
e.g. we have evolved brains. If those brains then decide to do things that affect further evolution, then they are a selection pressure, and the selection pressure is from something that evolved according to other selection pressures. So even with genetic engineering, it's our evolved brains which make the determination. So we're not actually "outside" evolution at all. We are just the mutation source now, and there is no clause in the theory of evolution that says "mutations must be because of cosmic radiation etc, or they're not 'real' mutations". Actual natural selection still plays out on anything we create, no matter how cleverly we create it.
"Natural Selection" actually means innate selection, i.e. it's something's innate qualities itself which determine if it reproduces. This process is not limited to things that we arbitrarily label as "nature" in a schema of natural/artifcial. "artifcial" just means "things we made", and it's definitely not a given that "things we made" are somehow exempt from the laws of physics and causality.
Genes that humans like, that we want to engineer into themselves, those genes are mutations, and they get a kick in the selection process. After all, genes only know gene spread, they don't care how it happens. But if those changes aren't actually an advantage they will die out - natural selection at work. And this can be extended to a machine culture as well. Useful machines get replicated, less useful ones become extinct, and new designs (mutations) are tried out as part of the process. We see this all the time in the market deciding which technologies become standard.
This has absolutely zero bearing on whether we are humans, post-humans, trans-humans or what have you. Even though we are part of the natural universe no matter what we do, we aren't necessarily always going to be "humans", because being part of nature (physical universe) isn't negotiable, whereas humanity is.
Post by: Frumple on February 24, 2017, 07:25:27 am
The stupid propositions that come from trying to game the observation into absurdity are pretty much invariably rooted in misunderstanding or ignorance of the mentioned environment, or biology or psychology, to preempt one of the more common attempts to invalidate it.
Post by: helmacon on February 24, 2017, 01:36:17 pm
Quote
One aspect of transhumanism can be that: becoming symbiotically dependent on technology to the point we lose the evolved ability that would have done that job (although not as well). That happens with physical skills, and there's no reason to think it won't also happen with mental skills. The types of cognition abilities which are selected for will be the ones that make a difference in reproduction. If we offload tasks to computers then those will do things we used to do, and there will be less selection pressure in that direction. In that sense we are in fact in a symbiotic relationship with technology.
This argument right here. I responded with "Those selection pressures are null and void, because crispr exists".
Consider crispr a natural selective pressure if you want, it dosent matter.
On the idea that "The universe is natural, thus, everything that comes about from these natural products is natural" is kind of silly. "Natural" & "Manmade" are not actual things, they are abstract concepts that are useful for defining the world.
What is the actual difference between caffeine isolated from tea leaves and synthetic caffeine? none. They are exactly the same. "Synthetic" is only a word we have developed to describe a process we have made, because it's useful to make that distinction.
The actual definition of natural is "not made or caused by humankind.". Call that elitist if you want, but we are humans, so it's helpful to define what we have done ourselves.
Now take evolution, or natural selection. Once we take part in that process it is no longer natural, it's just selection. That's exactly what we are doing with crispr. Selecting genes or traits we want.
Quote
except for the bit where you "contradicted" me by agreeing with the point I was trying to make.This isn't the type of debate where we are arbitrarily relegated to opposition. We are allowed to agree on things.
Post by: Reelya on February 24, 2017, 01:56:52 pm
Mutations = change in genes
Selection = culling of genes
Mutations add variety, and selection takes it away, until the gene pool hits equilibrium around some "ideal point". The further you are from this equilibrium point, the higher the selection pressure that you face.
CRISPR is a type of mutation basically. And there are two outcomes:
#1 - small change: the equilibrium point is still where it was. The CRISPR mutant will therefore face stronger selection pressures which drive it back towards the old equilibrium point
#2 - large change: the genome is changed enough that it's in the realm of an entirely different equilibrium point. This is what you need to happen if you want some edit to remain stable. But the problem here is that many (vast numbers of) possible genomes will be in the "catchment" area that would get driven to the same equilibrium point. So the chance that changing one gene that made a new equilibrium point is actually on the equilibrium point is basically zero chance. So the organism will face increased selection pressures on all other genes to optimize itself for the new equilibrium point.
e.g. mutations do not reduce selection pressures, they increase them in almost all cases, because existing organisms have already reached an equilibrium point that minimizes selection pressure. Any mutation disrupts that equilibrium.
Post by: misko27 on February 24, 2017, 02:31:16 pm
Well sure, but I mean that much is obvious. Obviously you want to always pick people who will do good things for the country regardless of other factors. But perhaps it is only the perception of how it gets done that matters. Or?Perhaps its only the perception that matters.I guess we'll see. If Trump keeps up the song and dance for four years successfully, than yes. If he's forced into substance or everybody realizes he's a terrible person, than no. Regardless, actually reliable people in government will always be better than those who just look reliable, so seek that no matter what.
Quote
Oh? Accepted you say? So morality is proscriptive in nature? Can it also be prescriptive in nature? That is to say, can it also say "Thou shalt" instead of "Thou shalt not?" If it requires acceptance, does that mean it needs more than one individual? Can a person alone in nature be moral or immoral?QuoteTrue enough, but I'll ask ya straight: what exactly is the nature of morality? Not necessarily what is moral, but what is its nature? Because you seem to know quite a bit about it, and I want to hear your thoughts.Morality is the definition of when and why some actions should be accepted or not,
And regardless, when you say "accepted", why might something be accepted or not? Because they are considered "bad" for some reson, or something else? I would imagine that everything is accepted unless it isn't, so there is some criteria (and if I understand you, these criteria are equivalent to morality) but what is the criteria actually supposed to do? Note that I don't want you to tell me a specific criterion (or morality), but what it means to be a criterion. What does a criteria have to do to count as morality; as opposed to being, say, objective judgements of value and worth? Like "this situation is good/bad" like you do later with the orphanage example? Do the criteria divide the world into good and bad? You say acceptable, but then what is supposed to be acceptable or unacceptable?
Put differently: what is the nature of good? You say, and please interject if I've at all misrepresented you, that morality is what is accepted or not. But what is a morality actually doing when it does that? Why is it dividing the world up? If I say that one criteria is "All that is purple is accepted, and all that is green is not". Is that a morality system? If not, why not? In short: what is a morality attempting to do when it divides up the world into the acceptable and unacceptable?
Quote
and is inherently subjective in nature (to the extent that even should an objective moral standard exist in the universe, all actual standards set by human beings will be subjective, including those that claim objectivity).Isn't "all morality is subjective" an objective statement? It certainly doesn't leave mcuh room for other interpretation, so it certainly seems objective. But you can tell me.
Quote
As a concept it's really not more than that, and to say more would be to delve into actual discussions of the morality of certain actions.We'll see.
Quote
Morality is inherently linked to actions by (for now) humans, however. An orphanage of children burning to death in an accident is wrong, but it's wrong in the sense that it's an undesirable occurrence because it was accidental. The moral dimension would only come in if, say, you had people opposed to righting the fault in electrical wiring that makes such fires likely.Ahh! So then, what is "undesirable" is not a part of morality? So then, what is the difference between "undesirable" and "immoral"? You are stating - if I understand you - that bad things are not necessarily morally bad; so what is the difference? Does it depend on the morality in question, or are there some things which are beyond the question of morals? I don't quite understand your example which, I think, is intended to explain the difference: is an action immoral only if people are deciding or choosing things? Does that mean that only actions are immoral, or can there be immoral situations and objects?
Quote
Of course, if the likelihood of the fault causing a fire is so low that using the money for fault correcting for it instead of other things causes even further deaths and saves none, yadda yadda and now we're down the rabbit hole of magnitude and probability.So then morality, if I understand you, is decision-making controlled by what is socially accepted? Or have I managed to misunderstand you?
Quote
It's only not controversial because I didn't start laying into my proto-first draft of how I'll become the next Marx.And I thank you for that.
Well I know I'm enjoying this thread now. Please, anyone who happens to know a lot about morals as well, please chime in; as long as you'll stay long enough to explain it, at least. The biggest risk of this thread is the drive-by controversy where someone pops in, goes on about a bunch of very out-there and controversial stuff, and then just leaves, because that is synonomyous with trolling and is how BFEL eventually got banned. Just stay, chat, and be openminded.
Post by: helmacon on February 24, 2017, 04:03:11 pm
Unless you're talking about a full gene drive (which basically edits the genome every single generation), anything you make with CRISPR is still subject to selection pressures.
Mutations = change in genes
Selection = culling of genes
Mutations add variety, and selection takes it away, until the gene pool hits equilibrium around some "ideal point". The further you are from this equilibrium point, the higher the selection pressure that you face.
CRISPR is a type of mutation basically. And there are two outcomes:
#1 - small change: the equilibrium point is still where it was. The CRISPR mutant will therefore face stronger selection pressures which drive it back towards the old equilibrium point
#2 - large change: the genome is changed enough that it's in the realm of an entirely different equilibrium point. This is what you need to happen if you want some edit to remain stable. But the problem here is that many (vast numbers of) possible genomes will be in the "catchment" area that would get driven to the same equilibrium point. So the chance that changing one gene that made a new equilibrium point is actually on the equilibrium point is basically zero chance. So the organism will face increased selection pressures on all other genes to optimize itself for the new equilibrium point.
e.g. mutations do not reduce selection pressures, they increase them in almost all cases, because existing organisms have already reached an equilibrium point that minimizes selection pressure. Any mutation disrupts that equilibrium.
Evolution is not fast enough to make a difference at the rate we can change things with crispr. Also, we can change multiple organisim at once, and repeatedly. So we don't have to rely on traditional methods of propagation. Again, we can do it ourselves.
Quote
The further you are from this equilibrium point, the higher the selection pressure that you face.That's just plain wrong. Selection pressure has to do with how fit an organism is for the environment it is in. It has nothing to do with how similar an organism is to others of the same species.
Post by: Reelya on February 24, 2017, 11:04:46 pm
Why do you think evolutionary change is slow? Mutations happen all the time, but we don't see them propagating. CRISPR is just a forced mutation btw.
The answer is that Natural Selection happens at every generation and it strongly weeds out mutations. It's actually a very rapid process, and it's the main reason you don't see "two-headed three-eyed dogs" and the like very often. it's not because "change" is slow, it's because natural selection is anti-change, in a big way.
So no, CRISPR isn't anything special, it's not up against "evolution": it's a mutation that's up against natural selection. And natural selection's job is to destroy mutations as fast as they appear.
Change is "slow" because natural selection has already done it's job and destroyed most mutations. So the genome is in equilibrium where mutations are minimized. Any time a new mutant appears its killed off pretty quickly. And this includes CRISPR-made mutants. 99.9% of mutants will not outcompete the exist equilibrium organisms, and there's no reason to think we'd automatically be able to buck those odds with CRISPR-made mutants.
Post by: helmacon on February 24, 2017, 11:51:58 pm
Quote
But ... if you force something away from equilibrium, e.g. mutations which includes CRISPR, then it's now out of equilbrium. When something is out of equilibrium then selection pressures are going to very rapidly get the fuck rid of your added mutation, the same as it does for naturally occuring mutations.Ok, look. Natural selection is only going to get rid of a mutation if it is actively detrimental to an organism's survival in some way. In nature, that is 99% of the (non silent) mutations that occur, because they are relatively random. They are suppressed because they hurt the chances of survival, not because it makes them different from the rest of the given species. Silent mutations (the majority of mutations) are rarely purged from the genome at all. Only about 5% of human DNA actualy codes for anything, the rest is just random crap that has accumulated.
If we make changes with crispr you can bet your ass they are going to be beneficial, because we are going to know exactly what we are doing before we do it. We would only do the beneficial ones.
Quote
Natural Selection is actually a very rapid processNo. It is not fast by any measurement. Even when you were talking about it here you were talking about a generational timescale. A (given, extremely rudimentary) crispr treatment can be designed and implemented in a matter of months. The pace of natural evolution is glacial in comparison to this.
Quote
No you're not really up on the theory then.Don't do this. I really really really do understand what i'm talking about.
Post by: Max™ on February 25, 2017, 12:20:04 am
Rights are statements about how you think people (and society) should treat you and how you should treat them; I don't think people have a right to attack the rest of society by slashing away at herd-immunity. I think people have a right to live free from disease, and I think as the whole we call society they have a right to insist upon things like vaccination or removal; you don't gotta vaccinate your kids, but you need to find somewhere away from the rest of society if you choose to do this. I am also a big fan of the right to maintain your body in the fashion you choose, so naturally I'm pissed at having a circumcision before I was even properly aware I existed. If someone is aware enough to express a right, they damn well fucking have it, but if they're not able to dismiss one, it should not be assumed that they lack it.
Freedoms are similar to rights, in that there is often overlap, but the distinction of positive and negative freedoms doesn't fit into the previous definition I gave of rights. I have the freedom to go down the street and watch birds, this is a positive freedom as it expresses a lack of limitations on certain behaviors or actions; I have the freedom to expect others to not try to punch me in the nose while I do this, which is a negative freedom as it expresses limitations on certain behaviors or actions in the context of others.
I'm pretty sure those are nonstandard usage (I think freedoms are often defined the opposite way as negative and positive liberties actually), it's just what the words seem like they should mean, but as they're probably not terribly controversial, I'll add this one:
Beliefs are not required for a human to function, you do not need to hold things to be true if you lack certainty in their truth, but that lack of confidence in something does not require one to hold them to be false either, degrees of confidence between true and false are quite possible.
Post by: Reelya on February 25, 2017, 01:41:22 am
Ok, look. Natural selection is only going to get rid of a mutation if it is actively detrimental to an organism's survival in some way. In nature, that is 99% of the (non silent) mutations that occur, because they are relatively random. They are suppressed because they hurt the chances of survival, not because it makes them different from the rest of the given species. Silent mutations (the majority of mutations) are rarely purged from the genome at all. Only about 5% of human DNA actualy codes for anything, the rest is just random crap that has accumulated.
If we make changes with crispr you can bet your ass they are going to be beneficial, because we are going to know exactly what we are doing before we do it. We would only do the beneficial ones.
"Beneficial" can mean multiple things. e.g. we make changes to some crop to increase yield, but that crop is now weaker vs diseases and won't survive in the wild. Or we make chickens lay 1 billion eggs per year. Sucks to be that chicken: it's not beneficial for the chicken. A change we want in the phenotype doesn't necessarily mean the corresponsing genotype would have higher selectivity. Beneficial for us isn't the same as beneficial for the organism, and neither of those two things is necessarily the same as beneficial for the organism to reproduce.
As for changes that might benefit the organism, if you have a millions of year old organism, then any isolated change you make is extremely unlikely to make something that outbreeds the normal version, because those isolated changes would almost certainly have popped up as a mutant already, probably multiple times, and have "already had their chance".
"Genetic drift" is almost always genes that don't actually affect the qualities of the phenotype. And they wouldn't be things we'd care enough about to use CRISPR for anyway. We want functional changes. And functional changes have a far higher effect on survival than "average" mutations.
And like I said, if you make one change that happens to be beneficial, it needs to be in the zone of a different attractor (i.e. a new stable optimal organism completely), which would be a different germ line than the existing stable organisms. And it's basically certain that that would set off a cascade of related gene changes to tweak things for the new system.
So with CRISPR genes into a breeding population you have three outcomes :
#1 "good" change for us, but harms the organism's reproduction, natural selection tends to weed out the change
#2 "good" change for us, but neutral effect on the organism's reproduction. You'll get genetic drift and gradually the CRISPR gene would be overwritten with random junk.
#3 "good" change for us, positive effect on organism's reproduction. The organism would have to be sufficiently different to the original organism such that random mutations never actually created it in the first place. Will set off a cascade of other related mutations as the organism comes to a completely new equilibrium point. So this type will "stick" but they have to be fairly big changes and they will cause unexpected things, too, since you're heading into unknown territory.
Post by: Starver on February 25, 2017, 01:56:34 am
I can feel myself getting a little heated here, and i'm sure you feel somewhat the same so i'm going to invoke rule 1 in the OP. This will be my last argument post on this topic, and you may have the last post to respond to anything i've said and recap your argument.I feel a bit bad for wading in at all, then, but a couple of teensy-weensy things...
Quote
Only about 5% of human DNA actualy codes for anything, the rest is just random crap that has accumulated.Nobody really knows what the <insert latest interpretation here>% of the DNA (called 'junk') is in the grand scheme of things. Between bits suspected to be 'ionisation sinks', to give protective effects to the rest, and other less directly tested and more esoteric estimations of the utility, there's obviously some usefulness to the 'junk', or else selection would not have maintained a system that requires twenty times more DNA to be replicated at every cell division (not just at conception and in gestation but, for many differentiated adult cells, throughout a person's life) - a huge resource-gobbler. Even if only the gamete-to gamete production of cell lines directly carries the junk between generations, they only do that because the rest of the organism transports them through time and space towards the opportunity to participate in creating the next generation, and that's a lot of so-called-junk being replicated along the way.
Quote
If we make changes with crispr you can bet your ass they are going to be beneficial, because we are going to know exactly what we are doing before we do it.Much as generating a 'slimline' genome (in this instance (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2082278-artificial-cell-designed-in-lab-reveals-genes-essential-to-life/), it was a count of the number of genes, rather than base-pairs, that was the aim, and "junk" isn't mentioned, so I'm not sure how much they messed with that) may ruin some heretofore useful junkDNA/proteome interaction, saying that we will not break things badly at some level by doing anything but the simplest of substitutions. Correcting a known disabling base-flip is going to be 'simple', anything leading to transhumanism of any significant worth, less so.
Quote
We would only do with the beneficial ones.We would only try the beneficial ones.
Quote
Don't do this. I really really really do understand what i'm talking about.Perhaps more than me (I'm sure Reelya knows more than I do about the current state of research, so why not you, also?) but I do see some room for improvement, or at least cautious conservatism, in your more wildly optimistic predictions.
Oh, look, Reelya has replied. I'll read that (and maybe disagree, in turn?) momentarily...
Post by: Reelya on February 25, 2017, 02:29:32 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Scientists debunked the idea of "gradual" evolution almost 50 years ago. Evolution occurs in alternating periods of stasis and rapid adaptation (when things change).
Stasis occurs when a species is in a good environment: natural selection removes outliers, and no net change occurs for very long periods.
But when in a bad environment, everyone is an outlier. This has several effects. Mutants are much more likely to be beneficial or neutral than before, there's no selection pressure "holding" the genome near the old genome's form, and existing genetic variation comes into play. Some genes that were marginally bad, or neutral, might become marginally good. And on top of that, genetics is a huge parallel processing task that mixes the solutions together using sexual reproduction, so a "good" solution to the new problem can in fact spread rapidly through the population.
Speciation events are triggered by a change in the niche that the organism fills, and they are associated with a rapid gene shift over to some new form. So, there's nothing slow about the speed at which selection works. It only appears so because already-optimized species are being forced into stasis by it. It's a much more powerful and fast-acting force than mutation.
Post by: misko27 on February 25, 2017, 02:51:25 am
Morals are statements about how you think the world should behave; I think people shouldn't be allowed to murder babies because some vapid bimbo can't shut her trap about it, so I think going against vaccination is morally wrong.Morals are how the world should behave? Interesting, interesting. So more. You say "should". But this implies a great deal, doesn't it? It implies that there are many possible states the world (or some subset of the world, like a situation) could be in, and only one of those states are moral; do I understand you properly? But here is a question: let us say that I believe that orange is the best color (obviously blue is the best color, but for the purposes of this thought let's pretend I thought otherwise). And let's say that I believed that walls should be orange. Is that a moral judgement, or not? If it can be a moral judgement, are there moralities where it is possible for me to both believe that walls should be orange, but not believe that that is a moral judgment? If it is possible, then there is some issue with "should" isn't there? The word might be too broad. I might suggest - and call me out if I say differently than what you believe - that not every "should" is necessarily about morality. But if it isn't, then what seperates a moral "should" from a non-moral "should"?
Quote
Rights are statements about how you think people (and society) should treat you and how you should treat them ... If someone is aware enough to express a right, they damn well fucking have it, but if they're not able to dismiss one, it should not be assumed that they lack it.Also interesting. Tell me, was your repeated use of the word "you" in the first sentence deliberate? If so, than that seems to imply that the people can simply decide they have certain rights; is that what you meant? Wouldn't that mean that, say, people can decide that they have the right to not vaccinate? And regardless, I need you to explain everything after "but if they're not able to dismiss". I don't understand this, so please help me out a bit. Rights exist only if people imagine they do, right? Then that means that rights must not exist until people imagine them, surely? The former part of your paragraph seems to discuss rights as something anyone could imagine, while the latter seems to insist that there are certain rights that exist whether or not someone is aware of the. But which is it? If I've at all misunderstood something you've written, please explain further so I can understand you better.
And, for what it is worth, my earlier questions about "should" apply here as well.
Quote
Freedoms are similar to rights, in that there is often overlap, but the distinction of positive and negative freedoms doesn't fit into the previous definition I gave of rights. I have the freedom to go down the street and watch birds, this is a positive freedom as it expresses a lack of limitations on certain behaviors or actions; I have the freedom to expect others to not try to punch me in the nose while I do this, which is a negative freedom as it expresses limitations on certain behaviors or actions in the context of others.When you say freedom, do you mean freedom in the physical sense? Freedom being "I have unlocked doors and am able to walk on my two-feet, therefore I can walk outside if I so choose" and "I am not in any immediate danger, therefore I am free from immediate danger", or does freedom mean something else as well? If freedom is about more than literal physical circumstance, what defines that sort of freedom? How might I know that this is a freedom I have? Your definition of freedom fits quite well with the literal, but, unless I've missed something, you didn't really define freedom in the same way you defined rights?
Quote
I'm pretty sure those are nonstandard usage (I think freedoms are often defined the opposite way as negative and positive liberties actually), it's just what the words seem like they should mean, but as they're probably not terribly controversial, I'll add this one:Is this the same moral-defining "should" from before? :)
Quote
Beliefs are not required for a human to function, you do not need to hold things to be true if you lack certainty in their truth, but that lack of confidence in something does not require one to hold them to be false either, degrees of confidence between true and false are quite possible.Interesting. You say beliefs are not required for function? Then I will ask something by way of example: Imagine that we had a man with no beliefs at all. He had certain things which, as you say, he held some degree of confidence in, but he believed in absolutely nothing! When he went to sleep at night, he believed there was a non-zero chance that he would wake up naked in a field, his house having disappeared as an illusion. Certainly, not a very large chance at all, but it was there. The proper scientific gentlemen! But having constructed this fellow (whom I will name Jeremy for no reason at all), I find myself wondering a few questions about him. First, how does he decide? He believes in nothing at all, after all, only realms of probability. But in order to make a decision, mustn't Jeremy, like a quantum particle, collapse from a realm of possible beliefs into a single, concrete position? Does he disbelieve himself even during the act and moment of making a choice or decision? How is that possible? Forgive me for not being able to understand, but to disbelieve your decisions during the actual decision, isn't that equivalent to doubting your own thoughts? How is that even possible? Doesn't such a doubter at least believe in himself as a mind which doubts? I mean, I'm sure it's possible that he believes he disbelieves in his own thoughts; but then, he has to believe that he is disbelieving something.
And second, how could such a doubter go through life? In addition to disbeliving himself and his own disbelief, wouldn't Jeremy also disbelieve cause-and-effect as well? It is as this point that I wish to suggest that while Jeremy is the sort of person who one could force oneself to become, how would a babe do it? Jeremy can handle himself due to his experience, but how is it possible that a newborn might learn all the things necessary in life as to become functional without truly believing anything, and while also doubting causation itself? You say that belief is not necessary for humans; isn't it at least necessary for newborns? Or is there some way of it that I've not conceived of yet? I do apologize, and thank you in advance for your patience in helping me to undersand.
Post by: Reelya on February 25, 2017, 03:55:07 am
So the selection pressures are different, but they still exist, and perhaps stronger than ever. Small families suggest that is the case. Individual odds of breeding have in fact never been lower, which means that any genes which correlate with breeding in any way will face strong selection pressures.
Think about men. Men can only procreate by convincing a woman to mate with them. Any genes that positively influence a man's chance to breed are going to have strong positive selection, especially given that the "mating market" is in fact hyper-competitive in the modern world. While we've cured a bunch of diseases, on the other hand you used to be pretty much guaranteed a marriage and therefore a family. Not any more. Now you have to fight to get that. i.e. competitive selection pressure.
And some men and women don't want children, yet in the "old days" that wasn't accepted: society mostly forced you to get married and start a family. Now, since it's a choice, any genes that influence that choice are now facing stronger selection pressures than they did before. So the ironic net result of sexual liberation is that people who aren't interested in children are now excluded from the gene pool in ways they weren't allowed to be in the past. That should in fact shift the gene pool towards only "enthusiastic breeders" since "non-enthusiastic breeders" are self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool.
So, it's definitely arguable that reproductive choice is itself leading to stronger selection pressures than existed before. We might think we've transcended evolution but that's not the case.
Post by: McTraveller on February 25, 2017, 10:52:31 am
Post by: Sergarr on February 25, 2017, 11:04:46 am
So why is preserving the human race a desirable goal anyway? That is - why should we care about the future generations? What's wrong with just using all the resources we can to live the most luxurious life we can, the future be damned?The negentropy score for our universe won't be as high as possible, duh.
Post by: SalmonGod on February 25, 2017, 06:37:14 pm
Nickelback doesn't deserve the meme-ified level of hatred they get, and I don't even understand how that got rolling in the first place. There's far, far worse music out there in popular music scenes. Yeah, they have a "generic" sound, which I take to simply mean genre-pure with simple song structures... but there's nothing inherently wrong with that, and there are bands I can think of that are very well respected for the same thing.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 25, 2017, 06:41:07 pm
Post by: Frumple on February 25, 2017, 06:55:27 pm
That said, the easiest stuff to latch on to isn't the worst material, but the stuff that's good enough to be well known -- particularly if it's fairly prolific in terms of air time -- but not good enough to be much more than that. Takes something that people know of and can fight over, basically, not just something such that everyone that hears someone speak ill of it just kinda' looks at the people speaking with a shrug and a "Yeah?"
Post by: Antioch on February 25, 2017, 06:56:27 pm
I kinda hate things entire "YOU MUST LOVE OR HATE A BAND" thing. There are boatloads of bands that have just a couple of songs that I like and many others songs that I don't.
Post by: Frumple on February 25, 2017, 06:59:44 pm
Post by: ein on February 25, 2017, 07:02:08 pm
you see this kinda effect in a lot of media. with video games for instance, everybody loves to hate on your call of duties and assassin's creeds, but who remembers big rigs? ride to hell retribution? in a few years, maybe even months, after steam greenlight is buried and forgotten, who's going to remember all of the buggy, broken, piece of shit games that actually managed to make it onto the steam storefront
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 25, 2017, 07:05:39 pm
I kinda hate things entire "YOU MUST LOVE OR HATE A BAND" thing. There are boatloads of bands that have a just couple of songs that I like and many others songs that I don't.
Almost all the music I like is like that. I like a few by this band, a few by that band, but never more than a few songs.
There's only three groups in all my listening that I can conclusively say "I like almost everything by these people."
Post by: helmacon on February 25, 2017, 10:13:15 pm
Ok, i'll bite.I kinda hate things entire "YOU MUST LOVE OR HATE A BAND" thing. There are boatloads of bands that have a just couple of songs that I like and many others songs that I don't.
Almost all the music I like is like that. I like a few by this band, a few by that band, but never more than a few songs.
There's only three groups in all my listening that I can conclusively say "I like almost everything by these people."
What three groups?
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 25, 2017, 10:36:31 pm
Post by: Max™ on February 26, 2017, 07:13:43 am
I've been sick and in bed off and on most of the last day, or two, not sure, much as I am not sure about many things. I didn't like not knowing what things were as early as I can remember, and as I learned how much of what was thought to be fact is closer to an approximation I found myself going back through what I thought was true that was actually just possibly true or even probably true. When I encountered church as a thing and religion as a concept I started reading about that and it bugged the shit out of me that this word "belief" keeps cropping up, and that the definition seems to be "something held to be true" so I started going back through other books and investigating it, trying to find the "under these conditions" extension of that statement. Held to be true if what, or when this, or as long as that, something like that. Later I learned this isn't actually a problem for most people, but when you suggest that it is a problem for you they kinda seem shocked at the whole idea that if I express a belief I am lying to myself and others. No I don't need to take it to that point, but it feels wrong to do so without a viable "under these conditions" qualifier, but that means it isn't really a belief anymore doesn't it? Varying levels of doubt and confidence suffice for me and are far more comfortable than unwarranted certainty.
Now the comfort of my pillow is calling me back, stupendous and unheard of slumbers await me there, and I shall seek them soon.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 26, 2017, 07:43:47 am
@misko...quoth the Raven "Nevermore"
I've been sick and in bed off and on most of the last day, or two, not sure, much as I am not sure about many things. I didn't like not knowing what things were as early as I can remember, and as I learned how much of what was thought to be fact is closer to an approximation I found myself going back through what I thought was true that was actually just possibly true or even probably true. When I encountered church as a thing and religion as a concept I started reading about that and it bugged the shit out of me that this word "belief" keeps cropping up, and that the definition seems to be "something held to be true" so I started going back through other books and investigating it, trying to find the "under these conditions" extension of that statement. Held to be true if what, or when this, or as long as that, something like that. Later I learned this isn't actually a problem for most people, but when you suggest that it is a problem for you they kinda seem shocked at the whole idea that if I express a belief I am lying to myself and others. No I don't need to take it to that point, but it feels wrong to do so without a viable "under these conditions" qualifier, but that means it isn't really a belief anymore doesn't it? Varying levels of doubt and confidence suffice for me and are far more comfortable than unwarranted certainty.
Now the comfort of my pillow is calling me back, stupendous and unheard of slumbers await me there, and I shall seek them soon.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 26, 2017, 08:18:51 am
Post by: IndigoFenix on February 26, 2017, 10:59:04 am
So why is preserving the human race a desirable goal anyway? That is - why should we care about the future generations? What's wrong with just using all the resources we can to live the most luxurious life we can, the future be damned?
Evolution will ensure that people with the instinct to preserve their genes or the genes of their species will outcompete those who do not. And no matter what you consider the ultimate goal to be, failing to accomplish that goal won't achieve it, so all else being equal, why choose a goal that is doomed to fail?
I mean, I guess you can stop the triumph of self-preservation by exterminating all life. But that doesn't really help anyone.
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 27, 2017, 02:51:42 am
Post by: CABL on February 27, 2017, 05:28:20 am
TL:DR - There cannot be a "truthful" and "unbiased" mass media/source because the very essence of the mass media (and humans as a species) is in being biased. Of course, it's my opinion, you don't have to agree with it. After all, it's "Unpopular/Controversial Ideas Thread"!
@ itisnotlogical - ChairmanPoo's avatar makes me a little bit uncomfortable. I think I'll just AdBlock the avatar to don't see a muscular body with a face for a crotch.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 27, 2017, 06:02:09 am
If you complain that a game's "only good with mods" and completely tear out the guts until it doesn't even resemble what you bought, you should probably just spend your money on the game that you would rather be playing in the first place.what if it doesnt exist or you cant get it?
Post by: itisnotlogical on February 27, 2017, 06:04:44 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 27, 2017, 06:07:45 am
Case in point I very much prefer DF to Rimworld, but I have terrible performance problems.
Not that Rimworld doesnt have its charm, but without the extra content mods I'd get bored I think
Post by: Starver on February 27, 2017, 07:39:34 am
I have terrible performance problems.Looking at your current avatar, this is either understandable or not at all understandable, depending on how far out of context you take this... ;)
Post by: overseer05-15 on February 27, 2017, 07:41:43 am
I'm hard-pressed to think of a game that doesn't exist.
Golden Sun 4.
Game, set, match.
Post by: Reelya on February 27, 2017, 07:44:42 am
"Jackie Chan's Sex For Kids"
To be honest, it's easy to think of virtually infinite possible games that don't exist. Because you just make something completely random or about a topic / mechanic nobody would touch.
If you can't think of any, that's because you're constraining your mental search space with too many criteria of what you think is a "proper game".
Post by: Frumple on February 27, 2017, 07:59:01 am
Post by: overseer05-15 on February 27, 2017, 11:15:40 am
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV, right?
Post by: Frumple on February 27, 2017, 11:29:23 am
Post by: Antioch on February 27, 2017, 03:36:23 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on February 27, 2017, 04:46:01 pm
Here is one: Saudia Arabia's regime is worse than the Taliban.
I don't know if thats even an unpopular opinion, just very underreported on. Why? Probably because of close ties with the US. It was the same way with Hussein. We didn't give a fuck that he was a dictator, we just got mad that he decided to stop fighting Iran--though he wasn't all that successful at that anyways.
Post by: Reelya on February 27, 2017, 04:51:12 pm
Quote
he wasn't all that successful at that anyways.
Perhaps the goal wasn't for him to be too successful. After all as soon as he got too stronk, we took him out. And USA was also caught selling anti-tank weapons to the Iranians during the war.
No, the goal as always was to embroil the region in permanent war as it makes a good market for one of the key US exports.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on February 27, 2017, 05:24:48 pm
The USA would not want an Iraqi occupation of Iran certainly--but it would want to see Iran defeated, and frankly, it seems more like inept tactics and officers are what drew out the war rather than arms supplied to either sides.
Also it would be far more lucrative (for the US) to see Iran returned to pro-American/western leadership.
Post by: Helgoland on February 27, 2017, 06:37:25 pm
Quote
Simeon Weisz: I don't think you and I are in the same business. You think I just sell guns, don't you? I don't. I take sides.
Yuri: But in the Iran-Iraq War, you sold guns to both sides.
Simeon Weisz: Did you ever consider that I wanted both sides to lose?
Anyway, unpopular idea, at least around these parts: Supplying the Mujahedeen during the Soviet invasion was not only a good move politically, it was a good deed vis-a-vis peoples' right to self-determination.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 27, 2017, 06:49:26 pm
The NA also was partially lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was probably the single greatest hope for Afghanistan. Well-respected and wanted to bring the country closer to modern standards. He was assassinated two days before 9/11 and attempted to warn the US that it was being planned, though he did not know the details. Incidentally, Osama bin Laden said of him that "as long as this man lives, we will never be victorious".
So by "idea" I more mean something along the lines of "fact".
Post by: Reelya on February 27, 2017, 07:00:45 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Afghanistan
Quote
The PDPA came to power through a coup known as the Saur Revolution, which ousted the government of Mohammad Daoud Khan. Daoud was succeeded by Nur Muhammad Taraki as head of state and government on 30 April 1978. Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, the organiser of the Saur Revolution, introduced several contentious reforms during their rule, the most notable being equal rights to women, universal education and land reform.
So the evil leftists removed a dictator from power (who had assassinated the previous dictator) then they did things that enraged the islamists such as women's rights and education funding.
So in other words backing the Mujahedeen as promoting "self determination" is in fact a red herring, as the other side in the war were in fact morally preferable.
The Russians in fact had desired to stay out of things, but they'd signed a mutual defense pact with the current government of Afghanistan, and when that government had come under attack, they had demanded Soviet aid. BTW:
Quote
Najibullah pursued a policy of National Reconciliation with the opposition, a new Afghan constitution was introduced in 1987 and democratic elections were held in 1988 (which were boycotted by the mujahideen).
Oh right, so they HAD democratic elections and power sharing even during the 1980s but the Islamists refused to get involved. So much for us supporting the forces of self-determination and democracy.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 27, 2017, 07:08:06 pm
Russians aren't big on letting neighbours do their own thing, regardless of whichever guys are in power. Were doing this shit back when they still had Tzars, and they keep doing it with Bad Vlad. Nothing new under the sun.
Post by: Reelya on February 27, 2017, 07:13:19 pm
Post by: Helgoland on February 27, 2017, 07:18:02 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 27, 2017, 07:22:31 pm
France for example is particularly shit, even resorting to actual terrorist attacks against people who questioned their nuclear testing in the pacific. Both French officers who carried out the terrorist attack (and were caught, imprisoned) were later promoted after their release.
Post by: Frumple on February 27, 2017, 07:28:45 pm
when someone says "country X is known for Y" then that's only a valid observation if it's specific to that country.N... no, that's not correct. Like, at all. Something being known for something does not necessitate or even particularly insinuate exclusivity. You can apply it to something more innocuous to make that obvious; there's a handful of countries in the world all known for their lumber industries, ferex. That any particular one is known for that, is an entirely valid observation.
Post by: Helgoland on February 27, 2017, 07:29:24 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 27, 2017, 07:34:57 pm
there's a handful of countries in the world all known for their lumber industries, ferex. That any particular one is known for that, is an entirely valid observation.
But when all the major powers are known for doing basically the same stuff, then citing selectively does imply that the others are less known for that. I'd argue that for example all the nations in the UN Security Council are on about the same level with this sort of stuff.
Also, only Poo did that, Reels, and that was a tangent. Countering noise with noise doesn't really work...Not sure why that matters. I made it clear in my statement that I was directly addressing the specific statement made by 'Poo
Post by: Helgoland on February 27, 2017, 07:35:57 pm
Post by: Reelya on February 27, 2017, 07:37:05 pm
The only main difference is that the ones in Europe meddle with places further away, because they have equally strong direct neighbors in Europe, whereas USA China and Russia enjoy overwhelming dominance of their nearby areas.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 27, 2017, 08:51:14 pm
Quote
All 5 of them. China, France, England, USA and Russia all have a strong history of meddling.
Yeah, I grant you that pretty much all nations meddle if they can. Not even only those five. Consider the bullshit geopolitics Germany pulled in the past (and arguably still does from time to time - eg: the ugly business in Lybia, strongarming small EU countries, etc...). And in LatinAmerica it's a FFA, as far as I know. Hasn't come to open blows in the last 20-to-30 years but several times it has come close.
My point was that the Russian intervention in Afghanistan wasn't any more altruistic than American support of the Taliban was. Though probably a Comitern-Afghanistan would have been less of a boil in the perineum than the Taliban ended up being.
Post by: misko27 on February 27, 2017, 08:59:27 pm
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 27, 2017, 09:08:25 pm
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2017, 04:06:11 am
Having low amounts of troops fighting a war for decades isn't necessarily bad.
Post by: Reelya on February 28, 2017, 04:09:29 am
Post by: Helgoland on February 28, 2017, 07:38:53 am
Post by: overseer05-15 on February 28, 2017, 07:48:04 am
i.e. I probably wouldn't get a therapist to remove a malignant tumor. (Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're calling a therapist)
Post by: Frumple on February 28, 2017, 08:46:34 am
I'm not sure I'd agree with the principle in regards to military conflict -- long term low intensity can easily damage a society (economically and otherwise) worse than short term high intensity (I.e. "flashy") and is often more likely to cause regional rather than country specific issues -- but for medical, emergency services in general (firefighting, law enforcement, etc.), stuff like that, with zero doubt a long term program, particularly those prevention focused, is more effective by pretty much any metric than something focused on reactive, put-out-fires type stuff. Not that the latter isn't still important, it's just significantly worse at reducing harm et al on the net.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 28, 2017, 09:05:34 am
Post by: Frumple on February 28, 2017, 09:23:44 am
E: Though, just to clarify, you still totes need specialists/emergency care folks et al. All the improved building specs and fire safety training in the world ain't going to stop us from needing firefighters. S'just that, while generally you want an across the board increase to that sort of investment (at the least as population grows), you're probably going to be better off if that sort of stuff isn't invested in as heavily as the stuff that makes it so people don't need them.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on February 28, 2017, 11:00:23 am
Post by: Sheb on February 28, 2017, 11:33:43 am
Do you have an example of such an anti-Powell intervention working out?
I'll try to dig up through my copy of Small Wars for a decently sourced exemple.
Post by: Antioch on February 28, 2017, 03:45:16 pm
My unpopular idea regarding that is that people are really eager to equate the mujahdeen to the Taliban because it helps the "dae AmeriKKKa?" line and fail to recognize that the mujahdeen were a generalized group of resistance fighters who aren't all the same, and while they contained the proto-Talibs they also contained what would go on to become the Northern Alliance/United Islamic Front who were against the Taliban.
The NA also was partially lead by Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was probably the single greatest hope for Afghanistan. Well-respected and wanted to bring the country closer to modern standards. He was assassinated two days before 9/11 and attempted to warn the US that it was being planned, though he did not know the details. Incidentally, Osama bin Laden said of him that "as long as this man lives, we will never be victorious".
So by "idea" I more mean something along the lines of "fact".
It is bizarre how much Afghanistan lost with Massoud. A leader who is so capable and with a vision of democracy and equality is almost a unique occurrence.
Post by: Strife26 on February 28, 2017, 04:20:04 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on February 28, 2017, 06:52:53 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on February 28, 2017, 08:03:50 pm
Smash what we don't like, grab what we do, tip our fedoras to the locals and leave them in the shattered remains of their lives as we go home to loving families. It's the american way.
I just wish we could own it more instead of trying to grab the moral high ground.
Post by: Folly on February 28, 2017, 09:48:22 pm
I fully understand that many horrible actions have been, and continue to be, motivated by racism. And I appreciate the importance of ensuring that these crimes are not repeated. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Different races have verifiable physical and psychological differences and we are fools to pretend that those do not exist. We can teach our children how to be accepting and fair to those who are different without deceiving them with lies that we are all exactly the same.
I'm not suggesting that people should be granted different human rights based on the color of their skin. I'm just saying that it's rational to approach strangers with measured expectations based on the sociological trends that their collective race have established as commonplace.
Post by: redwallzyl on February 28, 2017, 09:53:09 pm
I believe that racism is rational.*Anthropologist twitches
I fully understand that many horrible actions have been, and continue to be, motivated by racism. And I appreciate the importance of ensuring that these crimes are not repeated. But you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Different races have verifiable physical and psychological differences and we are fools to pretend that those do not exist. We can teach our children how to be accepting and fair to those who are different without deceiving them with lies that we are all exactly the same.
I'm not suggesting that people should be granted different human rights based on the color of their skin. I'm just saying that it's rational to approach strangers with measured expectations based on the sociological trends that their collective race have established as commonplace.
What did you just say...that better be a joke.
Post by: helmacon on February 28, 2017, 10:11:36 pm
The idea that we are physically and psychologically different on any meaningful level is kinda bullshit though.
This is...
I would just urge everyone to tread carefully here and remember the rules in the OP.
Post by: Folly on February 28, 2017, 10:31:32 pm
The idea that we are physically and psychologically different on any meaningful level is kinda bullshit though.
So you're claiming that it's just a coincidence that pro basketball teams are predominately black? Or that the kids with the best grades are almost always Asian?
Post by: Reelya on February 28, 2017, 10:37:25 pm
And remember it was within living memory that they used to claim Italians and Irish people had genetically inferior IQ.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2012/08/14/raceiq-irish-iq-chinese-iq/
Quote
First, Lynn was hardly unique among leading IQ experts in characterizing the Irish as being low IQ. For example, Hans Eysenck, one of the foremost IQ researchers of the 20th century said exactly the same thing in his 1971 book “Race, Intelligence, & Education,” claiming that the Irish IQ was very close to that of American blacks, and that the Irish/English IQ gap was almost exactly the same size as the black/white gap in the U.S., being roughly a full standard deviation. Eysenck’s stated position unsurprisingly caused a considerable furor in the British media, including all sorts of angry responses and even (facetious) threats of violence. So the huge and apparently well-designed 1972 study of 3,466 Irish schoolchildren which placed the mean Irish IQ at just 87 hardly seems an absurd outlier.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on February 28, 2017, 10:49:26 pm
The reason basketball teams are predominantly black is also cultural. There's some research out of Japan that postulates that any one culture can only "hold" up to four major sports, less if there's a low population. Basketball is the sport that dominates America's urban areas most, therefore black players are more likely to be invested in it. After a certain point, the perception ingrained the idea of NBA=black and made it self-reinforcing.
And racism isn't rational. Racism is a specific outpouring of xenophobia, which is itself a side effect of the competitive instinct that exists in social animals; i.e. humans. Competition between societies is to some degree rational when it cannot be avoided, but racism is just stupid.
Post by: redwallzyl on February 28, 2017, 11:00:11 pm
I mean... culture tends to often divide down racial lines (unfortunately), and different cultures present different social challenges and risks. Being aware of the culture you are interacting with is the solution to that. Avoid ethnocentrism and all that.not directed at you directly.
The idea that we are physically and psychologically different on any meaningful level is kinda bullshit though.
This is...
I would just urge everyone to tread carefully here and remember the rules in the OP.
it doesn't though most of the time. culture divides along many lines and is tied in with geography, shared history, language, traditions exc. they also aren't monolith things. race is a cultural construct as well capable of being incorporated into identity or not, while also being incredibly arbitrary. they all mix and blend and influence on and other. they are also are all unique and were built on what worked in the past and the events that influenced peoples thinking. and yes its incredibly important that people understand others culture when working with them. people value things differently and have different ideas of what is fair and expected of people. their are always reasons behind everything however, even if the people themselves couldn't tell you why. its the folly of the last few centenaries to think that "our" way is best. everyone is guilty of it and often their is no "best" simply what works. you cant just pull a cog from a machine and slap a different "superior" one in there. everything was built to work together and "improving/fixing" often ignores the reasons for structures to exist int he first place. people don't always do things to the end you might think they are doing it to. don't assume that the "primitive" thing they do is just outdated. it exists as a reflection of the environment. as shown through history people will chance themselves when the environment changes around them and invalidates the old structures. you cant force it. and yes people must be careful and avoid ethnocentrism. not saying that this is for you but more for me and people who want a more detailed explanation. I'm also not saying some things people do aren't bad, people can be really shitty, but to often people think the shittyness of the present is a reflection on everyone. humans are shitty to each other at a fairly consistent rate and the shit generally increases not due to culture but power. sometimes that shit can bleed over as justification for the power and as a means to perpetuate it. their nothing unique about that, that's just humans.
i will wright this to lay down the facts for people to see and make this clear. I'm not suggesting you hold this view.
"race" is not a biological thing is a purely cultural construct. its often concocted by one group about another group that has some trait, usually different color skin, and is far enough away and limited in contact that they can be generalized. all humans are just as slimier to other humans everywhere. when their physical traits are take in aggregate its clear that one person shares no more traits with their neighbor then someone on the other side of the world. we just picked one trait out that not even everyone in the local area has and say that makes them a "race". humans are a huge series of overlaying gradients.
Post by: Folly on February 28, 2017, 11:33:36 pm
In addition, height is genetic but it isn't racial: race doesn't exist on the genetic level in any rigorous manner...
The reason basketball teams are predominantly black is also cultural.
I did not mean to imply that all differences between peoples were caused by race. However, it must be acknowledged that a correlation exists between race, genes, and culture, even if the three are not directly linked. And of those things, race is the most immediately identifiable, and therefore the most effective means of forming initial expectations when encountering someone for the first time.
Post by: Reelya on February 28, 2017, 11:38:05 pm
You can also probably prove some level of genetic correlation as to whether people call soda "soda" "pop" or "coke" in the USA.
That doesn't mean the correlations are meaningful.
Post by: helmacon on February 28, 2017, 11:40:49 pm
not directed at you directly.
it doesn't though most of the time. culture divides along many lines and is tied in with geography, shared history, language, traditions exc.
-snip snoop-
it's right above if you want it.
Yea, maybe often was the wrong word, but it certainly does sometimes. I think the miscommunication here was that the way i said it could be interpreted as "Race causes different cultures" which is not at all what I meant. Culture develops along racial lines for a variety of reasons. A prominent example is the isolation of blacks in america through slavery, and afterwards by jim crow laws and racist sentiment by a large part of the population. Rejected and cut off from the majority culture, it was inevitable that a different culture would develop.
So, a culture develops down racial lines, but not because of "racial differences". It was because of events beyond control, starting with the proliferation of the slave trade.
In the above case the isolation was reinforced from the outside, but often it is self enforced as well. For example, the isolationist nature of the nation of Japan has lead to a very distinct japanese culture based around the japanese racial identity. None of this was caused by any difference in the "Japanese Race" but simply as a result of the decisions of governments, geographical factors, ect, ect..
An example of this originating from religion can be observed in india, from hindu class systems and national tensions.
Anyways, all that to say that culture does end up divided by race sometimes.
Post by: Folly on March 01, 2017, 01:32:13 am
There are correlations between genes and enjoying watching baseball however (since specific races/cultures like baseball).
You can also probably prove some level of genetic correlation as to whether people call soda "soda" "pop" or "coke" in the USA.
That doesn't mean the correlations are meaningful.
Of course correlations are meaningful, they're just not causal.
If you test the Koolaid and find that it's poisonous, that doesn't mean that all Koolaid is inherently poisonous. So you stick a sample in a centrifuge and seperate the Koolaid from the poison, and the Koolaid part tests as harmless. You've proven that Koolaid is not intrinsically linked to poison. But that doesn't mean you go back and drink from the pitcher.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 01, 2017, 02:25:44 am
In particular when discussing this, it's well known that the cultural background of the test writer will match to the results of the best test takers. An IQ test written by black Americans will give more favorable results to black Americans and make whites look sub-par.
In short, IQ is only really useful for testing the severity of cognitive disorders, and it's only a little bit better than Myers-Briggs when it comes to empiricism.
Post by: Reelya on March 01, 2017, 03:36:35 am
In addition, height is genetic but it isn't racial: race doesn't exist on the genetic level in any rigorous manner...
The reason basketball teams are predominantly black is also cultural.
I did not mean to imply that all differences between peoples were caused by race. However, it must be acknowledged that a correlation exists between race, genes, and culture, even if the three are not directly linked. And of those things, race is the most immediately identifiable, and therefore the most effective means of forming initial expectations when encountering someone for the first time.
In relation to what Reelya mentioned, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study) may be of interest to you, along with the interpretations. It's a difficult topic to discuss, but it's worth scientific examination to try find out just what exactly is going on and the various possible causes, whether they be cultural, environmental, or whatever.
(I was actually looking for a different study I recall reading about, done in Maryland I believe, but I can't find it, so I suppose the possibility exists that I confused two 'M' states.)
For my part, I think it's good to read a wide variety of opinions and research, but I'd be very wary of taking small studies as proof of anything.
You can glean a lot from the Minnesota study, but we have to take all the facts into account. For example, one of the headline claims is that black children adopted by white families don't have higher IQs than biologically-raised black children, suggesting that race is the important thing, not upbringing. But that doesn't take into account that the average age of adoption of black children was significantly higher than adopted white children - who do show gains by being adopted by highly educated couples.
Most notably, when they divided the groups into "early adopted" and "late adopted" the difference in measured IQ at age 7 was a whopping 14 points. So if you were adopted earlier by a wealthy couple you gain as much IQ as the total difference between races, regardless of race.
Post by: Sheb on March 01, 2017, 06:27:42 am
The American gestalt guarantees that we're incapable of fighting a long war to a satisfactory result, with the possible exception of the Indian Wars, and calling the various Indian wars a cohesive thing is pretty problematic.
I disagree. We tend to forget them, but the US spent much of the early 20th century fighting counter-insurgencies in places like Haiti.
Post by: Reelya on March 01, 2017, 06:49:13 am
The American gestalt guarantees that we're incapable of fighting a long war to a satisfactory result, with the possible exception of the Indian Wars, and calling the various Indian wars a cohesive thing is pretty problematic.
I disagree. We tend to forget them, but the US spent much of the early 20th century fighting counter-insurgencies in places like Haiti.
USA invaded Haiti because American bankers were owed money by Haiti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Haiti#United_States_occupation_.281915.E2.80.9334.29). That was the reason that USA was fighting counter-insurgencies. Maybe not the best example.
The US invasion followed 5 years of instability from 1911-1915, but if you read the related wiki pages it seems that the instability was in fact preceded by the USA getting full control of the nations' only bank in 1910, and trying to undermine any non-US friendly politicians, culminating in the control of a very-pro-US dictator who mass-murdered opposition leaders, which lead to a revolt. The USA decided the revolt (against their evil puppet) threatened US economic interests in the nation, so they invaded. The original reason for the destabilization is that America was racist that German-Haitians were the main economic power, and America didn't much like Germans. So the whole thing was in fact precipitated by the USA trying to completely undermine the leading economic/political class in Haiti.
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 01, 2017, 04:09:23 pm
If you do not have the strength of rhetoric to either refute or stand by something that you said previously, maaaaybe you ought not post it? The same is true if it's something that can be damaging to you. If you don't want compromising pictures of yourself on the Internet, the first and easiest step should be don't put them on the Internet.
If somebody posts damaging content of another person, the poster is usually not the person to remove it anyway. That would be the site's administrators, and I'm not arguing that we should get rid of mods and site admins.
I'm tired of people using the delete button as a means to shut down arguments, end discussion that the owner of the content doesn't like, and to cover up mistakes and things they shouldn't have said anyway. I fear a world where anything anybody says is infinitely deletable. There was already not enough accountability in the world, and there is even less now.
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2017, 04:12:17 pm
Post by: Criptfeind on March 01, 2017, 04:48:09 pm
unless they own the entire website themselves in which case their house, their rules
Can't you just immediately extend this logic to the people who own the web site setting it as a rule that people using their website can delete their stuff freely?
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 01, 2017, 04:51:33 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 01, 2017, 04:52:21 pm
??? The entire thing I said is that that should not be the case. The idea is that an administrator with no personal stake can decide if something is truly damaging and needs to be removed, or if the person is just trying to frivolously delete something that they regret posting.But the thing is, it's not deleted.
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 01, 2017, 04:57:49 pm
If you're talking about admins not doing their job and/or judging content incorrectly, that's just poor administration. That has been around, will always be around, and is outside the scope of the scenario I envision.
Post by: Criptfeind on March 01, 2017, 05:06:43 pm
??? The entire thing I said is that that should not be the case.
Right, I know you did. But I'm not sure I see the moral difference between an owner having the power to delete their own posts and anyone else having to do it so long as the owner thinks it's okay, which they at least implicitly do if it's possible. (I realized after posting that implicitly has two, almost opposite, meanings. I mean that if it's possible to delete something off a site then the owner at least must be somewhat okay with it, otherwise they'd make it impossible.)
Post by: Reelya on March 01, 2017, 05:15:36 pm
EDIT: Also, what about information posts in the OP etc, that would be impossible in the no-edits world. And if you had a broken link in your post, then not fixing that in order to "preserve what you wrote" just means things are more broken in general when people are trying to find things. And I just thought of more details to add to this post rather than having to write three tiny posts, so there.
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 01, 2017, 05:20:35 pm
I will admit, I thought of that only briefly. I was mainly annoyed by Internet arguments and people washing their hands of unpopular statements by deleting them.
Post by: Frumple on March 01, 2017, 05:24:41 pm
Though you have a similar argument re: anti-consumer with proprietary information, intra business communication, and all that rot. Hiding it is, after all, hiding information that would inform consumer decision-making, and to a significantly larger degree than occasional media snafus...
Post by: Reelya on March 01, 2017, 05:32:29 pm
Post by: helmacon on March 01, 2017, 05:56:28 pm
Sometimes anonymous internet arguments involve very public figures with lots of money, products to offer and/or political power. I know Trump has deleted at least one or two tweets or edited them. I can't remember any specific examples, but I'm sure brands have regretted social media posts and deleted them after negative backlash. That is information that a consumer or voter could use to make a decision, and therefore removing that content is an anti-consumer action.
I will admit, I thought of that only briefly. I was mainly annoyed by Internet arguments and people washing their hands of unpopular statements by deleting them.
This is (vaguely) connected to another idea. Companies are not people, despite what the law says. They should not be allowed to enforce/not inforce things based on religion. They should not be allowed to lobby or interact with government officials the way they do, and they should not be allowed to edit or delete public statements or posts. (they can apologize and put out a statement retracting the sentiment, but not delete the original content unless they can prove it was done outside of company policy, or non-representative of them.)
Post by: Reelya on March 01, 2017, 06:06:02 pm
If e.g. McDonalds makes a racist advertisement and we demand that stays up, then that does two things, which you cannot separate. It links McDonalds forever to the racist sentiment, but it also provides social legitimacy to racists.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 01, 2017, 06:16:51 pm
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 01, 2017, 06:17:49 pm
Post by: Starver on March 01, 2017, 06:55:41 pm
I heard about it in an interview with a somewhat wildcard Member of Parliament who says he often tweets things just to soon delete them for posterity via this 'bot...
Post by: helmacon on March 01, 2017, 11:32:09 pm
This is a thing... (https://twitter.com/deletedbymps?lang=en) (It overlays an unremovable "login or register" popover frame, but I assume it behaves well for others not as disadvantaged as me.)
I heard about it in an interview with a somewhat wildcard Member of Parliament who says he often tweets things just to soon delete them for posterity via this 'bot...
Oh, I like this thingy.
Post by: ein on March 02, 2017, 01:01:53 am
with regards to editing/deleting posts, i don't think there's an issue with it simply because of archival services, which should definitely be encouraged, especially for public figures. for every public figure that edits or deletes a controversial tweet, there are many more ordinary people who might delete or edit a post for the sake of preserving their privacy. there are far more reasons people edit or delete posts and comments than 'oh no i said something offensive and now people are angry' or 'i don't want to continue this argument i'm losing nor do i want to admit defeat so i'm just going to delete the entire conversation' and removing the ability to make edits or delete posts would be more detrimental than the way things are now
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2017, 02:25:22 am
Post by: misko27 on March 02, 2017, 04:07:06 am
And all the time I spend double-checking my posts would be justified, because then I would seem so much more eloquent by comparison. Yes, this is a good plan. I support this.
It seems to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Anything high-profile or high-controversy gets screenshotted or even Waybacked. I can't even remember an instance of "this authority figure posted something horrible but it wasn't recorded, you have to believe me".That's because when they delete it you never hear about it.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 02, 2017, 08:13:22 am
This would also stop many people in abusive situations from using the internet. There are plenty of trans people who can't talk about being trans to anyone they know personally without risking violence, and who use the internet to have some way to talk honestly with people. They frequently have to delete or edit their posts to make sure they aren't found by family members. As it is, the internet gives people in dangerous situations like this a voice - that shouldn't be taken away.
Post by: Frumple on March 02, 2017, 08:27:58 am
Time to be the Devil's Advocate: On the other hand, if everything you said was there forever, we'd might do the impossible and force people to actually think before talking. You take for granted reasons to delete, but if there was no delete there would be fewer reasons to.That flies completely in the face of reality, heh. Everything you say is already close enough to forever it only barely makes a difference, and that doesn't stop many people. Even folks that get burned for saying stupid shit only occasionally actually edit or delete what they said, and/or keep themselves under control in the future.
Will say, a casual thought is that the photoshopping et al community would probably expand massively under the considered conditions, and turn even more malicious than it already is. If people get used to a situation where claims of editing and whatnot isn't a thing -- where internet communication is more or less static into perpetuity -- they're probably going to end up less suspicious of any one bit of communication, and at the least no more likely to double check sources and context than they already are (which isn't very likely to begin with). Means content fabrication and distorting-via-decontextualization becomes that much easier to get away with.
Post by: Reelya on March 02, 2017, 10:22:10 am
Quote
Two weeks ago, NRKbeta, the tech vertical of the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK, published an explainer about a proposed new digital surveillance law in the country. Digital security is a controversial topic, and the conversation around security issues can become heated. But the conversation in the comments of the article was respectful and productive: Commenters shared links to books and other research, asked clarifying questions, and offered constructive feedback. The team at NRKbeta attributes the civil tenor of its comments to a feature it introduced last month. On some stories, potential commenters are now required to answer three basic multiple-choice questions about the article before they're allowed to post a comment. The goal is to ensure that the commenters have actually read the story before they discuss it.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 02, 2017, 11:15:02 am
I imagine if posts were no longer able to be edited or deleted, it'd be quite an effective deterrent against PC culture. Once it's more unavoidable, people would quickly grow sick and tired of the outrage brigade manufacturing a shitfit over their every poorly-worded remark. Spurious accusations of racism, sexism and misogyny would probably recede somewhat from the political/cultural landscape as those who scream the loudest are quickly proven to be hypocrites and swiftly cannibalized by their own.Tbh I'd just use sock puppets to call you racist with accusations that would remain standing for all time
Sounds good to me, let's do it.
checkmate atheists
Really the whole proposal seems unnecessary. As a general rule of thumb, if you put it on the internet, it's there forever. Editing or deleting your posts is simply a function of reddit being cancer and anyone who tries to have a discussion on such things as youtube comments has buried themselves alive willingly. If your photo is uploaded onto facebook, assume thousands of people have downloaded it onto their hardrives or are uploading it into torrents for conversion into pornography. If your post is uploaded onto anything remotely accessible to the internet, assume everyone important to you is reading it and judging you on it, because public is public and the window is open to the world. If you have been prudent and uploaded nothing involving your own identity, assume all of your friends and acquaintances have uploaded everything about you and tagged it anyways. Between the millions of weaponized autists screencapping and archiving everything there is zero chance to escape scrutiny nor the internet hate machine simply by editing or deleting one's posts. It reminds me of the girl who made bomb threats for a laugh at an American airport in the USA, she was in the netherlands. She blocked the FBI's twitter account in response, after they received her threat, and naturally they had the Dutch police contact her on their behalf.
Removing this ability is just the Dutch girl incarnate, removing a valuable ability to edit out errors or make changes to a post in an effort to thwart a problem it exacerbates. Kids need to be taught basic infosec but there's that issue of how in this world is it possible to? Time ago kids were warned not to put their a/s/l on the internet and now they're putting their addresses, their friends lists and a daily update of everything they're doing online, that information remains forever. Thus every kid who posts half baked political ideas or proudly advocates support for a fetish group or delivers unsolicited opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict is forever going to carry that with them for use by random grognards on the net to fuck with them for top lels
I would not then think that the real issue is there isn't MORE data retention, but rather that there is far, far too much. Consider your example itisnotlogical, such things like twitter and facebook are used by normies to connect everything about their ordinary day to day lives together with their own personal identity. Thus if they make a mistake and post something compromising - such as a controversial political statement or a nude photo, if they cannot delete anything which is humiliating or erroneous in some way, that backlash is connected to everything in their lives. With data retention as it is, there need not even be a single compromising event that spurs this annihilation. If you have a hundred people screening through someone's personal information - only public information needed, you will definitely be able to find something you can send to their boss, their family, their loved ones and so on, and then you can start doing stuff like sending hundreds of pizzas and free koran study guides to their house. At that point the only defence such a person has is to delete everything and pray their hunters grow bored and forget about them/didn't collect enough information to trace back to them, which is nigh-impossible. Moreover, if someone hacked your facebook and just spammed compromising shit whilst you had no power to edit or delete it, then you are also fucked with no option out. Moreover, if only website admins can edit posts but people cannot edit their own posts, then you can get such reddit tier situations where people are shadow muted/edited, with such hilarious examples as editing a threat in which the supposed speaker didn't say nor can change.
Time to be the Devil's Advocate: On the other hand, if everything you said was there forever, we'd might do the impossible and force people to actually think before talking. You take for granted reasons to delete, but if there was no delete there would be fewer reasons to.I like the sentiment of this, however it becomes China in short time. There is wonderful frankness involved in anonymous internet discussion where one can speak freely, speak honestly and speak plainly, without fear of repercussion for displaying ignorance or controversy. In real life, displaying that you do not know something or think differently from everyone else can be very dangerous to your livelihood, whereas on the internet you can formulate arguments by sharpening them with honest discussion - thus starting from a position of ignorance, moving to a position of thought. This breaks manufactured consensus and ideological restrictions on what can be discussed, ensuring the free flow of information and the continual testing of the validity of arguments. I argue that everything said is already present 'forever' (on the human timescale of things) and evidently it matters little to what is being thought. Yet because anonymity and the appearance of impermanence is available, one can speak freely and test their arguments to the world, something that is simply unavailable in any world analogue. To strictly enforce this proposal would mean that all debate would have to continue under a veneer of neutrality and suggestion, inferences instead of statements. Inferences are not as clear as statements.
And all the time I spend double-checking my posts would be justified, because then I would seem so much more eloquent by comparison. Yes, this is a good plan. I support this.
Post by: Sheb on March 02, 2017, 12:09:04 pm
Like there was one stupid "controversy" recently about Oulaya Amamra, a French actress who won the Césars (France's attempt at copying the Oscars so their movies win something) as "Best Rising Actress". People dug out stupid, homophobic shit she said when she was 14. I mean, she says she changed her mind and apologized, what's the point of beating the drum of war or something.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 02, 2017, 12:35:13 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Simply put, by having subjective criteria with which to lend legitimacy to destroying people's lives is going to end in exactly that. Can anything be done about it? Probably not, the change has to happen on the individual level, with people taking better care of their information, which is itself impossible when so many are careless.
It is dangerous to expect this standard, that individuals must require forgiveness from a formless mass of online individuals, that the individuals must grant their forgiveness or else deliver retribution upon them for not obeying their consensus.
Post by: Starver on March 02, 2017, 01:13:27 pm
Apologizing is the dumbest thing you can do on social media and guarantees you will be slaughtered.That's a problem with Social Media. I do try to apologise whenever I think I ought to (may be either more or less than I should, probably a mixture, probably also subjectively judged differently by different people), but just going There Is Something Wrong On The Internet (https://xkcd.com/386/) without the possibility of de-escalating the resulting slanging match just ramps everything up to no benefit to any reasonable person.
(Yes, there are plenty of unreasonable people. The rest of your post highlights a possible set of crowds for such a label. But please don't take this comment as an attempt to be Voice Of Authority on this issue..)
Post by: The Ensorceler on March 02, 2017, 06:41:25 pm
This argument is not helpful. If the koolaid is qualitatively different from the poison (reasonable, given that the centrifuge can separate them), then why expect the koolaid to be happy about the poison? If someone made the same argument about police and said all police should be put in their own country, while the rest of the world did without law enforcement you'd think they were being moronic. Let's focus on getting the poison out, or neutralized or whatever.*There are correlations between genes and enjoying watching baseball however (since specific races/cultures like baseball).
You can also probably prove some level of genetic correlation as to whether people call soda "soda" "pop" or "coke" in the USA.
That doesn't mean the correlations are meaningful.
Of course correlations are meaningful, they're just not causal.
If you test the Koolaid and find that it's poisonous, that doesn't mean that all Koolaid is inherently poisonous. So you stick a sample in a centrifuge and seperate the Koolaid from the poison, and the Koolaid part tests as harmless. You've proven that Koolaid is not intrinsically linked to poison. But that doesn't mean you go back and drink from the pitcher.
The metaphors are a bit thick, but with the given solution, you either ignore the pitcher (actively avoid "other" races, specifically on a personal level), throw out the pitcher (genocide, probably, but I don't think you intended that as your argument), or lock the pitcher away from other drinks (?) to prevent the poison from spreading (legally mandated racial separation at best, probably Jim Crow type shit too). Basically I think that argument ranges between cruelly dehumanizing and monstrous in its implications.
Sort of separately, why is the viewpoint character's own race ignored? There have been horrible people from every corner of humanity, so shouldn't the koolaid refuser isolate themselves from all of humanity?
*I do not support the death penalty or mass incarceration. For the most part, I think that crime is driven by various forms of insecurity (economic, safety, emotional, etc.), and that if those insecurities were better communicated and better satisfied by society, nearly all of that "poison" would disappear. "Getting rid of the poison" is not necessarily, or even, I suspect, necessarily not violent.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 02, 2017, 08:26:35 pm
I have waited years to post this with no opportunity until nowApologizing is the dumbest thing you can do on social media and guarantees you will be slaughtered.That's a problem with Social Media. I do try to apologise whenever I think I ought to (may be either more or less than I should, probably a mixture, probably also subjectively judged differently by different people), but just going There Is Something Wrong On The Internet (https://xkcd.com/386/) without the possibility of de-escalating the resulting slanging match just ramps everything up to no benefit to any reasonable person.
(Yes, there are plenty of unreasonable people. The rest of your post highlights a possible set of crowds for such a label. But please don't take this comment as an attempt to be Voice Of Authority on this issue..)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: misko27 on March 02, 2017, 08:42:19 pm
I ended up in a similar situation in my last semester of english in highschool: I was on the side of arguing for emotions over morality. Literally feels before reals. And damn did we make that argument, cutting them down everywhere and never letting them stand on a single point. Absolutely trounced them. And do you know what happened? The guy running it started off by criticizing the "morality" team, taking them through a list of everything wrong with them and their arguments, before finally saying that they had won due to a technicality. He told my team that since he allowed us to define the argument, if we had wanted to win, what we were supposed to do was simply dismiss their arguments for not addressing ours and end it there, instead of trying to address what they said. My English teacher was confused, but he is also out of his god-damned mind so he allowed it.
Certainly sends a strong message
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 02, 2017, 09:41:22 pm
Anyway, doing this for a while definitely has side-effects. I spent about a year or so believing all beliefs are arbitrarily selected bullshit and that logic doesn't exist because it works just as well for supporting things literally nobody thinks is true as it does the empirically verifiable. I would literally get angry at people for clinging to their beliefs, because like we all know that your principles are just for style, why are you being so difficult with me?
So yeah, too much devil's advocacy is bad for you, no joke.
Post by: Strife26 on March 02, 2017, 10:39:17 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 02, 2017, 10:45:21 pm
Post by: Strife26 on March 02, 2017, 10:50:24 pm
Post by: overseer05-15 on March 03, 2017, 07:53:03 am
I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.
Anyway, doing this for a while definitely has side-effects. I spent about a year or so believing all beliefs are arbitrarily selected bullshit and that logic doesn't exist because it works just as well for supporting things literally nobody thinks is true as it does the empirically verifiable. I would literally get angry at people for clinging to their beliefs, because like we all know that your principles are just for style, why are you being so difficult with me?
So yeah, too much devil's advocacy is bad for you, no joke.
Mind you, becoming comfortable with lying is at least as bad for the same reasons. Eventually you kind of fall in a mentality where everyone is lying about something. And you start lying flagrantly in even the most mundane situations. Trust me, I've been there.
Post by: Sheb on March 03, 2017, 09:11:45 am
I think what we need is partly being able to agree that if someone said something racist/stupid years ago, at some point if that person apologize and stop saying such thing we should stop giving a fuck. Maybe it's my inner crypto-Catholic speaking, but basically more forgiveness.
Like there was one stupid "controversy" recently about Oulaya Amamra, a French actress who won the Césars (France's attempt at copying the Oscars so their movies win something) as "Best Rising Actress". People dug out stupid, homophobic shit she said when she was 14. I mean, she says she changed her mind and apologized, what's the point of beating the drum of war or something.
Gotta agree with LW here. If you apologize, you're basically telling people that if they pile enough pressure on, you'll back down. It won't end with 'Oops, I phrased something poorly/said something I genuinely don't believe out of anger, sorry guys', it'll quickly grow to include any and all perceived sins like 'You didn't acknowledge your privilege!' or 'You said 'normal' people, omg!'.
Apologizing (or even arguing that no, what you said wasn't 'toxic' or 'problematic', because xyz) just gives power to people trying to censor you.
I'm not familiar with Oulaya Amamra, but I can guarantee that whatever she said, I'd have more respect for her if her response was 'You're dragging up shit I said when I was 14? Haha, eat a bag of dicks.'
1) My point was that we should be more forgiving and not hold people accountable for views they held years ago if they have changed their views. I don't think we disagree on this. But I'm not surprised that you seems to believe that acknowledging that you were wrong when you were and or/apologizing for past mistakes is a show of weakness or something. Fits right in that conservative/reactionnary stick you got going.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 03, 2017, 12:16:17 pm
I've certainly argued shit I didn't personally believe, because I believed that people *should* be able to argue the thing in question, and we're in danger of losing that 'ground' to people who want to make more and more opinions unacceptable to hold. I mean, I wouldn't choose flat Earthism as my yardstick there, but plenty of other things spring to mind.I tend to argue stuff out of boredom if I see too many people agreeing with the position, like a reflexive contrarian. The more controversial the topic the more thought I put into it, the more consensus the topic the more I test the consensus because it's fun
The truth is, despite all my anti-EU polemic, I am actually Jean-Claude Juncker.
I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.I don't think it's insanity if done right, more like method acting, self-deception and hyper-empathy, where you can argue fervently as if you were a zealot born to the cause - of a cause you care nothing about, or perhaps are even entirely antithetical too. I've never had to argue in favour of human extinction or galactic conquest, however I have had to argue such things as total warfare being beneficial for humanity and on a day to day basis am usually formulating the best arguments I can think of in opposition to everything I consider good in this world.
I do have one friend of note who was in med school on one such debate to do with ethics - namely that of screening for genetic diseases in future pregnancies and aborting the child based on the results. My friend learned from a very talented debater this very same ability to embody your argument as if you had lived it your whole life, whilst in reality he opposed aborting children merely for having signs of genetic diseases. Whilst pressing his argument forth systematically, having waited for all else to exhaust their points, he began dismantling them using very specific examples of suffering that could be averted with this screening and termination. His debate won, with the judges saying perhaps it was too good and a bit like Goebbels, and his opponent actually broke down in tears and started crying, saying he was right and she (unbeknownst to him) had a younger brother who suffered from one of the conditions he mentioned. She actually started crying, saying she should have put her younger brother out of his misery, and he never saw her again - which brings up the second most important thing in debates, to never have your personal being factor into your arguments at all. It's for your own safety as much as it is for performance, which really ties into the whole method acting thing, where you see method actors completely lose it in the act. Reminds me of the film 'thank you for smoking.'
1) My point was that we should be more forgiving and not hold people accountable for views they held years ago if they have changed their views. I don't think we disagree on this. But I'm not surprised that you seems to believe that acknowledging that you were wrong when you were and or/apologizing for past mistakes is a show of weakness or something. Fits right in that conservative/reactionnary stick you got going.My point is that by establishing acceptable criteria based upon viewpoints, with which to destroy people's lives, there is nothing moral inherent in that. Such a system merely enforces a rolling agenda that ruins the lives of people the collective mass of internetizens decides is appropriate, with their definitions being entirely subjective and of ill-judgement. Why should you have to seek forgiveness on the internet for believing in something someone else doesn't like at all? Why do you have to change your views simply because someone on the internet is threatening to ruin your life?
You're starting from the basis that people accused by the internet of being wrong are wrong. The problem inherent in that is that in such things, especially political ones, what is considered right and wrong is subjective - thus what one considers acceptable is absolutely unacceptable for another.
Taking responsibility for your wrongs is one of the highest most admirable virtues that all must learn in life. Yet facing an angry internet mob, you must never, ever say sorry. Once you do it doesn't matter whether you did any wrong or not, people will attack you and ruin your life because you have signaled you are wrong and are now an acceptable target, with no one coming to your aid because they don't give a shit to defend wrong people. You are also wrong to pin this to the right wing, as it is something that is true to everyone and not just politicians, and not just right-wing.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Thus I argue that the moral thing is not to cease attacking someone for changing their worldview just to acquiesce to internet mobs, the moral thing to do is to not attack to begin with. And that's just not happening
Post by: TempAcc on March 03, 2017, 01:06:45 pm
Hell, look at Emma Watson. She went from feminist icon extraordinaire to evil agent of the patriarchy within the span of a few days after posting on twitter about how she couldn't get out of bed after being criticized for her whole #heforshe thing which called for men to back feminism, and after being attacked on twitter, said she couldn't get out of bed for a whole day because of it. It wasn't exactly an apology, but it was everything the people harping at her wanted (hello world, look at how badly this is affecting me, i'm such a target), and now she's being hounded at every turn. Recently she got criticized for posing for a cleavage pic for some magazine. She's becoming a bigger target everyday, despite being Emma Watson.
Now lets look at a much less popular but far smarter example, youtube atheist Thunderf00t. Thunderf00t is a guy who generally made videos on scientific facts and other such things, and recently became famous for heavily criticizing what he considers to be bad science and scams (with reason, his opinions do tend to be very well founded). He's also kind of a massive critic of modern feminism, which kinda makes him a big target for a whole lot of people. Plus, he's kind of the ideal target for this sort of thing, being a tall white brittish man with shaggy long hair and beard and overall huge nerd with what seems to be a slight speech impediment.
So he gets a lot of smarmy video responses and even people emailing and calling his employer telling him that he's a literal nazi that hates women and attacks people. He was also apparently kicked out of a few online communities focused on atheism and science due to said attacks. After he found out about this, he gathered a good ammount of info on said efforts and then made a video responding to and dismantling all attacks against him. His chill never waned, he never stepped down on anything he said, and in fact just pressed on harder after that. Turns out his viewcount has spiked ever since and he now has more followers than ever.
You should never think of internet attack mobs as people, because they aren't. Like real life rioting mobs, people will do things when in groups that they would never do individualy, just due to crowd mentality. An apology is something that is directed at people, because individualy, people tend to actualy think and have morals, but mobs don't, so an apology is just an open door for a continous stream of attacks. This is specially bad if the attacks were completely unfounded at first, because at the moment you apologize, you create the implication that you did something that you should apologize for, meaning you've just made yourself into a much more valid target.
Post by: birdy51 on March 03, 2017, 06:33:48 pm
I'll usually do to ollie out of uncomfortable conversations on this site, where it becomes apparent I cannot agree with the other person, but also in no way have the strength to challenge their beliefs for any extended period of time.
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2017, 06:57:49 pm
I've experienced the same thing, and it's definitely really, really creepy when one thinks about it.I dunno, I think it's a natural consequence of all argumentation being explicitly or implicitly based on axioms that are defined quite arbitrarily. It's why "pure rationalism" is not as good as some people try to portray.
Post by: feelotraveller on March 03, 2017, 08:05:49 pm
And isn't it also true that many (most?) conservatives/reactionnaries are decidedly lacking in moral courage...
My point was that we should be more forgiving and not hold people accountable for views they held years ago if they have changed their views.
Taking responsibility for your wrongs is one of the highest most admirable virtues that all must learn in life.
These are so much better.
Rather than playing by the rules of mob stupidity perhaps we should be thinking of ways to dismantle the apparatus and its weapons. ;)
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2017, 08:42:23 pm
Hm, isn't the rabid internet outrage mob a right wing phenomenon?It's extremist phenomenon. Extremists can be right wing, they can be left wing, they can be flying above and below, or suspended in vacuum.
Post by: feelotraveller on March 03, 2017, 09:02:10 pm
Post by: Sergarr on March 03, 2017, 09:43:41 pm
More powerful people have been killed by "sorry" (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403) without regard to how much you've done for humankind (http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/the-outrage-machine-insande-ado-about-sexist-shirt/)
Right-wing phenomenon, they're not. Trying to portray them as such is not going to solve the problem of extremists gaining power. In fact, one of their main self-justifications is that "we have to be violent in order to suppress other violence, which is surely much, much worse, as evident by the *insert selectively quoted evidence here*". If you want to demolish them, you have to demolish them everywhere.
Post by: SalmonGod on March 04, 2017, 02:05:05 am
I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.
Or just genuinely understand the perspectives of people who actually believe those things and steer away from the counter-arguments that you would normally make yourself. It doesn't even have to be lying. Just being selective about what thoughts you choose to express.
The problem with people isn't stupidity or insanity or anything. It's that they usually think rather reasonably about things up to a certain point, and then they just STOP. Like "Whelp, that's good enough. I going to just deny that there's anything worth thinking about on this subject beyond this point and be comfortable here." This is my eternal frustration with humanity. The thing I can't understand. Why most people just seem to pick an arbitrary point and stop.
Of course, I won't deny that from most people's perspectives, I am probably seen as doing the same thing on my own convictions, so...
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2017, 02:59:24 am
Hm, isn't the rabid internet outrage mob a right wing phenomenon?
Yeah, that's not my experience at all. The archetypal example that always springs to my mind is that young girl who attempted suicide (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/zamii070-harassment-controversy) over the outrage about her Steven Universe/MLP fanart.
I mean, her attackers didn't explicitly state their voting intentions, true, but I don't think the 'right wing' give a shit about supposed whitewashing, ableism or transmisogyny in the fanart for children's cartoons. God knows I don't.
It was pretty fucking retarded this was the "fat shaming" fanart:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150827063158/http://zamii070.tumblr.com/post/127573571047/2014-2015
And here's the actual character
http://steven-universe.wikia.com/wiki/Rose_Quartz
Basically her version is like Size 18 and the original was Size 20. The character is still fat. Just not as fat. But they decided to fucking destroy her life over this. Then she got shit for being racist for e.g. "not drawing a Jewish character with a large nose". She drew the character with an average-sized nose. She also got shit for cosplaying as a Japanese character because "das raycis". And there were about 100 other minor-to-non-existent problems she got picked on for.
I don't really know how to parse this whole incident, it's frankly insane and makes no sense at all. All I can say is that the tumblr outrage machine needed someone to vent at, and there must be a lack of actual right-wing racists who make fanart on tumblr/deviantArt, so they picked on one of the weakest members of their own community and turned it into a shitstorm of nonsensical outrage.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 04, 2017, 03:46:48 am
One's ability to genuinely understand the perspective of another is limited by the conviction of their own beliefs. For debate as a sport, it's necessary to go beyond the logical extrapolation of another position for the sake of the performance. I can understand the logos of, for example, the anti-abortion position just fine. And I even already agree with the ethos, as I imagine most people who are against murder in general do. But without internalizing the outrage at baby genocide it isn't a complete painting, it is missing pathos (so many years, and finally a chance to use that outside of a forum joke).I spent a couple years in a debate sport. One of the first skills (and it is a skill) you have to acquire is the ability to basically drive yourself insane on the spot and believe whatever argument you're running. The alternative is to become really comfortable with lying, but believing is more effective. Do neither and you're sure to lose. Even after a lot of experience there was only one argument I could not mindfuck myself enough to believe or even lie convincingly about, that being contemporary panpsychism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) I had no problem arguing in favor of human extinction or galactic conquest right after one another, though. Among some crazier things.
Or just genuinely understand the perspectives of people who actually believe those things and steer away from the counter-arguments that you would normally make yourself. It doesn't even have to be lying. Just being selective about what thoughts you choose to express.
The problem with people isn't stupidity or insanity or anything. It's that they usually think rather reasonably about things up to a certain point, and then they just STOP. Like "Whelp, that's good enough. I going to just deny that there's anything worth thinking about on this subject beyond this point and be comfortable here." This is my eternal frustration with humanity. The thing I can't understand. Why most people just seem to pick an arbitrary point and stop.
Of course, I won't deny that from most people's perspectives, I am probably seen as doing the same thing on my own convictions, so...
I call it "insanity" in the Lovecraftian sense, that your whole orientation to the universe changes in a way that the average person finds incomprehensible once you've acquired enough introspection to freely reshape your rational and emotional beliefs on the fly to win a debate round. Which does, as I said before, have negative side effects.
It's also not a pursued thing like learning to juggle, it's the inevitable consequence of trying not to come off as so insincere and boring whenever a topic happens to not align with your personal opinion.
Post by: feelotraveller on March 04, 2017, 05:06:01 am
I mean, her attackers didn't explicitly state their voting intentions, true, but I don't think the 'right wing' give a shit about supposed whitewashing, ableism or transmisogyny in the fanart for children's cartoons. God knows I don't.
Since when has voting been the touchstone to right/left? More than that they are styles of behaviour, or ways to approach the world, an entire ethics...
Just because Joseph Stalin was a 'Communist' does not mean he was on the left any more than the KGB were radical cheerleaders. Gulags, bullying, repression, denial of self expression, an entire apparatus of authoritarianism - I'm pretty sure you're getting the picture.
On Zamii:
I honestly feel bad for her. Although I'm no great art connoisseur her work looks quite good to me. And it's clear from the fact she was getting it out there that she is/was genuinely enthusiastic about it. And really the criticisms are petty, a dress size or two, a change of hairstyle, a different skin tone. Without having more than passing familiarity with her work I can't honestly say if there is latent racism there or not (or at least whether the degree of it is any higher than the background count... if you prefer) but there is nothing blatant and no overt comments or sensationalizing to attract unwanted attention. One comment I did notice was the claim that at 20 she definitely knew exactly what she was doing. Um yeah, righto, would have thought that myself when I was 20... probably think it now (although I won't later ;) ). But really the tumblr community was/is quite divided on the issue:
Quote
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/an-attempted-suicide-forced-a-tumblr-community-to-open-its-eyes-about-bullying (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/an-attempted-suicide-forced-a-tumblr-community-to-open-its-eyes-about-bullying)
The fallout split members of the Steven Universe fandom on Tumblr in two: those who claimed that Paz's artwork was regressive/problematic and believe that she deserves to be continuously policed, and those who support her brand of artistic freedom and believe that the community's aggressive brand political correction is shutting out potential and important voices in the community.
Continuous policing plus shutting down dissent vs artistic freedom and diverse voices, reminds me of right vs. left. And a diversity of voices means all the voices. Shutting down those you don't like is business as usual for reactionaries.
Quote
http://fusion.net/story/223425/zamii-steven-universe-fandom/ (http://fusion.net/story/223425/zamii-steven-universe-fandom/)
In the words of Tumblr user Stephan K
“You can say “hey, that made me uncomfortable” in a way that’s reasonable or, better yet, just don’t follow them. Abuse en masse is not the correct response. That’s the response of a bunch of over-reactionary assholes.”
Regardless of the flags waved, or the content of the positions (reputedly) held, there is the overarching form of expression, or way of interacting with the world. To oversimplify - is the behaviour inspired by love and a desire for sharing and improvement or by hate and a desire for confrontation and destruction. Opening things up or shutting things down. Two very different styles of behaviour.
The case of Brendan Eich it is a whole lot murkier. Firstly, regardless of political views he has/had done a whole lot of good for the world with his coding work - free open source software that has opened up access to many people (myself included) to the internet without the need for a dubious profit driven corporation as intermediary. That Mozilla has itself become corporatized and is perhaps not so wonderful as it used to be is by the by. Secondly although there was a mob of sorts it was (immediately, at least) instigated and led by a private, profit driven company, OkCupid, which definitely had a financial motive (8% of its business being from relationships that potentially could have become banned). Sure they could have had other motives too. Thirdly, and significantly there was no evidence whatsoever that he had discriminated against anyone at Mozilla becasue of their sexual preferences/orientation. His only 'crime' was to have donated, 6 years previously, to a campaign fund for banning same-sex marriage.
Quote
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/04/04/mozillas-brendan-eich-persecutor-or-persecuted/#70a4a5ea35cd (https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/04/04/mozillas-brendan-eich-persecutor-or-persecuted/#70a4a5ea35cd)
...Andrew Sullivan, the popular writer of the Daily Dish blog who is openly gay and an early supporter of gay marriage. “The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society,” he wrote. “If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out.”
Or again:
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich)
Conor Friedersdorf argued in The Atlantic that "the general practice of punishing people in business for bygone political donations is most likely to entrench powerful interests and weaken the ability of the powerless to challenge the status quo".
It is one thing to be at odds with people wanting to deny the rights to same-sex marriage but quite another to want their blood for holding the contrary position. It is murkier still in the context of this thread since Eich refused to apologise and stepped down (=was forced out) as CEO of Mozilla instead and this only 11 days after the Mozilla board appointed him already knowing the full story of the political donation. Oh, and should we mention the three high profile board members (2 former CEO's) who resigned in protest at the time of his appointment... um, yeah? Still this is the world of corporations complete with image and media manipulation and all that goes with it; no sympathy for these shenanigans even or especially in an organization which prides itself on its progressive credentials.
So an advertisment driven, dating webiste embarked on a boycott campaign (but... why?) that, shock-horror-sensationalist-tabloidmedia, led to a shutting down of diversity. So prospective CEO's should avoid all acts of moral courage well in advance? Or better yet exclude themselves completely for expressing their political views? Out damn moral courage, out.
The Matt Taylor shirt strikes me as a quite clever mobilization of the Space Amazon meme [sic: anachronism warning] and astounds me that it caused more than a passing comment. (Yeah, quite appropriate to ask in passing if he thought it might be sexist, might even have got an intelligent reply or started him thinking.) Totally (contra New York Post) so much more aesthetically pleasing than a suit and tie - clip on or otherwise - at least to me, and I genuinely dig the colours. [sarcasm] But the guy is clearly a fucking humanist. Not one Giant Killer Robot anywhere on the shirt. And he works for a Space Program, how is this even possible. [/sarcasm] Honestly are the people who took task with him for this out there burning like 70 years of SciFi covers, in between overturning most of the stalls at the various Game Developers conferences. Come on people priorities. Oh wait [/sarcasm] really. ;) Deskbound geek guy wearing sexy adventure heriones - of course it has its haters but do they even stop to think? But arguably worse are the hater of these haters:
Quote
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2014/nov/17/comet-scientist-matt-taylor-shirt-awful-what-should-wear-instead-rosetta
As generally happens when a subject takes a feminist turn on the internet, the idiots then turned up, with various lowlifes telling the women who expressed displeasure at the shirt to go kill themselves. (This is not an exaggeration, and there is no need to give these toerags further attention in today’s discussion.)
And in this game of strange bedfellows (oh wait is that doubly sexist, ha, ha):
Quote
Boris Johnson http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11234620/Dr-Matt-Taylors-shirt-made-me-cry-too-with-rage-at-his-abusers.html)
I watched that clip of Dr Taylor’s apology – at the moment of his supreme professional triumph – and I felt the red mist come down.
He wasn’t weeping with sheer excitement at this interstellar rendezvous. I am afraid he was crying because he felt he had sinned. He was overcome with guilt and shame for wearing what some people decided was an “inappropriate” shirt on television. “I have made a big mistake,” he said brokenly. “I have offended people and I am sorry about this.”
So in all three cases there are more than enough people willing to defend these people who rightly/wrongly have been harassed by mobs, whether they have apologised or not. But honestly the mob succeeds in shutting down views that it does not like in advance if we resort to creeping around with a lack of moral fortitude. (Note that this is not an argument for painting a massive target on one's back either.) It also plays into the mobs hand if we join in their tactics of flagrant confrontation or harrassment, particularly when other avenues exist to be pursued.
I find it sad, in the way Turing was sad, that here we have three individuals that to varying degrees, and each in their own way, were contributing to the social commons being shut down by mobs. Particularly because they had become targets precisely of the significant contributions they had already made - more than the vast majority of mobsters ever will, and that is no doubt part of the problem. And all this without judgement on whether their 'transgressions' even were such or serious.
[As an aside back to Lout Whippers and debate/devils advocacy: 'It is not the Sleep of Reason that produces Monsters but its Ceaseless Vigilance' roughly Deleuze, somewhere I can't remember, cf. Goya.
As to the internet mob itself: hookers and blackjack - at least the secondary meanings I started trying to draw out a few months ago. Hookers being the gross commercialization of the internet that started with the device of the p0rn industry back in the early 90's and Blackjack being the highly rarefied distillation of the skinner box deployed in 'cyber'-technology. Back to the fondleslab. ;D]
p.s. Staring into the well of human misery is an unpleasant experience; got to hope it never looks back at me, or at least too closely...
Post by: Reelya on March 04, 2017, 05:17:12 am
Continuous policing plus shutting down dissent vs artistic freedom and diverse voices, reminds me of right vs. left. And a diversity of voices means all the voices. Shutting down those you don't like is business as usual for reactionaries.
They are clearly reactionaries, but they also clearly self-identify with pro-LGBT, "black lives matters" and all that ilk. Yes we can say that they crappy attitudes mean "they're not really on the left", but that's not really an honest statement, and I myself am really pretty far on the left myself. Saying that people who are "anti-fat shaming" and labeling people as "ableists" are on the right is just the "no true scotsman" argument. We see some behavior on the left that's self-labeled as "left" and clearly not good and we say "no that's not really of the left!". Basic "no true scotsman" logic.
These people are clearly self-identified feminists, leftist, liberals, what-have-you. I mean, we have to be careful about basically saying that if there are scummy scumbags on the right, then that tarnishes the whole right, even ones who don't act like that. But when they're on the left we shouldn't then want to say they're not the left's problem because they're crypto-rightists. It's not a coherent position.
There's a dissonance here, and perhaps it's that there's nothing inherently pro-diversity and free speech about all the individual little "isms" that pervade the left.
Post by: NJW2000 on March 04, 2017, 05:19:56 am
Also, liek, Danial Radcliffe just said one thing for Hex as a joke, in some tweet, when he was thirteen and barely famous, and he got death threats in the mail from the Phillips Head people. It's little known, and has been covered up wuite a bit by the Phillips Head media, but they ruined his life for a few years, you know? It's scary shit, could happen to anyone brave enough to raise their head and challenge the Phillips Head consensus.
There was also this tech guy on Vimeo who did reviews and shit like that of hardware stuff, and he mostly just talked about power drills and especially DeWalt lines and stuff. But then he's also got massively into the whole Hex thing, and next thing you know the Phillips head guys were like, calling operation Yewtree on him and stuff like that, and mailbombs and shit, not that a Phillips head user could assemble a working mail bomb :o
Anyway, I totally agree with everything you guys are saying. But three's a lotta people out there who wouldn't, so keep it real.
Post by: birdy51 on March 04, 2017, 05:25:37 am
Which is to say every moment of of our waking lives, someone, somewhere wishes we were dead for them. Yay!
Post by: The Ensorceler on March 04, 2017, 06:26:58 am
Free speech is meaningless if nobody talks and nobody listens. I honestly think that internet trolling and debate club insanity are the biggest existential crisis humanity will ever face. It's a bunch of people actively cultivating the ability to never learn, never change and that fucking terrifies me. Learning and changing are all that humanity is.
I'll even go so far as to say that all sane positions need exceptions. Fuck extremism and absolutism. Yes, even this position needs an exception, but I can't figure out what it is.
re equivalency between internet hate machine and muslim hate machine: They are the same, but it is very narrowminded to think this hasn't been a problem with all branches of humanity, all throughout human history. The Catholic church did a pretty good job of killing people for writing books criticizing them, too, if you need an example.
Post by: Antioch on March 04, 2017, 07:57:28 am
I think that the real problem here is the Phillips Head side of the Phillips Head vs Hex screws debate. I mean there was that Hex enthusiast and collector whose life they just totally ruined for posting photos of his old-fashioned vintage hex screw heads in the Phillips pinterest, there was constant hate mail and shit. I'm pretty sure the guy took his own life after that.
Also, liek, Danial Radcliffe just said one thing for Hex as a joke, in some tweet, when he was thirteen and barely famous, and he got death threats in the mail from the Phillips Head people. It's little known, and has been covered up wuite a bit by the Phillips Head media, but they ruined his life for a few years, you know? It's scary shit, could happen to anyone brave enough to raise their head and challenge the Phillips Head consensus.
There was also this tech guy on Vimeo who did reviews and shit like that of hardware stuff, and he mostly just talked about power drills and especially DeWalt lines and stuff. But then he's also got massively into the whole Hex thing, and next thing you know the Phillips head guys were like, calling operation Yewtree on him and stuff like that, and mailbombs and shit, not that a Phillips head user could assemble a working mail bomb :o
Anyway, I totally agree with everything you guys are saying. But three's a lotta people out there who wouldn't, so keep it real.
But hex IS superior......Phillips heads strip way too often.
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2017, 08:17:56 am
So, it could be said that the Internet hate machine got its start as the Muslim hate machine, though with different tactics (fewer firebombings).... it could be said, it would just be freakishly, massively wrong, to the point of probably needing to be considered as an intentional and blatant lie intended to be supporting some issue that had little to nothing to do with the mentioned internet hate machine. Net's shit has pretty much fuck all to do with the stuff surrounding rushdie, and even less specifically to do with muslims. Could make the argument about religion in general, but you'd still be on hella' sketchy grounds. Largely different demographics, significantly different motivations, massively different degrees of actual offline power. The centuries of hatred religions have been peddling may be a related phenomenon, but that's the closest it gets.
Post by: birdy51 on March 04, 2017, 08:28:27 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 04, 2017, 08:33:35 am
Hm, isn't the rabid internet outrage mob a right wing phenomenon?Others before me have responded to this better and I've nothing more to add except where I've already given proven examples where this is false
And isn't it also true that many (most?) conservatives/reactionnaries are decidedly lacking in moral courage...I imagine the importance of perspective is critical here, as the moralities of conservatives is different to reactionaries is different to progressives etc., and I've never met a reactionary before. The stereotype for conservatives I've never heard have lacked moral courage, given that the whole alignment only exists because there are millions of people who refuse to back down when threatened over their beliefs, which I don't think is unique to conservatives in this modern world. Moving back from the political, where opinions come easy and decisions are cheap, and the difficult moral decisions? The personal ones, where there is no easy answer, only difficult choices? When it comes to moral courage, conservatives' propensity for living by principles gives them an advantage. Neocons are exactly as you stereotype, being the worst fusion of con and neolib. If anything, the negative stereotype for a conservative is not for a lack of moral courage, but for a presence of moral hypocrisy - not living by the principles one preaches.
These are so much better.The way I see it, one cannot disarm the mob without ruining what makes the internet such a unique medium for discussion. However, one can attempt to limit the ammunition given to the internet hate machine by practicing careful control over one's personal information and remaining absolutely, resolutely adamant that you will never kowtow to angry mobs.
Rather than playing by the rules of mob stupidity perhaps we should be thinking of ways to dismantle the apparatus and its weapons. ;)
So, it could be said that the Internet hate machine got its start as the Muslim hate machine, though with different tactics (fewer firebombings).Nah I reckon it's just a very human thing. Any consensus gets enforced by mobs has a tendency to get enforced in angry ways. Poor Rushdie though, dude just wanted to write a book
Since when has voting been the touchstone to right/left? More than that they are styles of behaviour, or ways to approach the world, an entire ethics...Eh...? There is great danger in simply defining all good in the world to be left and all evil in the world to be right, for starters left/right is not terribly useful and for seconds it feeds into very simple tribalism where one side defends their ills as necessary to crush the other side. We're all in this boat together, seems unnecessary to dig up genocidal leftists as representative of modern progressivism, except as top banter
Just because Joseph Stalin was a 'Communist' does not mean he was on the left any more than the KGB were radical cheerleaders. Gulags, bullying, repression, denial of self expression, an entire apparatus of authoritarianism - I'm pretty sure you're getting the picture.
Continuous policing plus shutting down dissent vs artistic freedom and diverse voices, reminds me of right vs. left. And a diversity of voices means all the voices. Shutting down those you don't like is business as usual for reactionaries.May I inquire as to what is a reactionary to you? Because I imagine people are using it to mean synonymous with far-right, instead of to mean people trying to revert to a previous system versus revolutionary movements. Otherwise I am rather confused, for example people placing conservatives beside reactionary when one tries to cultivate and order and the other tries to revert it, very confusing for me ^_^
I am very much in agreement on the diversity of voices, I have seen in every walk of life people who value this. Some call it freedom of expression, some call it frankness, some call it art, some call it bants, some call it the free market of ideas, some call it the diversity of voices, some call it the free flow of ideas and concepts and some call it the information age. If there are so many reasons so many different people value this one tool, then it is just as likely there are as many reasons to shut down the free web. I think this is a different issue, one of consensus manufacturing, information control and censorship though - as with this policing, a great deal of the time the policing is self-directed at those most similar. It likewise does not serve as an effective measure for shutting down debate, it very much is merely about serving retribution upon people for having contrary opinions or misstepping in the shark tank - to quote a rather chilling phrase concocted when progs were discovering the hilarious combustible properties of the web: "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
Thus it is acceptable to ruin people's lives for being problematic, which is itself problematic, because everything is considered problematic by such communities.
Regardless of the flags waved, or the content of the positions (reputedly) held, there is the overarching form of expression, or way of interacting with the world. To oversimplify - is the behaviour inspired by love and a desire for sharing and improvement or by hate and a desire for confrontation and destruction. Opening things up or shutting things down. Two very different styles of behaviour.Ah! Time for a new controversial topic, on the axis of love and hate. I stand in opposition to the rhetoric my local MPs often find themselves speaking, namely that they are motivated by love and their enemies are motivated by hate. It is interesting, I like the approach to try and categorize political leanings by psychological motivation, however it is sadly only used to dismiss the opposing side as irrational, vile and evil. One thing I can appreciate in modern nationalists is that they now can appreciate that foreign nationalists are motivated by much the same ideals and conceived virtues as they are, even between such ones as are hostile to one another. Put another way, 'What is love? (Baby don't hurt me). What is hate?' I recommend not assuming the mantle of judgement in arbitrating what is loving and what is hateful, ergo we can destroy everyone the judge deems hateful. Most people I find are motivated by a desire to do good, yet most will likewise not understand that we do not all have the same conception of good. Makes conflict seem more tragic with this in mind - look at WWI, so many assured what they fought for was right in the world, Catholics, Sunnis, Protestants and Orthodox all waging war to protect the absolute truth, and then it turns out to be the absolutes weren't so absolute
It is one thing to be at odds with people wanting to deny the rights to same-sex marriage but quite another to want their blood for holding the contrary position. It is murkier still in the context of this thread since Eich refused to apologise and stepped down (=was forced out) as CEO of Mozilla instead and this only 11 days after the Mozilla board appointed him already knowing the full story of the political donation. Oh, and should we mention the three high profile board members (2 former CEO's) who resigned in protest at the time of his appointment... um, yeah? Still this is the world of corporations complete with image and media manipulation and all that goes with it; no sympathy for these shenanigans even or especially in an organization which prides itself on its progressive credentials.The only thing I might add is that OKCupid did not lead the assaults. They were the vanguard, but not the lead - there are some suspicions that as he refused to step down as CEO, this controversy was manufactured so as to lend public support to his forced resignation. Else wise, it would merely seem to be the company forcing the guy who invented javascript to resign.
So in all three cases there are more than enough people willing to defend these people who rightly/wrongly have been harassed by mobs, whether they have apologised or not. But honestly the mob succeeds in shutting down views that it does not like in advance if we resort to creeping around with a lack of moral fortitude. (Note that this is not an argument for painting a massive target on one's back either.) It also plays into the mobs hand if we join in their tactics of flagrant confrontation or harrassment, particularly when other avenues exist to be pursued.The three examples picked were people in the public spotlight, for better or for worse. With exception to the teenage girl, two were significant public figures, the CEO was forced to resign and the scientist reduced to a quivering wreck while the girl attempting suicide multiple times. If you look at my very first example, the man who made the poorly worded tweet condemning a veteran's widow, his life is ruined and few have noticed. In most cases involving ordinary people, no one has defended (and I am certain, could not have defended) ordinary people subjected to the mob. I suppose it's worth mentioning too that 'the mob' isn't a defined group of people, rather a phenomenon caused by loads of people - see the abuse of social media for stalking and harassment linked earlier. The number of people I've seen have their lives ruined by merely internet mobs is rather astounding, it just blurs into one continuous streak informing one why information security is so important. 4chan, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook or whatever, one thing to consider is that in real life if you want to destroy someone, that takes a lot of effort, something only the determined or psychopathic may do with ease. On the internet it is easy to muster 5,000 people from across the world, with each one putting in a few minutes or hours, they will have put in thousands of hours work on dismantling one person - for the individual within the mob, the required effort to ruin someone's life is minimal.
p.s. Staring into the well of human misery is an unpleasant experience; got to hope it never looks back at me, or at least too closely...One gets jaded very quickly
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2017, 09:04:40 am
Here's one. I wish the Catholic Church and organized religion in general would stop being viewed solely through a negative light. Whenever it's brought up in debates, it always seems to be in the light of that of an unwanted step-child, which irks me. There is a reason that organized religion exists, and it's not because it's an evil hate monster.Not just because it's an evil hate monster :P If you're denying that's not a pretty significant part of it, though, you've seriously missed some parts of the history and nature of religious organizations. None of them got big and none have stayed that way without leveraging quite a bit of antipathy, towards other religions at the absolute least. Plenty of other stuff, too, but being an evil hate monster (to indulge in your hyperbole, heh, since it's not quite that extreme, usually) is absolutely one of the reasons they exist.
Depends a lot on what circles you're running in, though. Folks that pay much attention to the practical/secular state of organized religions generally aren't exactly going to be impressed, these days. Even much of the good they do is tainted by inefficiencies or distortions that wouldn't be there if not for the support said practices feed back into the organizations or preconceptions that come with them (If you're looking for a particularly nasty example of the latter, look at the stateside Alcoholics Anonymous -- there's more going on there than just the religion aspect, but a lot of its worst practices are cored in it.). Add on all the ways many of said organized religions have been taking advantage of their status over the years and trying to shit on a lot of the secular stuff that's helping people to one extent or another (education in general, certain health issues, various civil issue, etc., etc.), and it gets increasingly difficult to give them more credit than a sort of, "Well, they're trying... I guess." And very easy to be rather more negative.
If you're around folks that give religious organizations fairly uncritical acceptance vis a vis their charity work (much of it of a "spiritual" nature, which is to say it's actually proselytizing and trying to exploit people down on their luck for conversions or running normal intraorganizational stuff and claiming it for tax purposes, rather than charity worth the title) et al, you'll see a lot more support, particularly when they're involved themselves in their local religious scene. They are often enough significant parts of a community, for better or worse.
But yeah, organized religion catches a lot of flak. Lot of flak to catch.
Post by: birdy51 on March 04, 2017, 11:10:55 am
You mentioned for instance AA. One can argue that it's ineffective. One can argue that it helps. I shall argue neither. What I will argue is that it was one of the first formal societies dedicated to helping people in the grips of addiction. Their methods, while in desperate need of updating, are nonetheless important.
The rise of the church led credence to the idea that we should help one another, and while they were crusading ass hats, there were also those who formed the first hospitals in the church's name.
Dated, yes. But nonetheless, they were the basis to be improved upon.
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2017, 12:04:47 pm
Rest of it, though... there's not argument to be had vis a vis the AA -- it's actively detrimental, and has been since its inception. In being one of the first formal societies to start overshadowing other organizations and efforts that wasn't rooted in significantly counterproductive methods centered around religion, it's done a fairly significant amount of damage to actually helpful efforts to combat alcoholism, just by dint of making them less noticeable. To say nothing of what they've done by propagating their practices. Their methods are important, but only in the sense of being a warning and example for repudiation.
Religion (not Christianity or "the" church, mind -- the first European hospital type institutions were greek, and predate meaningful christian spread) was indeed tied to initial forays in medicine, but that's the most you can say about it and there's a number of areas now where they're actively attempting to impede it. Their laurels don't mean shit when they're getting people killed or consciously interfering with medical research and treatment that could save the lives or futures of millions.
Church being what led credence that people should be less of a shit to each other is complete bullshit, though. If there's any lie the devil's sold well it's that it takes a book and a priest to be a good person. It gave an excuse sometimes, but ethics and basic human decency isn't even remotely reliant on it, for all a good chunk of Christian historians and whatnot liked to massively warp their depictions of other societies as a means to make their beliefs and countries look better.
The problem ain't guilt, or past action, really. It's current action, current behavior, and the nature of an organization built around what religions (or at least our major ones) are. It ain't the crusades, it's the churches today that are abusing the concept of charity for tax benefits, the organizations that have been working counter to efforts to bring the AIDS epidemic under control, the ones promoting horribly unhealthy (psychological in particular) practices because the scripture of the religion and traditions of the church demand it, and so on. Some do good, even a fair amount of it, but that by no means indicates the rest of it should be given more consideration than we do anything else, or that the negative aspects of the efforts that are having a positive effect should be ignored. Secular organizations that act like churches tend to usually get shat on pretty hard. A non-religious non-profit in the US would stand major risk of losing funding and federal support (hell, pretty sure criminal charges, too) if they tried writing off recruiting efforts as physical charity, and churches do that all the ruddy time.
... for all that's all pretty negative, I'm definitely very supportive of positive religion-based efforts that are doing actual good, and it's not a necessary fact that something done by a religious organization is going to go to pot. But I've been in and around churches all my life, long associated with folks fairly active in at-least stateside church stuff, and familiar enough with what's called charity efforts et al to definitely say any religious organization claiming to do good probably needs even more scrutiny than secular ones, and they've got built in problems to boot. We really need to stop giving them so much bloody slack, especially the ones trying to pull shit using their status as a religious organization as leverage.
Post by: birdy51 on March 04, 2017, 01:24:33 pm
When any organization, religious or otherwise, begins to treat others as if they were less than a human being, then there are problems to be had. The same goes when they mistreat disadvantaged people and extort them for their own profits.
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2017, 02:53:42 pm
Post by: Neonivek on March 04, 2017, 03:04:21 pm
Ohh and BDSM, definitely satanic.
Uhh what was also accused of being satanic back then? and I mean main stream satanic accusation... not like "Harry Potter".
Post by: feelotraveller on March 04, 2017, 05:04:01 pm
for starters left/right is not terribly useful and for seconds it feeds into very simple tribalism where one side defends their ills as necessary to crush the other side. We're all in this boat together, seems unnecessary to dig up genocidal leftists as representative of modern progressivism, except as top banter
It is quite possible that my attempts to schematize, all too quickly and too broadly a left/right typology are insufficient or in error but at least I've given it a go. (And I very much agree that things are much more multifaceted and varied/textured than that.) The thing is that at a quick glance (i.e. correct me if I'm wrong :) ) everyone else is presuming that left and right are basically fixed and defined 'flags'. (Although the differences with regard to what precisely these flags consist in/of remain unspoken.) I'm happy to drop the lingo (and although my attempts have no doubt perpetuated the use/misuse of the terms I was actually attempting to do something with it) but it was already part of the discussion well before I joined. In fact you yourself seem(ed?) quite keen to be stirring the pot on these matters? And not just on this occasion...
It's curious that although my focus is on behaviour the default 'fallback' seems to be that on the contrary it is just holding - or perhaps merely espousing? - certain preset (i.e. highly stereotyped and charicatured) beliefs belonging to self-identified 'camps' (note the military implication, again). A conservative black is not a square circle and indeed (beware my example may be a fail, please feel free to provide a better) the Colin Powell's of this world do exist. This also goes for the love/hate distinction, a simplification of something I already admitted to being grossly oversimplified: not motivations (okay they get attributed but subsidiarily not primarily) but behaviours. You want to say mob harrassments of the type we have been discussing are loving behaviours? ("dismantling one person" "ruin someone's life", LW) Come again.
The internet is actually a very bad place to try to discuss ideas being much more centred on catch-phrases and the passwords of sensationalist coinage. Tabloidic goobledegook is almost definitionally anti-idea being blinkers rather than sight, image and represenation rather than form and substance. This is a very good example since what I am trying to say has been evaluated with respect to the 'nominal' definitions of left/right with little attention to the (perhaps somewhat confused/confusing ;) ) ideas I am trying to ennunciate.
Quote
May I inquire as to what is a reactionary to you? Because I imagine people are using it to mean synonymous with far-right, instead of to mean people trying to revert to a previous system versus revolutionary movements.
In the sense that I attributed above a reactionary is one who reduces a discussion to the unchanged terms of evaluation. Okay that's a little cheeky. In more classical terms the latter of your options (but it's not forced choice my inner child screams...). More generally a reactionary is someone who attempts to shut down progressive change, that is the opening up of the political spectrum to the new, in favour of an idealized golden age. (I say this in a loose and experimental way so no doubt this will be subject to massive scrutiny? Ha, ha.) And yes we could quibble about the alt-right but their vision of the new smacks of something very old and hackneyed as far as I can see.
(I suspect Reelya is using the term in a more or less codified Marxist sense to mean those on the left who do not have their opinions certified by card carrying member of the Party intelligensia. Or to use less polemical terms those on the left who have impure, confused, tainted, mixed, positions rather than being paragons of leftist orthodoxy. And yes I have problems with such forms of nominalism, the power structures they invoke and the forms of behaviour that they encourage.)
[Edit: To bring the two senses back together let me cite graffiti of the barricades:
"Run Comrade, the old world is behind you."]
Quote
If anything, the negative stereotype for a conservative is not for a lack of moral courage, but for a presence of moral hypocrisy - not living by the principles one preaches.
But that is precisely one form of the lack of moral courage. Refusal to be open about ones true principles. Note that it shuts down 'relevant' discussion of the principles motivating political behaviour. A whole anti-politics, at least if we think of politics as a discussion rather than a quest for power. And a few questions if I may: is this where you see the diversity and plurality of conservatives, in the many faceted forms of deception that they use? I mean I just don't get it. I don't see a diversity of conservative voices - maybe a little flavouring here, a little colouring there, but it makes Zamii's little alterations seem positively radical by comparison. Or do these voices exist but just never get spoken because they are too busy obeying the leader and towing the party line, maintaining the monolithic nature of the inner sanctum (cabinet solidarity or whatever)? Or does it on the contrary imply that each conservative has a somewhat different world that they are attempting to preserve?
Quote
In most cases involving ordinary people, no one has defended (and I am certain, could not have defended) ordinary people subjected to the mob.
Yes that's a good point (even if I disagree with the parathentical comment...). In this regard a better case study/set of examples would be the far more common, as I understand it, cases of schoolyard cyberbullying. Yes a couple of features are a bit different, particularly with respect to the degree of anonymity of the mobsters (it's never absolute, I think there were prosecutions of a few of the bullies in the Zamii case). But it by and large takes the 'flag-waving' political element out of the equation and lets the phenomenon of online mob harrassment show itself perhaps in a somewhat different light.
Quote
One gets jaded very quickly
In my case it's more long term disgust and general renunciation of a large part of the human race than quick jadedness. Although of course I can't really do that. Mind you Bay12 is a pretty nice place... 8)
Post by: Cheeetar on March 04, 2017, 05:48:00 pm
Post by: redwallzyl on March 04, 2017, 06:20:09 pm
Unpopular/controversial opinion: White supremacists are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent and have a higher occurrence of obesity.what way would the correlation go?
Post by: McTraveller on March 04, 2017, 07:09:45 pm
e.g., "Republicans" or "Liberals" or "Christians" or "Muslims" or "Atheists"...
It has actually gotten to the point that I am sad being called a Christian, because the type of things that get labelled "Christian" diverge pretty wildly from what I believe. And that's just on a personal level - for "larger" versions just look at the differences between Presbyterian Church USA, Presbyterian Church of America, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and Orthodox Presbyterian Church - they are all called "Presbyterian" but have fairly significant differences in what and how they teach - but just saying "Presbyterian" will often lump them all together.
So perhaps it's "controversial", perhaps it isn't, but: instead of always assuming things about people based on the names of the organizations or philosophies with which they associate themselves, we should get to know the people on an individual basis.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 04, 2017, 07:42:07 pm
Spoiler: To feelotraveller (click to show/hide)
I find it amusing that on one hand, people like to say "don't stereotype" but on the other hand, when it comes to religion and politics, people like to stereotype.Not just religion and politics, also things like clothing, culture, race and name
...
So perhaps it's "controversial", perhaps it isn't, but: instead of always assuming things about people based on the names of the organizations or philosophies with which they associate themselves, we should get to know the people on an individual basis.
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2017, 08:02:49 pm
Religion's a fair bit more muddy than most things political, though. Funding and political support and whatnot paints you, but by and large much of what's related to religion functionally doesn't matter outside your head, holy texts can and have been twisted to invalidate any particular belief associated with them, and so many bloody people claim the top level names they're effectively meaningless -- muslim, ferex, may mean you see the qur'an as a holy text and claim belief in a specific holy figure or two, but how you or your denomination interpret the former or view the latter is pretty much entirely up in the air.
You still have metaphorical problems (so far as wanting to claim you approach others in a sort of tabula rasa state) when you're claiming a specific denomination -- "christian" says basically jack all about your beliefs, but "baptist" or whatev' says quite a bit more -- or talking about a specific region, but it's a lot less necessarily clear, and there's a lot more wiggle room, with the occasional exception. LRA says a hell of a lot more than, say, catholic, heh. Philosophy or ideology is about in the same spot, really, though those those tend to not splinter into a dozen things fighting over the same name quite so regularly.
There's also a fair bit of difference between talking about an individual member of a group and the group itself. Lot less of the things stated about the latter can be claimed to be assumptions. A criticism of a group you associate isn't necessarily a criticism of you, after all. Unless you're displaying or supporting whatever is being criticized, anyway.
... do wish the bloody denominations would name themselves more clearly, though. Know why they do it (wanting to claim authority over a certain title, since new denominations tend to form due to schisms within a particular denomination), but good gods does it make things more annoying.
Post by: Baffler on March 04, 2017, 09:23:15 pm
Eh, if the things labeled christian diverges wildly from what you believe, what you believe probably isn't christian, though you likely shanghai'd the name. Various presbyterian denominations do indeed vary wildly, but they either share certain core concepts nevertheless or they're lying about their beliefs in one way or another by claiming the name. You do want to judge people individually, but at the same time you don't get to claim association with something and then avoid scrutiny for what your claimed group is doing. You can't claim to not be anti-LGBT and be voting republican, ferex (though you may be able to be voting conservative, so long as whatever party or individual you're voting for isn't voting lockstep with the GOP). However strongly you say the former, the latter puts it to lie. With some sorts of association, certain things stop being assumption, and denial by the person associating starts being a lie, regardless of what the individual has told others, or even themself, what they believe.
The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/) The party was behind him on it...
Post by: Sergarr on March 04, 2017, 09:50:27 pm
The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/) The party was behind him on it...Sounds like a good policy to me. Can't wage an effective war against terrorism without having a few civilian casualties, and civilian casualties apparently trigger American population waaaay disproportionate to their real impact.
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2017, 10:28:13 pm
The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/) The party was behind him on it...Was it? I don't recall many dems running on the platform. Or a vote on it. Do seem to recall quite a bit of condemnation for drone strikes in general and a definite call for reigning some of its excesses in, if still a fair amount of support for the practice if not all its particulars. And eventual statements by the gov't that un-ID'd folks were assumed noncombatants. Apparently executive orders and whatnot calling for greater scrutiny and clearer reporting on the subject, too, with a bit of checking, for all the stats they were using were to all appearances pretty fucked up.
That said, particularly if I had been aware of it at the time, voting for obama would have been giving support to the policy, or at the absolute least support for the use of drone strikes despite issues like that surrounding it. Regardless as to how comfortable I was with it, after that claiming to be anti-drone to much extent would indeed have been a lie.
There is some leeway involved, mind you. If you vote someone into office and then they run off doing shit at odds with their previous positions, or vote people that support 'em in and they back the critter on stuff neither you nor they established previously, yeah, you can't much be held to that decision. Dems might have wiggle room on that particular subject, if not much given the support given to the practice in general, at the time. Reps don't have a single bloody inch of space to claim a stance even neutral on LGBT issues, on the flip side of this particular bit of discussion.
Post by: The Ensorceler on March 04, 2017, 10:39:44 pm
About moral courage/cowardice vs hypocrisy, I think there is a bit more to discuss. Is a hypocrite not a moral coward if they refuse to self-reflect out of fear they will condemn and hate themselves?
Post by: Baffler on March 04, 2017, 10:55:02 pm
-snip-
The specifics aren't as important as the essence of the example. It's extremely presumptuous of you to say that Republican voters are by default hostile to LGBT interests, just as it would be presumptuous of me to assume that someone who votes for the Green Party believes in healing crystals and thinks GMO's will alter the DNA of the person who eats them. And I'm willing to bet that the Green Party voter who doesn't believe those things is far more acutely aware of the fact that some of the party's chosen representatives do than any outsider. The best the average person can do is just pick the best one.
Or I could just do what you appear to be doing and write you, or a nonspecific Obama voter in case you didn't, off and chastise you for actively supporting Obama's expansion of the surveillance state and funny counting of civilian casualties because it was known about when he went up for re-election. And possibly even voting for him on the grounds that he apparently thinks all Muslim men are terrorists and that the American people cannot be trusted and need to have all of their communications monitored. All it does is dilute the quality of the discussion.
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2017, 11:44:53 pm
Similarly, there would not be presumption to claim a green voter is willing to support nontraditional medicine and anti-GMO sentiment. There would be for the healing crystal or DNA thing in particular, but that and the state of things with the GOP and LGBT issues are significantly different things (though the state of things with the greens and anti-GMO sentiment is less so). It's entirely possible that the voter has reasons they think as sufficient to excuse it, or that they'll claim they're opposed on an ideological level or whathaveyou, but some things you can't really divorce yourself from. Some shit you own when you cover yourself in it whether you want to or not. Doesn't mean you're necessarily a bad person or something', and gods know there can be extenuating circumstances, but it's still shit you've put yourself behind and to say you didn't is a flat bloody lie.
You would have been right to criticize a dem voter for supporting the surveillance state when we voted obama, basically. That is absolutely what we did, for whatever reason, and we've harangued ourselves a fair amount for it, since. Similarly, those of us who voted for lower level politicians that supported him on those issues would be someone you could call out. You might have less grounds given there's not much in this country of political note that's not, but you'd still be making an accurate statement. Maybe more if there's significant conflict within the party('s voting habits). But that's still an issue you could take. Least assuming you didn't vote GOP, or most of the other American political parties, heh.
Don't recall where I said anything about writing people off, though. Just that some associations do indeed make some things said about the folks associated not an assumption. Hell, the thing with the GOP's base and its support for anti-lgbt sentiment is to figure out what's causing it, and how to stop it, not write them off as whatever the blazes.
Post by: McTraveller on March 05, 2017, 01:27:09 pm
Eh, if the things labeled christian diverges wildly from what you believe, what you believe probably isn't christian, though you likely shanghai'd the name.I suppose that depends on how you interpreted 'diverges wildly'. I didn't think it was that vague... I mean, most denominations that claim to be Christian have essentially the same core faiths like the Trinity and Jesus is divine (although you can't assume this - some Christian seminaries don't actually teach this). But beyond that, things can be pretty different in terms of what even that 'core' faith means in terms of how your life might be affected. I mean, people tend to have this view that "Evangelical Christian" in the US means Dispensationalism and hypocrisy, heavy personal salvation but don't have to change behavior, your neighbor be damned, etc. Some denominations are heavily works based, some are all about only "personal" salvation, your neighbor be damed to fire and brimstone, others are about loving your neighbors and enemies (though not necessarily supporting their behaviors), etc. etc. And that's not even getting into stuff like church governance (hierarchical? congregational?), is wearing (or not) a hat a sin, and are guitars the work of the devil (forgetting that David worshipped so freely he got criticized for not dressing properly while doing so)?
I mean, there are "reasonable" differences in theology like is communion transubstantiation or not, just what does predestination mean anyway, that are kind of "non-divisive" but then you go down the rabbit hole into things like qualification for church leaders and sexuality and roles of men, women, children, and hats. And some of these aren't trivial either - they speak volumes about people's views of God and humanity and the relationship between them - especially with the more recent developments about morality (which oddly focuses on consensual sexuality, you don't hear much controversy about substance abuse or financial corruption - is it ok to have a practicing embezzler be a head pastor?) that sort of confound the concept of an unchanging God (which, depending on your denomination, may or may not be a thing).
So all that to say - both in religion and politics - there is almost assuredly not any organized group with more than one person that has exactly the same beliefs.
Post by: Neonivek on March 05, 2017, 01:30:30 pm
Which for Catholics is all the requirements to be a Catholic as far as beliefs are concerned. That is it, the only thing.
Sure there is the Magisterium, but that is more the Church's official stance on several topics rather then a checklist of what a Catholic needs to believe.
So everything else is frosting.
Post by: feelotraveller on March 05, 2017, 05:41:27 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy)
The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑυπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous", "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)
Spoiler: Loud Whispers (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 05, 2017, 06:32:40 pm
Quotidian amusement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy)
The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑυπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous", "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)Spoiler: Loud Whispers (click to show/hide)
Quote
Hypocrisy:Your definition is out of date by a mere few thousand years
The practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
‘his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life’
‘she was irritated to be accused of hypocrisy’
‘spokesmen unversed in the smoother hypocrisies of diplomacy’
Origin
Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part’, from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend’, from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge’.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypocrisy
Spoiler: feelotraveller (click to show/hide)
Post by: overseer05-15 on March 06, 2017, 01:19:16 am
Post by: misko27 on March 06, 2017, 01:23:39 am
Come now, put some more meat on those bones for us to chew on. Precisely what do you mean by competent? Competent at what? By what measure? Relative to whom? And why is it good for the country? Why is it better than what Hillary would do (and what precisely would Hillary have done)? So much to be said before I can even begin to discuss.
Post by: Antioch on March 06, 2017, 03:45:47 am
Incredibly unpopular (at least where I live): I believe Trump is probably better for this country than Hillary, solely due to the fact that while he's a shit-eating asshole, he is a competent shit eating asshole.
Competent at what. He has no political experience and has shown no competency in government whatsoever. His attempt to block people of randomly picked nations he doesn't like simply got blocked by a judge. He pissed of several countries by trying to turn back agreements or with his idiotic wall. He has extreme difficulty even filling his staff positions. The staff he does have abuses their power by promoting personal merchandise of Trumps family or is under investigation for being Russian puppets.
And all he does is scream fake news at everything he doesn't like.
I don't really see anything that hints at competency.
Post by: Neonivek on March 06, 2017, 03:49:44 am
I mean don't get me wrong... I am not here to put you down. Just what competency are you specifically referring to? Media manipulation? finding loopholes in laws?
Post by: Max™ on March 06, 2017, 05:46:18 am
I think that the real problem here is the Phillips Head side of the Phillips Head vs Hex screws debate. I mean there was that Hex enthusiast and collector whose life they just totally ruined for posting photos of his old-fashioned vintage hex screw heads in the Phillips pinterest, there was constant hate mail and shit. I'm pretty sure the guy took his own life after that.Look, whether you're a phillipsian or a hexonite, I think we can all agree on one thing: those filthy h-type loving spannerslotocrats need to be fed to hungry pigs...
Also, liek, Danial Radcliffe just said one thing for Hex as a joke, in some tweet, when he was thirteen and barely famous, and he got death threats in the mail from the Phillips Head people. It's little known, and has been covered up wuite a bit by the Phillips Head media, but they ruined his life for a few years, you know? It's scary shit, could happen to anyone brave enough to raise their head and challenge the Phillips Head consensus.
There was also this tech guy on Vimeo who did reviews and shit like that of hardware stuff, and he mostly just talked about power drills and especially DeWalt lines and stuff. But then he's also got massively into the whole Hex thing, and next thing you know the Phillips head guys were like, calling operation Yewtree on him and stuff like that, and mailbombs and shit, not that a Phillips head user could assemble a working mail bomb :o
Anyway, I totally agree with everything you guys are saying. But three's a lotta people out there who wouldn't, so keep it real.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Ok, unpopular opinion time!
Picard > Kirk because Stewart > Shatner.
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 06, 2017, 05:47:44 am
Post by: Max™ on March 06, 2017, 05:51:32 am
Forgot to mention, I didn't actually know about those fucking h-type shits until I was taking apart a neat little desk fan we got to clean it out and discovered that every screw on it was a proper upstanding phillips head, except that one filthy fucking spanner slot piece of garbage, fuck people who put shit like that in to discourage folks from fixing their stuff.
Post by: Starver on March 06, 2017, 06:08:55 am
Ok, unpopular opinion time!
Picard > Kirk because Stewart > Shatner.
This is a decades old issue with the key being the answer to the clarifying question "pre-Locutus or post-Locutus?"
(These days, there's also Xavier and Bullock on the Stewart-Picard side. Shatner-Kirk pulls it back a bit with Buck Murdock, maybe.)
Post by: Max™ on March 06, 2017, 07:12:56 am
Post by: Antioch on March 06, 2017, 07:54:26 am
Well, I'm of the opinion that TNG > TOS in almost every way, although individual episodes are of course debatable.
True.
Star Trek as a whole is extremely inconsistent in it's quality. And TnG and ESPECIALLY voyager suffer deeply from never having had the balls to introduce long term story arcs.
therefore:
Babylon 5 (season 2 to 4) > all of Star Trek
Seriously Babylon 5 is so underrated it isn't even funny. I can't think of a better scifi series right now, especially not from that period.
Post by: overseer05-15 on March 06, 2017, 08:00:31 am
Well, I'm of the opinion that TNG > TOS in almost every way, although individual episodes are of course debatable.
True.
Star Trek as a whole is extremely inconsistent in it's quality. And TnG and ESPECIALLY voyager suffer deeply from never having had the balls to introduce long term story arcs.
therefore:
Babylon 5 (season 2 to 4) > all of Star Trek
Seriously Babylon 5 is so underrated it isn't even funny. I can't think of a better scifi series right now, especially not from that period.
Now, I've never heard of Babylon 5, but I'm willing to discount its quality in favor of Star Trek.
although individual episodes are of course debatable.
Post by: Max™ on March 06, 2017, 08:06:29 am
Post by: Frumple on March 06, 2017, 08:07:59 am
Not actually sure I'd call B5 the best of its time, though. One of, definitely, but my memory's telling me there's one or two other, some of the ones that aren't just underrated, but straight up forgotten, sci-fi shows around that time that were pretty damn good.
... I just can't remember what they were or their contents :V
Post by: TempAcc on March 06, 2017, 08:25:49 am
And hooking back to the political argument side of things, one thing that always baffled me is the whole "our opponents do X, and we're opposed to them, therefore we're the best thing ever and all our faults can be forgiven" argument that is often employed in political banter. This came back to me with the whole Milo thing, and was used by both sides of the political spectrum. You have your left attacking the right as a whole as the harbourers of pedos, strangely forgetting the whole Wiener (hue) issue and many other such cases, while there are some people (thankfuly not many) still doing mental gymnastics to give Milo a free pass for that one interview.
I dont think Milo can even be considered a representative of the right as a whole (duh), he was more of an idiot magnet that always managed to catch and expose the craziest and loudest parts of the left, which is exactly what made him popular, and rightfuly so.
Like, when Milo was just a mostly unknown dweeb doing the whole ~dangerous faggot~ (his terminology, not mine) thing and speaking at unis, the craziest ivory tower people and uni rats would go and try to take a bite out of him. Stuff like SJW girls with fake blood on their faces, ivory tower socialists and the most trigglypuff tier kids one can possibly find, screaming at the top of their lungs at this guy that represents everything that they claim to represent, taking away what they believed to be their ideological monopoly and throwing it back at them covered in spikes of smarmyness. He was a useful tool in this regard, as he could cause the worst parts of the left to manifest just by his mere presence (ex: berkley), but he was a problem because he alienated people from the right because he'd often go overboard, like in that one case with the trans student.
Its really not surprising that he got thrown under the bus when a chance came up, given how many people on the right were just hoping he'd go away, whats surprising is that there's still some people standing up for him.
Post by: overseer05-15 on March 06, 2017, 08:37:07 am
Post by: Antioch on March 06, 2017, 05:53:07 pm
Star Wars episode 6 is worse than 1 and 2 combined.
Why? It throws away basically everything Empire Strikes back build up. The central theme of Star Wars is the light vs dark side of the force. In Episode 5 Luke is deeply troubled and his time with Yoda has lots of foreshadowing such as Yoda saying Luke will throw everything away if he confronts Vader now. Or Luke seeing himself when he strikes down the fake Vader in the cave.
In part 6 it just goes: Emperor: "join the dark side" Luke: "lolno" Vader: "I am going to dump down a shaft now"
And Ewoks
Post by: Neonivek on March 06, 2017, 05:54:36 pm
In that... it is only a HUGE nerd battle to people outside that fanbase...
Inside the fanbase? Picard is pretty much the winner... There are people who prefer Kirk but it isn't the 50/50 split people assume...
Though I don't know if people are really fighting about it passionately... they are drastically different captains.
Post by: Max™ on March 06, 2017, 06:01:35 pm
Never even knew about Enterprise until it was nearly over, and all I know of the new timeline is that nuKhan is hot, much like urKhan was hot.
While we are talking Scifi:AND slave Leia, thus inspiring lots of enjoyable cosplay... though that is rather effectively negated by... ewok cosplay, which nobody needed even before furries were a thing.
Star Wars episode 6 is worse than 1 and 2 combined.
Why? It throws away basically everything Empire Strikes back build up. The central theme of Star Wars is the light vs dark side of the force. In Episode 5 Luke is deeply troubled and his time with Yoda has lots of foreshadowing such as Yoda saying Luke will throw everything away if he confronts Vader now. Or Luke seeing himself when he strikes down the fake Vader in the cave.
In part 6 it just goes: Emperor: "join the dark side" Luke: "lolno" Vader: "I am going to dump down a shaft now"
And Ewoks
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2017, 06:17:21 pm
Post by: TempAcc on March 06, 2017, 06:22:44 pm
Post by: Antioch on March 06, 2017, 06:23:22 pm
I never understood why people hate on Voyager so much. I only watched TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and I thought that they were all on about the same level.
It throws away it's premise of a federation ship lost far from home and instead tries to be TNG again. Basically every episode ends with a reset to the status quo. Also I personally think voyager has more weaker episodes and there is definitely rehashing of TNG episodes.
Post by: feelotraveller on March 06, 2017, 06:26:44 pm
Quotidian amusement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy)
The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑυπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous", "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)Spoiler: Loud Whispers (click to show/hide)QuoteHypocrisy:Your definition is out of date by a mere few thousand years
The practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
‘his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life’
‘she was irritated to be accused of hypocrisy’
‘spokesmen unversed in the smoother hypocrisies of diplomacy’
Origin
Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part’, from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend’, from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge’.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypocrisySpoiler: feelotraveller (click to show/hide)
Wait, you mean that words can change their meaning. OMG how will we ever know what 'reactionary' means? :P
By the way it was not a definition but an etymology... but that fiend Lord Whiskers is back wielding the holy grail of the OED Millenial Edition (with the Secret Addendum containing 'bants' and other undisclosed updates). Must bow down before the master. :xD
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 06, 2017, 06:31:49 pm
The status quo point, while true, is also endemic to all of Star Trek. The opportunity to deviate existed for Voyager, but TV shows that allowed permanent changes to the plot weren't kosher until just a few years ago.I never understood why people hate on Voyager so much. I only watched TNG, DS9, and Voyager, and I thought that they were all on about the same level.
It throws away it's premise of a federation ship lost far from home and instead tries to be TNG again. Basically every episode ends with a reset to the status quo. Also I personally think voyager has more weaker episodes and there is definitely rehashing of TNG episodes.
It is a shame though. The one episode set far in the future that has a false historical record of Voyager as an brutal warship that tried to commit genocide against them was one of the best and shows what could have been.
Post by: feelotraveller on March 06, 2017, 06:46:24 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 06, 2017, 09:04:39 pm
Post by: helmacon on March 07, 2017, 01:41:38 am
We ought to let pandas go extinct.
There are much more important species we could be investing in the survival of, and to much greater effect.
Plus, they can't really even survive on thier own. They were cool, but it's time to let it go people.
When the pandas themselves are doing thier best to frustrate your efforts to keep them alive... When the species is obviously never going to make it back to a self sufficient, sustainable, wild population...
We need to let it go.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 07, 2017, 02:35:23 am
The inability of pandas to survive is a direct consequence of humans destroying their habitats. So it's a bit hypocritical for humans to not support their conservation. The same would happen to any other species.
In addition, your premise is factually untrue. Just last year the giant panda was reclassified from "endangered" to "vulnerable", which is the conservation level just below "non-threatened". Their numbers have been increasing, and there have been rebounds from similar numbers in other species such as the bald eagle.
Biodiversity is something we don't have the technology to restore from extinction. Any losses to that are permanent, as well as the effects of that loss. It's not just foolish but suicidal to allow ourselves to say one species should live and another should not when we in fact know so little about the consequences on other species, including humans. The dust from the Sahara feeds the Amazon. You don't want to wake up and find out we fucked something up that we can't fix.
And finally, frankly our efforts so far have been pathetic. The conservation movement worldwide survives on a small drip of funds and does great things with it, but would do even more if we valued it correctly. There's not a zero-sum game being sucked up by the adorable faces of pandas, there's just a failure by human beings to prioritize what we do with our resources.
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2017, 08:35:31 am
It's just take, y'know, at least a few million years :P
Though we probably could manage some things on the technological front if we opened the flood gates on cloning and genetic engineering, stopped worrying about things like viability and resource efficiency, and just started doing it like nature intended and throwing shit against a (conditionally) metaphorical wall until things stuck. Just have to figure out what to do with all the leftovers. Maybe stillborn genetic abominations would still be edible?
Post by: Ghazkull on March 07, 2017, 08:46:15 am
Post by: Starver on March 07, 2017, 08:46:50 am
and just started doing it like nature intended and throwing shit against a (conditionally) metaphorical wall until things stuck.Atomic Gardening (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening)! (Maybe on an unintentionally global scale?)
Post by: Frumple on March 07, 2017, 08:49:37 am
Post by: Starver on March 07, 2017, 09:41:45 am
Closer to atomic husbandry, and probably with less cobalt and more retroviruses or somethin', but you're getting the right idea.Am I? Oh good. All the other scientists said I was crazy and that I could proceed with my so-called-'diabolical' plans only over their dead bodies. So now it appears that I was completely justified and they were only half right.
Now I just need to get the big countdown timer looking just right. It'll be my big moment on worldwide television and live video - streaming, after all, don't want to make it look like my operation is running on a shoestring, with a shoddy picture-in-picture effect atop my silhouetted profile, do I?
Post by: overseer05-15 on March 07, 2017, 09:49:32 am
yeah take samples of every bee species remaining and genetically modify them to be immune to our pesticides and presto issue about pollination is solved!Don't think we isolated colony collapse disorder to be pesticide-related, yet.
https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/colony-collapse-disorder
Quote
Sudden loss of a colony’s worker bee population with very few dead bees found near the colony.
It's aliens stealing our bees
Post by: Max™ on March 07, 2017, 01:00:10 pm
Spiders on the other hand are cute, from stuff like a jumping spider I brought inside to show the missus who rode along happily and then when they noticed we were back outside they comically pointed their whole body up at the sky and fell back onto my palm, to the way a big aurantia kinda wobbles and creeps around like a little old lady with a walker!
Post by: feelotraveller on March 07, 2017, 11:50:25 pm
Destructicus: That does not compute.
Marge: (sternly) Really?
Destructicus: Well, it computes a little.
(The Simpsons, Treehouse of Horror XIX)
they can certainly talk the talk...
Post by: tonnot98 on March 08, 2017, 12:00:49 am
like a jumping spider I brought inside to show the missus who rode along happily and then when they noticed we were back outside they comically pointed their whole body up at the sky and fell back onto my palmThat must've been a great experience.
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 02:13:01 am
They're such adorably animated little things. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4yLgphFlUA)
Post by: helmacon on March 08, 2017, 01:56:01 pm
I mean, it would make sense. They have been living in our homes for many generations.
Post by: Grim Portent on March 08, 2017, 02:00:41 pm
That said, if you could domesticate spiders the jumping spiders would be the place to start. Despite their small size they're quite smart and very docile. I actually consider it a shame there's no species of them the size of tarantulas.
Post by: NJW2000 on March 08, 2017, 02:14:38 pm
Post by: Grim Portent on March 08, 2017, 02:19:12 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 08, 2017, 02:27:31 pm
... though only do that if they're alone or in small numbers. If they've rolled up into the spider orgy ball the fire will only make things worse.
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 03:12:58 pm
Not really no, being domesticated generally implies a greater degree of human involvement in the rearing and breeding of the animal than mere proximity, otherwise house mice would count as domesticated by that logic.Yeah, and they're so adorable with the big anime eyes, though the hyllus diardi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oRRBPdM6Wc) can get pretty damn big, but I also learned a while back as I was getting the missus comfortable with various spiders that the euathalus sp. red (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-cn4VuDlW8)/orange/yellow is an extremely chill and easily socialized/handled little tarantula, not like some of the big beautiful and bitchy ones (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcRT-AgW7cI) that'll just sit there hanging out, casually stabbing your finger (it's like a bee sting at most) while they chillax.
That said, if you could domesticate spiders the jumping spiders would be the place to start. Despite their small size they're quite smart and very docile. I actually consider it a shame there's no species of them the size of tarantulas.
Post by: Egan_BW on March 08, 2017, 04:59:57 pm
Fortunately not for very long after you set them on fire.You monster.
... though only do that if they're alone or in small numbers. If they've rolled up into the spider orgy ball the fire will only make things worse.
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 05:03:57 pm
*I actually made the mistake for a while of confusing spitting spiders with recluses, and now after learning the error and protecting the spitters I benefit because they eat recluses.
Post by: Egan_BW on March 08, 2017, 05:08:01 pm
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on March 08, 2017, 05:14:20 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 08, 2017, 05:25:10 pm
I really don't understand what the deal is with snakes for people. Most of them literally can't hurt you and if you're handling a domestic snake then it almost certainly can't hurt you. I was even chased by an angry and wild cottonmouth as a slightly older child and did not develop any snake phobia.
Post by: Neonivek on March 08, 2017, 05:25:45 pm
I love spiders. My phobia is of snakes, so I never understood why people freaked out around spiders or other insects. Some of the snake-like ones make me uneasy, but that's about it.
Because a healthy fear of spiders and snakes actually helped our ancestors survive.
It is why some animals are afraid of the rain.
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 05:35:48 pm
I don't dislike spiders but I vastly prefer snakes. I was even given a certificate of "snake friendliness" as a young child for handling one at a zoo, and I was too young to remember it.Lord knows I don't have a phobia about them, and like anyone who has seen one, I want one of those crazy black and white storm trooper ball python morphs (https://youtu.be/7wAlV0D9Yg4?t=482), but I can remember a couple of times when we'd be cooling off with a rope swing over a deep part of the creek in Texas and even though we didn't take into account situations where you don't let go (it kinda smacks you into the bank) I decided to take my chance with the dirt because of:
I really don't understand what the deal is with snakes for people. Most of them literally can't hurt you and if you're handling a domestic snake then it almost certainly can't hurt you. I was even chased by an angry and wild cottonmouth as a slightly older child and did not develop any snake phobia.
1. Looking down to see what looked like a manhole cover swimming below me, full grown snapping turtle? Ha ha, INTO THE DIRT I GO!
2. Looking down to see a bunch of adorable baby cottonmouths swimming past, in hindsight I don't think they hang out with momma, and I'm not totally sure how bitey and dangerous they are at that age, but once again I was quite happy to deal with a couple of bruises from the bank impact.
Post by: Starver on March 08, 2017, 05:57:24 pm
Spoiler: Hello! Nice to meet you! (click to show/hide)
Post by: Hanslanda on March 08, 2017, 06:43:14 pm
-snip
1. Good idea. Full grown snapping turtles will FUCK YOU UP. My neighbor is rearing a young Alligator Snapping Turtle until it can be returned to the wild (It's about 12" across now, so that will be soon I reckon.)
2. Probably more dangerous than the mother. IIRC, baby snakes aren't able to control venom flow and will give you every ounce they have if they bite. Granted that's probably not anymore than a full grown snake would give you, but sometimes snakes give warning bites without venom. Dangerous either way.
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 07:38:49 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 08, 2017, 07:42:51 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 08, 2017, 08:03:54 pm
Post by: helmacon on March 09, 2017, 04:39:14 pm
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2017, 08:02:03 pm
PETA is a terrible animal rights activist group and should be disbanded.
In fact they have done far more to harm animal rights than anything else and I almost think the only reason they still exist is because SOMEHOW the higher ups actually earn money off it.
As well people need to stop giving PETA a voice and just ignore them like the bat crazy group they are. They are not a viable voice of animal rights... Just no more...
We don't need another scandal where they harass pokemon and go "Ohh sorry! It was a joke" because people actually got pissed at them.
Post by: Reelya on March 09, 2017, 08:24:11 pm
Quote
At the height of the Satanic panic (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanic_panic) in the late 1980s, PETA's newsletter reported (as fact) rumors that pets were being stolen by Satanists (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanist) for animal sacrifice (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sacrifice) and "crucifixion (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crucifixion)" at Halloween (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Halloween). PETA suggested that people keep their black cats inside around Halloween to protect them from Satanists.[34] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA#cite_note-33) They still maintain a "Halloween advisory" on their website, omitting any mention of Satanism or animal sacrifice, yet noting with approval that many shelters refuse to adopt out black cats during October.[35] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA#cite_note-34)
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 09, 2017, 08:51:43 pm
Post by: misko27 on March 09, 2017, 08:59:33 pm
Post by: Neonivek on March 09, 2017, 09:02:09 pm
wow neo, standing up to PETA. what an unpopular stand. i'm suprised people haven't already burned you at the stake.
Yeah but saying that they should be disenfranchised is another step further then what most people would say.
That we should start to invalidate them in the same way that we do not let the KKK talk about immigration.
And before someone says false equivalence... PETA is a hate group.
Post by: Tiruin on March 09, 2017, 09:33:51 pm
I think that was sarcasm. :Pwow neo, standing up to PETA. what an unpopular stand. i'm suprised people haven't already burned you at the stake.[...]
In which people do agree with you there, given what's been presented moreso lately.
Post by: Neonivek on March 10, 2017, 01:27:21 am
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 10, 2017, 07:10:41 am
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 10, 2017, 07:55:14 am
Post by: Reelya on March 10, 2017, 08:02:55 am
Post by: RoseHeart on March 10, 2017, 11:48:14 am
Literally the only thing most people know about PETA is their extremism. Hell, the only thing I know about them is their extremism.
Usually all I know about them is that they make sure no animals were harmed in the making of this film.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 10, 2017, 12:21:11 pm
Thats's not PETA. That's MAVAVLiterally the only thing most people know about PETA is their extremism. Hell, the only thing I know about them is their extremism.
Usually all I know about them is that they make sure no animals were harmed in the making of this film.
Post by: Max™ on March 10, 2017, 03:45:08 pm
They also gas kittens and puppies after promising to give them a good home. Because they hate pet owners more than they hate actually killing animals. I wish I was kidding.They kill like 96% of the animals they "rescue" and they've shared members, goals, and helped with funding things like legal defenses for the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front who are actual homegrown terrorists, they should all make like their whackjob founder and sterilize themselves.
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on March 10, 2017, 05:42:56 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 10, 2017, 06:16:13 pm
Controversial idea: Hollywood talent scouts are Kyuubi.
Young women show up, get offered these amazing abilities, go see things they couldn't have before, do things they couldn't do, but it kinda distances themselves from the lives they lived before.
Then, after enough time they inevitably start getting offered roles as witches.
Post by: Neonivek on March 10, 2017, 06:21:45 pm
AND losing all ability to recognize reality :P
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 10, 2017, 06:32:12 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 10, 2017, 06:33:11 pm
Unpopular opinion: Celebrities are normal people too, living to the best of their abilities in a life incredibly far removed from anything any of us have known or are likely to know. But nobody buys "Celebrity walks puppy, tries to live up to spouse's expectations, has children to raise while living under 24/7 intense media scrutiny" so we manufacture controversy and make mountains out of molehills regarding people that ultimately aren't important.*looks at the Kardashians*
...Yeah. Not sure I agree entirely here.
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 10, 2017, 06:40:43 pm
Or the "cash me ousside" girl. I'll admit I didn't watch the whole program, but the clips I've seen look like she comes from an incredibly dysfuctional family which can lead to all sorts of outbursts, poor behavior, poor performance in school, etc. I know because it's happened to all friends of mine who came from dysfunctional backgrounds. All I hear anytime she's brought up is "lol what a stupid hood rat attention whore bitch" because she became a Facebook meme that people dislike.
Post by: Neonivek on March 10, 2017, 06:42:00 pm
I mean... it isn't like Celebrities try to use the fact that they are celebrities to their advantage huh?
Can't have it both ways!
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 10, 2017, 06:43:57 pm
Though I will say that it is funny that in many ways the "Celebrities are people too!" kind of BOTH ways huh?
That isn't a sentence.
Quote
I mean... it isn't like Celebrities try to use the fact that they are celebrities to their advantage huh?
You mean, they use their fame and money to live a satisfying life? Funnily enough, I do that too! Just on a lesser scale, because, you know, less of those things.
Post by: Neonivek on March 10, 2017, 06:47:56 pm
That is why it doesn't apply when you do it, because you are at such a lesser scale that it doesn't affect your standing.
Post by: milo christiansen on March 10, 2017, 06:48:55 pm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETAQuoteAt the height of the Satanic panic (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanic_panic) in the late 1980s, PETA's newsletter reported (as fact) rumors that pets were being stolen by Satanists (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satanist) for animal sacrifice (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sacrifice) and "crucifixion (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crucifixion)" at Halloween (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Halloween). PETA suggested that people keep their black cats inside around Halloween to protect them from Satanists.[34] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA#cite_note-33) They still maintain a "Halloween advisory" on their website, omitting any mention of Satanism or animal sacrifice, yet noting with approval that many shelters refuse to adopt out black cats during October.[35] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PETA#cite_note-34)
I will just mention that I (personally) know some individuals that would deal in small animals. Black chickens, goats, and a few other kinds of animals would bring a premium in certain markets... Particularly if sold directly to certain very spooky individuals.
Post by: Neonivek on March 10, 2017, 06:50:05 pm
This is everything you need to know about "Celebrities are people too" as a counter argument.
"STOP LOOKING AT ME! Why can't I just blend in?"
Mind you. My arguments do not reflect my own opinions.
Post by: nenjin on March 10, 2017, 06:52:03 pm
I get shit from other forum regulars all the time about it but honestly? I don't care. Bay12 is special to me because it's full of real people talkin about games as fans talk about them, and it drives me a little nuts in this day and age of self-promotion when people come here explicitly because they know it's a big site. I'm actually ok with people posting their games here, but not when OG is treated like a place to advertise. I know people think I'm being incredibly discourteous when I say something about it, but I wouldn't view it any different than if someone walked up on the street to me and, without introducing themselves, started trying to sell me something. Shotgun marketing has never sat well with me.
There is a right and a wrong way to promote your new game in a community. To me the right way is to prove it's not a copy/pasted advertisement. Introduce yourself. Show you understand the community enough to actually craft a post instead of just building a set of hyperlinks. That shows some basic respect for the fact we are not just potential consumers, and the forum is not just a place to help you build up your Kickstarter. We can be and the forum can do that for you, if your game looks rad and you seem cool.
I really debated whether to post this at all but it fits firmly in the thread and is meta.
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 10, 2017, 06:58:04 pm
You cannot use that clout and then disown it at the same time.
That is why it doesn't apply when you do it, because you are at such a lesser scale that it doesn't affect your standing.
It's not about celebrities disowning their own status. It's about feeling like you have a right to pass personal judgments on somebody who's done nothing wrong besides have more money than you, or at worst be kind of annoying WHILE having more money than you. It's about turning off your empathy and sense of "This is another human being" because you're looking at a carefully manipulated clip on a TV screen, and taking that as objective reality. Most people on here don't even trust a news story until it's been presented by multiple sources, why would you trust a reality TV show to give you an accurate portrait of somebody's life? And yet that is what people do and it's annoying as hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5lUeIDNfXI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5lUeIDNfXI)
This is everything you need to know about "Celebrities are people too" as a counter argument.
Ohhhhh! A scene depicting a charicature of a charicature on a comedy show on Disney Channel. NOW I get you. Hang on, I'll have to go to my Brandy & Mr. Whiskers box set to cite some more humanizing counter-examples.
Post by: Neonivek on March 10, 2017, 07:01:06 pm
Quote
It's not about celebrities disowning their own status. It's about feeling like you have a right to pass personal judgments on somebody who's done nothing wrong besides have more money than you, or at worst be kind of annoying WHILE having more money than you.
Hmm that is an entirely different argument from "Celebrities are people too".
I was more going on how celebrities are hyperfocused where everything they do is essentially multiplied many fold and how it is hypocritical when one of them decries the fact that people are on their case because they are a celebrity... all the while they milk the fact that they are a celebrity to full effect. Wanting all the status but none of the downsides, like a child who wants to be older because it means they can stay up longer, but complaining that it means they have responsibilities.
The whole "They are people too" only means so much when celebrity status is used as much as a tool by celebrities themselves.
I am not arguing that celebrities should be targeted with hate boners due to the fact that they are celebrities.
Which normally I wouldn't argue these points in a thread like this... but "Celebrities aren't actually people" is a much more unpopular opinion and I think it deserves some clout of "Celebrities are big freeken hypocrites if they ever try to say that and may they finally shut up about how eco-conscious they are!"
---
Though as I said my actual opinion on this lies somewhere else entirely.
Post by: Frumple on March 10, 2017, 07:03:54 pm
Unpopular opinion: Celebrities are normal people too, living to the best of their abilities in a life incredibly far removed from anything any of us have known or are likely to know. But nobody buys "Celebrity walks puppy, tries to live up to spouse's expectations, has children to raise while living under 24/7 intense media scrutiny" so we manufacture controversy and make mountains out of molehills regarding people that ultimately aren't important.They can definitely be normal people. On the other hand, the stresses and advantages given by that sort of attention push pretty strongly towards various sorts of rather messed up behavior. Add on that they're surrounded by similar people and all the sorts seeking to take advantage of such folks, and you have a recipe for very notable inclination towards all sorts of mess.
That said, great heaping piles of shit totally are invented wholecloth or near enough with constant regularity. Somethin' gotta' fill dem tabloid pages.
... also, they kinda' are important, to varying extents. Being someone that's basically one of the notable faces of a culture isn't exactly a small thing. People watch and are influenced, and that spreads. Not just about annoyance, it's about the nature of the culture you live in and the issues related to interacting directly and especially otherwise with the folks that represent meaningful facets of it.
Post by: Tiruin on March 10, 2017, 11:06:52 pm
Well, there goes things in my childhood I found more amusing than the shows of today. :Phttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5lUeIDNfXI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5lUeIDNfXI)
This is everything you need to know about "Celebrities are people too" as a counter argument.
Ohhhhh! A scene depicting a charicature of a charicature on a comedy show on Disney Channel. NOW I get you. Hang on, I'll have to go to my Brandy & Mr. Whiskers box set to cite some more humanizing counter-examples.
That said...not everyone is represented by the celebrities--they are people too, but there's a lot into it that makes it seem one way or another to people--most especially exposure over time, like if something is hyped up so much as if it's a big deal, and it's pretty much something you're exposed to a lot...it's going to mean something.
There's also the biggest part being abstractionism: When you treat the concept rather than the person, which is blatantly a big theme with 'internet bluntness or rudeness' as there's a lot less human interaction and more abstracted interaction. :-\
...Although from a rather -half-a-world-away- experience, I have no idea why the Kardashians are an 'example' there. Seems just like something localized.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 10, 2017, 11:57:02 pm
The unpopular/controversial idea that posting on Bay12 for the first time just to promote your game is a bad thing.Hear, hear. It's worth pointing out that advertising is against the forum guidelines. I don't know quite how heavily Toady enforces that against crowdfunding spammers, but I report them all the same.
I get shit from other forum regulars all the time about it but honestly? I don't care. Bay12 is special to me because it's full of real people talkin about games as fans talk about them, and it drives me a little nuts in this day and age of self-promotion when people come here explicitly because they know it's a big site. I'm actually ok with people posting their games here, but not when OG is treated like a place to advertise. I know people think I'm being incredibly discourteous when I say something about it, but I wouldn't view it any different than if someone walked up on the street to me and, without introducing themselves, started trying to sell me something. Shotgun marketing has never sat well with me.
There is a right and a wrong way to promote your new game in a community. To me the right way is to prove it's not a copy/pasted advertisement. Introduce yourself. Show you understand the community enough to actually craft a post instead of just building a set of hyperlinks. That shows some basic respect for the fact we are not just potential consumers, and the forum is not just a place to help you build up your Kickstarter. We can be and the forum can do that for you, if your game looks rad and you seem cool.
I really debated whether to post this at all but it fits firmly in the thread and is meta.
There's hardly a thread on the front page of OG that doesn't have a shitty banner for this month's DF clone and/or crafting survival simulator.
Post by: Sinistar on March 11, 2017, 09:08:07 am
Half-Life 2 is overrated.
Gundam Zeta is crap.
Star Wars The Force Awakens is such a pile of steaming shit even The Phantom Menace is better. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU)
Post by: overseer05-15 on March 11, 2017, 09:58:03 am
Post by: TempAcc on March 11, 2017, 11:14:38 am
Behold, one of my 400 unpopular opinions: whenever I see someone go "hey guys i'm comming out as polyamorous" I can't help but to read it as "I cheated on my boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife and I need a more socially acceptable excuse for it instead of just saying I cheated on them, and if my partner doesnt like it, then they're a bigot!".
I also generally think of polyamorous people as people who want the benefits of a relationship but are too feeble to deal with the less comfortable aspects of it.
Post by: George_Chickens on March 11, 2017, 11:25:19 am
Post by: Antioch on March 11, 2017, 02:22:09 pm
Post by: Baffler on March 11, 2017, 02:28:34 pm
Beyond Good and Evil (2003 game) is "just ok".
Half-Life 2 is overrated.
Gundam Zeta is crap.
Star Wars The Force Awakens is such a pile of steaming shit even The Phantom Menace is better. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK8IC-bGnU)
Don't have a horse in the race on Beyond Good and Evil and Gundam Zeta, and agreed with Star Wars, but how do you figure with Half-Life?
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 11, 2017, 03:08:05 pm
Post by: Hanslanda on March 11, 2017, 03:18:10 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on March 11, 2017, 03:33:27 pm
Post by: Neonivek on March 11, 2017, 03:42:14 pm
Crusader Kings 2 DLC is rip off tastic. Not in the "There isn't anything worthwhile inside" (though that is debatable... as sometimes they only unlock stuff) but in terms of they are trying to get the most amount of money for the least amount of work... in a very disgusting and obvious degree. Especially in how they nickel and dime all their content partitioning them to charge more.
I won't get into it because I'd then be tackled and told how incredible deep their African expansion is.
Dang Paradox... seriously curse them!
The only ones to draw my ire more is Kalypso but they are soo similar in their strategies that I mix them up! (But Kalypso doesn't have ANYONE who defends them, and rightfully so. While Paradox is lauded as the greatest DLC creators ever)
---
What is odd is... I don't even care that there is so much DLC for Crusader Kings 2... only HOW they market that DLC (Ignoring... a few of their DLC not being good... But that is another story...)
Post by: Max™ on March 11, 2017, 04:22:53 pm
Post by: Strife26 on March 11, 2017, 05:03:06 pm
Post by: misko27 on March 11, 2017, 05:14:18 pm
As a question, would you feel the same way about Civ V? Not a loaded question mind, legitimately curious, because I haven't heard similar criticism about them but the situations feel fairly similar. It had (has) over $100 dollars in DLC, and some of the expansions feel like they are completely mandatory to play the game (the first time I played Civ with BNW I swore to never go back). If there is a difference, can you explain it a bit?
Post by: Antioch on March 11, 2017, 05:22:55 pm
Hmm. Interesting.
As a question, would you feel the same way about Civ V? Not a loaded question mind, legitimately curious, because I haven't heard similar criticism about them but the situations feel fairly similar. It had (has) over $100 dollars in DLC, and some of the expansions feel like they are completely mandatory to play the game (the first time I played Civ with BNW I swore to never go back). If there is a difference, can you explain it a bit?
Ironically I only played CiV V vanilla for a short while and found it so lacklustre that I never bothered to try it again.
Post by: Neonivek on March 11, 2017, 05:24:12 pm
Let lets ignore those. Let us instead go into the major expansions.
Civ 5 packages everything needed for that expansion... into one expansion.
CK2 packages everything needed for that expansion... into at minimum 2 expansions (and sometimes much more than that). Basically partitioning off the visuals, music, and sometimes even content separate from the main one as a way to sort of push the price up even more.
This is without getting into what these expansions are and what content and game changes they add.
Post by: Frumple on March 11, 2017, 05:25:04 pm
... though to be fair, I've also never really heard anyone care about civ 5 to the extent people care about several of the paradox titles. Some of the earlier ones (3 & 4 in particular), but not so much 5.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 11, 2017, 05:29:54 pm
There is also the vicious cycle that has developed as a result of their DLC patches, which often throw off the entire game balance unless you have all DLC. I don't think either behavior is necessarily malicious or even conscious in the case of the patch balance, but it is a degenerative process that has only accelerated over the years. Unfortunately, CK2 did really, really well as a result of this continuous redevelopment and so they're not likely to be swayed from this path, doubly so since they've had an IPO.
Post by: Starver on March 11, 2017, 06:24:10 pm
What are we? Germans?
(See also RoundABout, etc.)
Or perhaps I'm the Acronym Geheime Staatspolizei... Not sure whether that means I can send people to the Glavnoye Upravleniye Lagerey, or not, but I'll definitely apply for "PIN Number", "ATM Machine" or "LCD Display" to be potential capital offences, for their different reason....
Post by: Helgoland on March 12, 2017, 06:21:41 am
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2017, 07:50:12 am
Post by: Starver on March 12, 2017, 08:39:28 am
Post by: misko27 on March 12, 2017, 03:11:59 pm
Really? What do you call the Gestapo in German?Probably a joke that there was no "a" Starver's version.
To be honest I've never heard of the Gestpo. And that's coming from a guy who just last Saturday tried to nickname a girl 'Stasi'.Precisely what circumstances led you to think that nicknaming a girl 'Stasi' was a good idea? And did she slap you or something :P
Post by: Helgoland on March 12, 2017, 04:09:02 pm
Post by: Sheb on March 12, 2017, 06:27:54 pm
Just wanted to annoy her a bit. We ended up settling on 'Stas'.
Ahah, you just backed down when she called you NS in returned.
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 09:59:22 am
Military spending would still be 3 times that of Russia by the way.
Post by: Azzuro on March 13, 2017, 10:17:37 am
Controversial idea: The US government should cut it's discretionary military spending by half and instead distribute that money to all it's residents (including children with their share being allocated to their parents until they're adults) each year, turning the average American into an economic powerhouse by literally dumping millions of dollars into their budget each year.
Military spending would still be 3 times that of Russia by the way.
Controversial idea: this is not a controversial idea in the political outlook of these forums in general.
Post by: McTraveller on March 13, 2017, 12:49:48 pm
Controversial idea: The US government should cut it's discretionary military spending by half and instead distribute that money to all it's residents (including children with their share being allocated to their parents until they're adults) each year, turning the average American into an economic powerhouse by literally dumping millions of dollars into their budget each year.This smells like a confusion between million = 10^6 and million = 10^9. There are only about 330x10^6 people in the US. The entire annual US government spending is "only" $3.8 x 10^12. That is on the order of $1 x 10^4 per person. I'm not sure how you'd consider this dumping "millions" into the average American's budget each year.
Military spending would still be 3 times that of Russia by the way.
Post by: Max™ on March 13, 2017, 01:10:54 pm
Controversial-ish idea: many of the countries that do use metric also use nonsense like million = 1,000,000,000 and should be roundly mocked for it.
Post by: Helgoland on March 13, 2017, 01:13:12 pm
Post by: TheBiggerFish on March 13, 2017, 01:15:56 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 13, 2017, 01:20:40 pm
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004
Post by: McTraveller on March 13, 2017, 01:30:59 pm
Every person gets, say, $100k every year. You aren't allowed to put any into savings or carry any over to the next year, and loans are also outlawed; at the end of the year every account resets.
Post by: Strife26 on March 13, 2017, 01:41:27 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 13, 2017, 01:43:26 pm
Except down at the bottom you see "Elizabeth Graham, blah blah, long time fighter for stripping her own reproductive rights through the power of hateful ignorance" and I'm not sure how controversial it is, but I feel that she's actually worse than the guys doing this shit. Lord knows the sort who push the "women are walking incubators" mindset don't need any help shoveling their bullshit, much less from a woman. "See, see, she agrees with us, we're on the right side!"
Thanks, Graham.
Post by: NJW2000 on March 13, 2017, 01:46:16 pm
So hospital cleaners would earn a lot more, but advertising consultants might earn very little.
Very nebuous concept to measure, but an interesting thought.
Post by: McTraveller on March 13, 2017, 02:12:05 pm
I've been wondering about jobs having a wage maximum and minimum according to the social value they created.My "controversial" response: society, in aggregate, already sets wages in proportion to the value they provide.
So hospital cleaners would earn a lot more, but advertising consultants might earn very little.
Very nebuous concept to measure, but an interesting thought.
Post by: Helgoland on March 13, 2017, 02:15:47 pm
Ah, yeah, I forgot just how ridiculous the long scale was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scalesFTFY.
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 10003
Tri: 10004
Quad: 10005
Post by: NJW2000 on March 13, 2017, 02:18:32 pm
Or do you just mean generally? Because I fail to see how that figures with "social value", as in collective value to community.
I might concede the point with "value to the employer". Employers often pay people what it's worthwhile for them to pay them. :P
Post by: Starver on March 13, 2017, 02:29:06 pm
Ah, yeah, I forgot just how ridiculous the long scale was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scalesBillion being million*million (which it is, long-scale), Trillion should be billion*billion (even long scale is just million*billion), quadrillion therefore trillion*trillion and each Xillion being (X-1)illion-squared.
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004
(Short Xillions are 1x103(X+1) or 1000X+1; Long Xillions are (simpler?) 1x106X or 10002X or 1,000,000X; these New Xillions would be 1x103.(2X) or 10002X... E&OE, of course...)
Post by: Grim Portent on March 13, 2017, 02:29:36 pm
Controversial idea: The US government should cut it's discretionary military spending by half and instead distribute that money to all it's residents (including children with their share being allocated to their parents until they're adults) each year, turning the average American into an economic powerhouse by literally dumping millions of dollars into their budget each year.This smells like a confusion between million = 10^6 and million = 10^9. There are only about 330x10^6 people in the US. The entire annual US government spending is "only" $3.8 x 10^12. That is on the order of $1 x 10^4 per person. I'm not sure how you'd consider this dumping "millions" into the average American's budget each year.
Military spending would still be 3 times that of Russia by the way.
It was hyperbole really.
It would have been more accurate for me to say putting millions of dollars into the lower earning parts of society.
Each person's only getting about a thousand dollars, but to a lot of people in the states that's a significant chunk of money that could massively improve their quality of life, and it would be roughly equivalent to double the amount that gets spent on food stamps (75 billion) in terms of spending on the poor (defining poor here as bottom 50%, a more specific distribution would be far more efficient but includes more overhead.)
I've been wondering about jobs having a wage maximum and minimum according to the social value they created.
So hospital cleaners would earn a lot more, but advertising consultants might earn very little.
Very nebuous concept to measure, but an interesting thought.
It would be very hard to put a value on anything like that. It would be easier to just tie the maximum wage to the minimum one so you can't pay the CEO 100 times more than the janitor who cleans their office.
Post by: Helgoland on March 13, 2017, 02:31:44 pm
More like this:Ah, yeah, I forgot just how ridiculous the long scale was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scalesBillion being million*million (which it is, long-scale), Trillion should be billion*billion (even long scale is just million*billion), quadrillion therefore trillion*trillion and each Xillion being (X-1)illion-squared.
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004
(Short Xillions are 1x103(X+1) or 1000X+1; Long Xillions are (simpler?) 1x106X or 10002X or 1,000,000X;these New Xillions would be 1x103.(2X) or 10002X... E&OE, of course...)
Million == Million1
Billion == Million2
Trillion == Million3
On the long scale, of course. From an aesthetic perspective I prefer the short one, but the long scale does make more sense intrinsically...
Post by: Neonivek on March 13, 2017, 03:13:01 pm
Feminism is on its way out and is becoming a purely academic and political pursuit.
This is mostly because mainstream feminism has become two things
-1) It has normalized: A person who believes in basic feminist theories and will speak out about them is... a normal person... not inherently a feminist.
Which leads into
-2) BECAUSE a normal person believes in basic feminist theories. A feminist is pushed towards more polarizing views.
Don't get me wrong... I am not maligned against feminism (I am against sexists and bigots... but those exist in all groups)
Yet this is a VERY similar situation to, for example, animal rights.
It has went from something that only a few people will really talk about. To something that most people have a basic level of agreement to the point where 50 years prior everyone would be considered to be a animal rights person.
So what IS the major animal rights group everyone knows of and is the face of animal rights in the US? PETA... Who are mouth foaming lunatics.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on March 13, 2017, 03:18:05 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 13, 2017, 03:49:50 pm
Except there is nothing nonsensical about bi/tri/quad/quint/sex/sept/oct/non, same with giga/tera/peta/exa which have defined values, 1x109/1x1012/1x1015/1x1018, but would be "thousand billion bytes" or "thousand trillion meters" unless you use the silly "billiard bytes" and "trilliard meters" words. What does a pub game have to do with computers?More like this:Ah, yeah, I forgot just how ridiculous the long scale was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scalesBillion being million*million (which it is, long-scale), Trillion should be billion*billion (even long scale is just million*billion), quadrillion therefore trillion*trillion and each Xillion being (X-1)illion-squared.
Controversial idea: billion/quadrillion/sextillion is obviously less nonsensical sounding than milliard/billiard/trilliard.
Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004
(Short Xillions are 1x103(X+1) or 1000X+1; Long Xillions are (simpler?) 1x106X or 10002X or 1,000,000X;these New Xillions would be 1x103.(2X) or 10002X... E&OE, of course...)
Million == Million1
Billion == Million2
Trillion == Million3
On the long scale, of course. From an aesthetic perspective I prefer the short one, but the long scale does make more sense intrinsically...
None of that, now.Bi: 1000x10002
Tri: 1000x10003
Quad: 1000x10004FTFY.
Post by: Starver on March 13, 2017, 03:58:07 pm
Oh yes, Long Scale is absolutely more sensible. (And more aesthetic, I'd say! No X+1 stuff!)(Short Xillions are 1x103(X+1) or 1000X+1; Long Xillions are (simpler?) 1x106X or 10002X or 1,000,000X;these New Xillions would be 1x103.(2X) or 10002X... E&OE, of course...)More like this:
Million == Million1
Billion == Million2
Trillion == Million3
On the long scale, of course. From an aesthetic perspective I prefer the short one, but the long scale does make more sense intrinsically...
But we get a whole load more usable numbers in New Scale, without having to go into extreme prefixes at the top end. As each of these shortened "most significant digits" further highlights in bold show... (With Long Scale still doing better than Short Scale, on its own.)
3,141,592,653
Short: Three Billion, One Hundred Forty One Million, Five Hundred Ninety Two, Six Hundred Fifty Three.
Long: Three Thousand One Hundred And Forty One Million, Five Hundred And Ninety Two Thousand, Six Hundred And Fifty Three (or Three Milliard, but I avoid the Xilliards, in favour of "Thousand Xillion"s...)
New: Three Thousand One Hundred And Forty One Million, Five Hundred And Ninety Two Thousand, Six Hundred And Fifty Three
31,415,926,535,897,932,384
Short: Thirty One Quintillion, Four Hundred Fifteen Quadrillion, Nine Hundred Twenty Six Trillion, Five Hundred Thirty Five Billion, Nine Hundred Thirty Two Million, Nine Hundred Thirty Two Thousand, Three Hundred Eighty Four
Long: Thirty One Trillion, Four Hundred And Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred And Twenty Six Billion, Five Hundred And Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred And Ninety Seven Million, Nine Hundred And Thirty Two Thousand, Three Hundred And Eighty Four
New: Thirty One Million Four Hundred And Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred And Twenty Six Billion, Five Hundred And Thirty Five Thousand Eight Hundred And Ninety Seven Million, Nine Hundred And Thirty Two Thousand, Three Hundred And Eighty Four
314,159,265,358,979,323,846,264,338,327
Short: Three Hundred Fourteen Octillion, One Hundred Fifty Nine Septillion, Two Hundred Sixty Five Hexillion, Three Hundred Fifty Eight Quintillion, Nine Hundred Seventy Nine Quadrillion, Three Hundred Twenty Three Trillion, Eight Hundred Forty Six Billion, Two Hundred Sixty Four Million, Three Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty Seven
Long: Three Hundred And Fourteen Thousand One Hundred And Fifty Nine Quadrillion, Two Hundred And Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred And Fifty Eight Trillion, Nine Hundred And Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred And Twenty Three Billion, Eight Hundred And Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred And Sixty Four Million, Three Hundred And Thirty Eight Thousand, Three Hundred And Twenty Seven
New: Three Hundred And Fourteen Thousand One Hundred And Fifty Nine Trillion, Two Hundred And Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred And Fifty Eight Million Nine Hundred And Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred And Twenty Three Billion, Eight Hundred And Forty Six Thousand Two Hundred And Sixty Four Million, Three Hundred And Thirty Eight Thousand, Thee Hundred And Twenty Seven
3,141,592,653,589,793,238,462,643,383,279,502,884,197
Short: Three Dodecillion, One Hundred Forty One Undecillion, Five Hundred Ninety Two Decillion, Six Hundred Fifty Three Nonillion, Five Hundred Eighty Nine Octillion, Seven Hundred Ninety Three Septillion, Two Hundred Thirty Eight Hexillion, Four Hundred Sixty Two Quintillion, Six Hundred Forty Three Quadrillion, Three Hundred Eighty Three Trillion, Two Hundred Seventy Nine Billion, Five Hundred Two Million, Eight Hundred Eighty Four Thousand, One Hundred Ninety Seven
Long: Three Thousand One Hundred And Forty One Hexillion, Five Hundred And Ninety Two Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty Three Quintillion, Five Hundred And Eighty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred And Ninety Three Quadrillion, Two Hundred And Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred And Sixty Two Trillion, Six Hundred And Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred And Eighty Three Billion Two Hundred And Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred And Two Million, Eight Hundred And Eighty Four Thousand, One Hunded And Ninety Seven
New: Three Thousand One Hundred And Forty One Billion Five Hundred And Ninety Two Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty Three Million Five Hundred And Eighty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred And Ninety Three Trillion, Two Hundred And Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred And Sixty Two Million Six Hundred And Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred And Eighty Three Billion, Two Hundred And Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred And Two Million Eight Hundred And Eighty Four Thousand, One Hundred And Ninety Seven
(((New))): ((Three Thousand One Hundred And Forty One) Billion ((Five Hundred And Ninety Two Thousand Six Hundred And Fifty Three) Million (Five Hundred And Eighty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred And Ninety Three))) Trillion, ((Two Hundred And Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred And Sixty Two) Million (Six Hundred And Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred And Eighty Three)) Billion, (Two Hundred And Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred And Two) Million Eight Hundred And Eighty Four Thousand, One Hundred And Ninety Seven - grouped for 'readability'
31,415,926,535,897,932,384,626,433,832,795,028,841,971,693,993,751
Short: Thirty One Quindecillion ...
Long: Thirty One Octillion ...
New: Thirty One Thousand ... Quadrillion ... - see, far less cumbersome. Only up to X=4...
(All done entirely by hand, without even the benefit of a decent cutnpaste function, so if I've cocked anything up... Well.)
edited for formatting, at which point I got "Android Keyboard has stopped functioning"... To no apparent effect, but a bit worrying, nonetheless..
Post by: Sinistar on March 13, 2017, 04:03:00 pm
@Sinistar I don't care about 3/4 of your post, but you'd better explain the Star Wars one.
Not as bad as Return of the Jedi though.
Spoiler: TFA ragerantdump (click to show/hide)
Don't have a horse in the race on Beyond Good and Evil and Gundam Zeta, and agreed with Star Wars, but how do you figure with Half-Life?A HF2 rant was in the works, but my doctor tells me only one rant per day, sorry. Tomorrow maybe.
Unpopular opinion: Sinistar is a heretic and should be burnt.For this to be unpopular opinion there must first be people who would like to see me NOT being burnt.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 13, 2017, 04:15:17 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Neonivek on March 13, 2017, 04:18:04 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 13, 2017, 06:13:02 pm
Though re: the numbers, I'd be happy enough if we just abolished words for numbers entirely so far as writing goes. We got numbers, let's use those.
... barring that, always short. Short is short, let's not use more words than necessary.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 13, 2017, 06:14:34 pm
Chickens already eat meat.Precisely. I stand by my comment.
Post by: Max™ on March 13, 2017, 06:17:49 pm
Post by: TempAcc on March 13, 2017, 07:23:31 pm
Spoiler: mfw people say communism was the best thing ever (click to show/hide)
Post by: Bumber on March 13, 2017, 11:23:06 pm
Except there is nothing nonsensical about bi/tri/quad/quint/sex/sept/oct/non, same with giga/tera/peta/exa which have defined values...The nonsensical part is how the short system includes a thousands category, then throws it away. Mi ≈ mono = 1, so that should logically be the main unit.
A depiction (red = xillions separator, white = thousands):
Short = 31,415,926,535,897,932,384
Long = 31,415,926,535,897,932,384
I propose we rename "thousands" to "millions" and shift everything over. After all, "milli" is the Latin-based prefix for thousand. The origin of "thousand" is... Proto-Germanic? It used to mean just a "great amount".
Code: [Select]
Million = 1000^1 = 10^3
Billion = 1000^2 = 10^6
Trillion = 1000^3 = 10^9
...
Xillion = 1000^X = 10^(3*X)It just makes sense.
Post by: misko27 on March 14, 2017, 12:06:05 am
Post by: NJW2000 on March 14, 2017, 02:54:50 am
Post by: McTraveller on March 14, 2017, 07:45:53 am
Sometimes just leave convention alone - changing it for "the sake of correctness" is...[adjective].
Post by: Starver on March 14, 2017, 08:25:24 am
I think discussions like this are how we ended up with "men in black" as a measurement for computer memory storage.But we have so many different standards! To which, the only answer, obviously, is to sit down and sensibly define a single umbrella (https://xkcd.com/927/) standard to cover every case!!
Sometimes just leave convention alone - changing it for "the sake of correctness" is...[adjective].
Post by: Frumple on March 14, 2017, 08:30:30 am
Post by: overseer05-15 on March 14, 2017, 08:40:51 am
Hex>Philips HeadFlathead>Hex(and everything else honestly)
Post by: Baffler on March 14, 2017, 09:52:19 am
Spoiler: mfw people say communism was the best thing ever (click to show/hide)
It's honestly baffling that the well isn't completely poisoned on communism by now, considering how it's turned out for everyone everywhere it's been done.
Post by: TempAcc on March 14, 2017, 10:12:48 am
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2017, 10:15:06 am
Spoiler: mfw people say communism was the best thing ever (click to show/hide)
It's honestly baffling that the well isn't completely poisoned on communism by now, considering how it's turned out for everyone everywhere it's been done.
But that wasn't reeeeeally communism. At least that's what I hear from latter-day communists when they defend their ideology.
I mostly just wanted an excuse to post the gif, but ye, its pretty surprising that people give communism such a pass while at the same time going full ham against fascism and etc, specially when you actualy give a good look at history and realize that, at the end of things, fascism and communism really weren't that different in practice. Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting.As a German person, I take offense to that.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Post by: TempAcc on March 14, 2017, 10:16:33 am
But only if its west german.
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on March 14, 2017, 10:25:31 am
communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgustingA lot of social media progressives seem to defend ideologies with disgusting views, as long as they can claim oppression points or whatever. They defend Islam despite its horrifying practices, they defend communism and anarchism despite their violence and mass murder.
Post by: penguinofhonor on March 14, 2017, 10:59:15 am
Post by: misko27 on March 14, 2017, 12:07:53 pm
Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting (IE homosexuals are mentally ill capitalist dogs, jews are fascist bastards because they don't conform to our ideas, ukranians are disposable, black people are inferior and immoral, etc).I disagree, but only because Fascism clearly led to the Second World War (you might argue that hitler himself didn't cause all these deaths, but fascism is indisputably the case and reason for the war), and by that token Fascism has a death toll of around eighty-four million people; whereas by contrast capitalism and communism have both, thus far, resisted the urge to plunge the world into everlasting night, which is a point in their favor.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Post by: Strife26 on March 14, 2017, 12:28:44 pm
Hex>Philips HeadFlathead>Hex(and everything else honestly)
Depends on the application. In general, there's never a good reason for hex heads. They're a pain in the ass to work with if removable torque isn't required and they round off in seconds if it is.
Repeatable w/o torque: flathead
Nonrepeatable: square Philips
Repeatable with torque: bolt
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2017, 12:34:48 pm
Good, lets have a beer together sometime.Sounds good.
But only if its west german.
There's a couple more folks here from the Netherlands and Belgium - maybe we should organize a regional meetup sometime. Whaddya think?
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on March 14, 2017, 12:36:54 pm
Can we not make this the "act snide about liberals" thread? I know a couple people have been using it for that occasionally, but it's going to ignite an argument. You can phrase these criticisms without sounding like you just got out of a fight on another site and are trying to bring it here.I'm not acting snide about liberals. I lean left myself, in many respects. But it's undeniable that some on the far-left defend deplorable practices, as long as it is a practice from a group they identify with (communists, anarchists) or are deemed "oppressed" (Islam).
Post by: Sinistar on March 14, 2017, 12:37:22 pm
WHOOOOSHHHHHHH.
Post by: Draignean on March 14, 2017, 12:59:45 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 14, 2017, 01:18:55 pm
Post by: TempAcc on March 14, 2017, 01:30:06 pm
Good, lets have a beer together sometime.Sounds good.
But only if its west german.
There's a couple more folks here from the Netherlands and Belgium - maybe we should organize a regional meetup sometime. Whaddya think?
I can't be present because THE OCEAN IS IN THE WAY, but as long as there's a bottle of Guinness on the table, I'll be present in spirit, touching people's hair without permission.
Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting (IE homosexuals are mentally ill capitalist dogs, jews are fascist bastards because they don't conform to our ideas, ukranians are disposable, black people are inferior and immoral, etc).I disagree, but only because Fascism clearly led to the Second World War (you might argue that hitler himself didn't cause all these deaths, but fascism is indisputably the case and reason for the war), and by that token Fascism has a death toll of around eighty-four million people; whereas by contrast capitalism and communism have both, thus far, resisted the urge to plunge the world into everlasting night, which is a point in their favor.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Now lets play with that idea for a second. You're factoring in the entire death toll of ww2, including those caused by communist regimes, and blaming it entirely on fascism, out of the fact that fascism was the trigger that started the war.
Thats kinda like a guy who murdered 10 people in cold blood (members of his own family included) going to court and blaming this other guy who murdered 2 on the same ocasion and saying " hey he started it so its all his fault, not mine, lol".
Post by: Strife26 on March 14, 2017, 01:38:35 pm
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on March 14, 2017, 01:45:07 pm
Post by: Strife26 on March 14, 2017, 01:47:23 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2017, 01:54:42 pm
Post by: Antioch on March 14, 2017, 02:55:18 pm
Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting (IE homosexuals are mentally ill capitalist dogs, jews are fascist bastards because they don't conform to our ideas, ukranians are disposable, black people are inferior and immoral, etc).I disagree, but only because Fascism clearly led to the Second World War (you might argue that hitler himself didn't cause all these deaths, but fascism is indisputably the case and reason for the war), and by that token Fascism has a death toll of around eighty-four million people; whereas by contrast capitalism and communism have both, thus far, resisted the urge to plunge the world into everlasting night, which is a point in their favor.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
On fascism starting ww2: Don't forget that Poland was invaded by BOTH Germany and the Soviet Union and that the Soviet Union Annexed the baltic states and started a war to annex Finland.
Post by: Teneb on March 14, 2017, 03:03:38 pm
Disclaimer: i do not endorse fascism in any way.Also, the whole "fascism was racist and killed a bajillion people" doesnt exactly stick since communism murdered even more people and pushed several views your average social media progressive should find disgusting (IE homosexuals are mentally ill capitalist dogs, jews are fascist bastards because they don't conform to our ideas, ukranians are disposable, black people are inferior and immoral, etc).I disagree, but only because Fascism clearly led to the Second World War (you might argue that hitler himself didn't cause all these deaths, but fascism is indisputably the case and reason for the war), and by that token Fascism has a death toll of around eighty-four million people; whereas by contrast capitalism and communism have both, thus far, resisted the urge to plunge the world into everlasting night, which is a point in their favor.
So ye, sorry cringy soviet shirt guy, but I can't really treat you any better than a guy wearing a swastika.
Ok so, Fascism != Nazism. Fascism is a militaristic ideology that exalts the state and national pride, and is fairly pro-war. While somewhat xenophobic, fascists are not inherently racists. It boils down to "<Nation> is the best there is, and all others are inferior. What is good for the State is good for its citizens." Mussolini only made a token effort at persecuting minorities in Italy because he saw them as italians first, and jews/romani/blacks/etc second. Nazism, conversely, is about the concept that a "race" is inherently superior to others. It uses fascism as a base, but its core is absolutely racism.
Post by: Max™ on March 14, 2017, 03:21:55 pm
Hex>Philips HeadNow now, we agree to hate the real enemy: split slotted or H-type heretics!
Post by: NJW2000 on March 14, 2017, 03:53:33 pm
Communism could mean anything from marxist awareness of capitalism's problems to Stalin (practically Hitler).
Post by: Max™ on March 14, 2017, 03:58:39 pm
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on March 14, 2017, 05:08:20 pm
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2017, 05:13:54 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 14, 2017, 05:17:14 pm
Post by: Pwnzerfaust on March 14, 2017, 05:19:52 pm
Nope. In fact Marx would've hated your guts.Why's that? Not contesting your statement, just curious.
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2017, 05:26:48 pm
I'm pretty sure Marx just couldn't have conceived of that.Sure he could. The left-wing intellectuals back then were about as concerned with post-scarcity as this board is these days. And Marx was heavily, heavily opposed to the so-called utopian variant of socialist thought. He considered himself a /scientific/ socialist, with a proper understanding of materialist dialectics and historical inevitability.
Fuck, if all the folks who spent their time whining about how unfair Sanders was being treated by everybody had instead started reading up about the roots of Leftist thought, the American Left might actually have started going places again. Instead they're calling him a socialist. Jesus Christ.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 14, 2017, 05:38:57 pm
The utopian socialists were concerned with separatist commune living, not computerized automation. What with the lack of computers outside the difference engine. At his time, humans were still the world's widest-utility machines and could not be replaced, only consolidated. The only aspect of automation he'd get is the loss of labor to efficiency, but even that is incomparable as demonstrated by his assignment of blame in that regard to the managerial class' task of control over labor.I'm pretty sure Marx just couldn't have conceived of that.Sure he could. The left-wing intellectuals back then were about as concerned with post-scarcity as this board is these days. And Marx was heavily, heavily opposed to the so-called utopian variant of socialist thought. He considered himself a /scientific/ socialist, with a proper understanding of materialist dialectics and historical inevitability.
Quote
Fuck, if all the folks who spent their time whining about how unfair Sanders was being treated by everybody had instead started reading up about the roots of Leftist thought, the American Left might actually have started going places again. Instead they're calling him a socialist. Jesus Christ.Holy hostile non-sequitur, Batman!
Post by: Helgoland on March 14, 2017, 06:18:05 pm
The utopian socialists were concerned with separatist commune living, not computerized automation. What with the lack of computers outside the difference engine. At his time, humans were still the world's widest-utility machines and could not be replaced, only consolidated. The only aspect of automation he'd get is the loss of labor to efficiency, but even that is incomparable as demonstrated by his assignment of blame in that regard to the managerial class' task of control over labor.He didn't blame that on the managerial class - quite the opposite, actually. He considered capitalism - and its increases in productivity - a necessary historical step towards full Communism, which to him meant the state becoming superfluous and man only working out of his own free accord, dissolving the division of labor.
Spoiler: Relevant Marx quote (click to show/hide)
Quote
[In full Communism I shall be able to] hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, breed cattle in the evening, critique after dinner as I please, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, cattle herder, or critic by trade.After you've found a proper translation of this and read it, you'll note that he is indeed imagining a state without work not motivated by pleasure, ie what today we would call a post-scarcity society. The presence or absence of computers is a triviality.
Non-sequitur? Hardly. 95% of what's floating around today as political and economical thought on the left is either not thought at all, or of a highly utopian type. Prove me wrong: Show me one alternative economic system for a full-blown industrial society - and yes, that's what Marxian Socialism and Communism were supposed to be - that isn't passé or just composed of wishful thinking. That's where the Left's weakness is coming from: No ideological backbone! No framework to work in! No vigorous new concepts that want to meet their baptism of fire! Instead there's a cult of personality, ideas that in Europe were implemented around the time my parents were born or even earlier, and millions of bright folks lapping this up as 'a revolution'. And they're abusing the word 'socialist', to boot! That's an attack on the clarity of language - and clarity of language is one of the very few things that are holy* to me, right up there with my family, beer, good food, and being able to talk shit about whatever I like, as long as I've got a point. It's disgusting to me on a very fundamental level. If they all got off their asses and dug into their philosophy and econ and sociology and history textbooks, I probably still wouldn't agree with them - but hell, at least there'd be something to talk - and think! - about!QuoteFuck, if all the folks who spent their time whining about how unfair Sanders was being treated by everybody had instead started reading up about the roots of Leftist thought, the American Left might actually have started going places again. Instead they're calling him a socialist. Jesus Christ.Holy hostile non-sequitur, Batman!
*I'm completely serious about this, by the way. An attack on the clarity of language is an attack on communication itself, and thus on the existence of mankind as anything more than a mass of lumps of flesh.
Post by: Egan_BW on March 14, 2017, 06:22:21 pm
Post by: Max™ on March 14, 2017, 07:09:51 pm
Quote from: Grandpa Marx
As long as the means of labour remains a means of labour in the proper sense of the term, such as it is directly, historically, adopted by capital and included in its realization process, it undergoes a merely formal modification, by appearing now as a means of labour not only in regard to its material side, but also at the same time as a particular mode of the presence of capital, determined by its total process--as fixed capital.Seems like there's some weird translation gaps in there (http://thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf), but you get the idea.
But, once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery (system of machinery: the automatic one is merely its most complete, most adequate form, and alone transforms machinery into a system), set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.
In the machine, and even more in machinery as an automatic system, the use value, i.e. the material quality of the means of labour, is transformed into an existence adequate to fixed capital and to capital as such; and the form in which it was adopted into the production process of capital, the direct means of labour, is superseded by a form posited by capital itself and corresponding to it.
In no way does the machine appear as the individual worker's means of labour. Its distinguishing characteristic is not in the least, as with the means of labour, to transmit the worker's activity to the object; this activity, rather, is posited in such a way that it merely transmits the machine's work, the machine's action, on to the raw material-- supervises it and guards against interruptions.
Post by: McTraveller on March 14, 2017, 07:16:15 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 14, 2017, 07:22:08 pm
He didn't blame that on the managerial class - quite the opposite, actually. He considered capitalism - and its increases in productivity - a necessary historical step towards full Communism, which to him meant the state becoming superfluous and man only working out of his own free accord, dissolving the division of labor.I am well aware of Marx's theory of historical progression, but that's not what we were discussing. The question was whether or not Marx could meaningfully conceive of automation post-scarcity, at this point being compared with both the utopian socialist communes and Marx's own "scientific" views of what life would be like once the state has withered away.
The core bit translated to English:Quote[In full Communism I shall be able to] hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, breed cattle in the evening, critique after dinner as I please, without ever becoming a hunter, fisherman, cattle herder, or critic by trade.After you've found a proper translation of this and read it, you'll note that he is indeed imagining a state without work not motivated by pleasure, ie what today we would call a post-scarcity society. The presence or absence of computers is a triviality.
The presence of computers changes every dynamic here. Obviously everybody and their comrade has their own imagination of what Marx subjectively felt the experience of Communist living was, but the things he actually wrote were about the liberation of labor. The managerial class exists to ensure the bourgeoisie can retain effective control over the means of production, as any labor lacking this would rapidly turn against the owners of capital by exposing their place as the sole beneficiaries of their labor. By contrast an automatic system has no human labor at all, or while being developed rapidly diminishing capacity for labor.
And so, to get us on track here, my point is that Marx wouldn't have considered a non-human system as an approach because that's impossible. His entire theory of labor relies upon human participation, as you can see in Max's quote from him regarding the "conscious linkage" that workers provide to machinery. It's a paradigm of technology we had not yet reached even in foresight. This can also be seen in others. 1984, Brave New World, The Iron Heel, all of these relied upon the suppression of humanity because the upper class still needed the labor of the working class. Only once you establish the modern idea of the automaton in computers does it become clear that computers can perform the labor of humans better than humans do.
Quote
Non-sequitur? Hardly. 95% of what's floating around today as political and economical thought on the left is either not thought at all, or of a highly utopian type. Prove me wrong: Show me one alternative economic system for a full-blown industrial society - and yes, that's what Marxian Socialism and Communism were supposed to be - that isn't passé or just composed of wishful thinking.It's still a non-sequitur because that's not what we were talking about. And given what you said up above about "no work not motivated by pleasure" in Communism, I don't see how that isn't wishful thinking either.
I have my own ideas about what the future of economy should be, but that'd be going way outside the margins here.
Quote
That's where the Left's weakness is coming from: No ideological backbone! No framework to work in! No vigorous new concepts that want to meet their baptism of fire! Instead there's a cult of personality, ideas that in Europe were implemented around the time my parents were born or even earlier, and millions of bright folks lapping this up as 'a revolution'. And they're abusing the word 'socialist', to boot! That's an attack on the clarity of language - and clarity of language is one of the very few things that are holy* to me, right up there with my family, beer, good food, and being able to talk shit about whatever I like, as long as I've got a point. It's disgusting to me on a very fundamental level. If they all got off their asses and dug into their philosophy and econ and sociology and history textbooks, I probably still wouldn't agree with them - but hell, at least there'd be something to talk - and think! - about!Since you mentioned the American left in the ramp-up to this, I assume that's what you're talking about. I also wish it to be recognized that this is a new discussion and has nothing to do with what we were talking about re:could Marx think of modern automation.
*I'm completely serious about this, by the way. An attack on the clarity of language is an attack on communication itself, and thus on the existence of mankind as anything more than a mass of lumps of flesh.
Fact is man, you don't have the monopoly on language. All the socialist parties of Europe aren't participating much in revolutionary struggle, so it's every bit as legitimate for them to drift as it was for American political thought to drift in a different way. Socialism for Americans, in a general sense, is joined at the hip with social liberalism and the establishment of government policy to support the working class. I know you don't agree with that, but it really doesn't matter, no more than it matters when Brazilians say they should be called Americans too because they live on the American continent. The functional definition is the end-all.
And as someone who's lived in this time, trust me, the American left may have problems but it's sewn itself back together from Reagan and Triangulation about as fast as possible. Most people would be happy to do better than emulating other nations improvements in healthcare and education, but that's plain just not possible most of the time. You kind of have to, you know, win. Everybody wants a new method, which is itself a great accomplishment. It wasn't set in stone that the new generation was going to go astray from all being miniaturized randroids.
Post by: Max™ on March 14, 2017, 07:32:16 pm
Post by: Starver on March 14, 2017, 08:23:45 pm
Quote
East is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Post by: overseer05-15 on March 14, 2017, 08:41:47 pm
In all this discussion on Marxist theories, you forget the most important one:QuoteEast is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Unpopular opinion: eating the bodies of animal crackers first tastes better than eating the heads first.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 14, 2017, 08:45:52 pm
Post by: Bumber on March 16, 2017, 04:08:04 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 16, 2017, 04:13:28 am
Unpopular opinion: Taking children from candy can be better than taking candy from children.... You're not Bozo the Clown are you? (https://cdn4.iconfinder.com/data/icons/aami-flat-smileys/64/smile-50-128.png)
Post by: Bumber on March 16, 2017, 04:24:01 am
The content of the previous post can be interpreted differently depending upon whom is taking the children and where.
Unpopular opinion: Stephen King's It is a Superhero movie, starring Spiderclown.
Post by: Max™ on March 16, 2017, 07:46:52 am
The catch is, all of these books were supposed to be treated as tongue-in-cheek parodies, but somehow got taken seriously, and now I know who Footface Robbinson is.
King himself may have forgotten his original mission, becoming subsumed in his own cover, which I guess is maybe kinda sad but not really?
Though he has cited Lovecraft as a major influence, the trick H.P. pulled off was one of meticulously assaulting the perceptive faculties of inquisitive personages with unnecessarily embellished draughts of fossilized thesaurus extracts, whereupon even the most exceedingly loquacious amongst us would find the authorial perspective proffered somewhat supercilious and seek respite elsewhere as they find it difficult to remain perpendicular in the face of somnolescent beckonings, and then whilst in this pseudodreamlike embrace the gibbering madness lurking in the deepest corners of ones awareness is suddenly able to seize hold of the slightest insinuation of detail and thrust it mightily to the forefront of the imagination and force one to confront that which is both within and without!
Simply throwing more words at a scary idea doesn't quite achieve the same effect.
Post by: wobbly on March 16, 2017, 09:03:24 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 16, 2017, 09:25:57 am
Personally I blame protestantsCan we not make this the "act snide about liberals" thread? I know a couple people have been using it for that occasionally, but it's going to ignite an argument. You can phrase these criticisms without sounding like you just got out of a fight on another site and are trying to bring it here.I'm not acting snide about liberals. I lean left myself, in many respects. But it's undeniable that some on the far-left defend deplorable practices, as long as it is a practice from a group they identify with (communists, anarchists) or are deemed "oppressed" (Islam).
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 16, 2017, 09:38:25 am
It doesn't help that shakycam has completely and utterly ruined action films. You can't appreciate anything that might be cool before it's jerked out of frame and motion blurred to oblivion in the editing room.
Post by: NJW2000 on March 16, 2017, 11:48:27 am
Then again, in Fantastic Beasts, actors seemed to be getting better at acting with CGI, unlike the recent, horrible hobbit films.
Post by: helmacon on March 16, 2017, 02:28:59 pm
Quote
Though he has cited Lovecraft as a major influence, the trick H.P. pulled off was one of meticulously assaulting the perceptive faculties of inquisitive personages with unnecessarily embellished draughts of fossilized thesaurus extracts, whereupon even the most exceedingly loquacious amongst us would find the authorial perspective proffered somewhat supercilious and seek respite elsewhere as they find it difficult to remain perpendicular in the face of somnolescent beckonings, and then whilst in this pseudodreamlike embrace the gibbering madness lurking in the deepest corners of ones awareness is suddenly able to seize hold of the slightest insinuation of detail and thrust it mightily to the forefront of the imagination and force one to confront that which is both within and without!
Translation if you need it: He distracted you with fancy words so that your subconscious can run away with the details.
The counter argument here is that language changes, and his work has just become dated. Not just from a syntactical standpoint either, but the actual fears that his work played to are no longer founded or relevant in society today. A prime example would be "Cool Air" if you've ever read it.
Personally, I've never found the language to be much of a barrier. His work just isn't as relative as it used to be.
Post by: MaximumZero on March 16, 2017, 09:08:00 pm
Stephen King is about 1% horror, 99% small American town soap opera.This is controversial? I'm pretty sure he'd agree with you.
Post by: Max™ on March 16, 2017, 09:33:19 pm
(Basically, yes, but it seems like King just took the "use more words" part and ran with it.)QuoteThough he has cited Lovecraft as a major influence, the trick H.P. pulled off was one of meticulously assaulting the perceptive faculties of inquisitive personages with unnecessarily embellished draughts of fossilized thesaurus extracts, whereupon even the most exceedingly loquacious amongst us would find the authorial perspective proffered somewhat supercilious and seek respite elsewhere as they find it difficult to remain perpendicular in the face of somnolescent beckonings, and then whilst in this pseudodreamlike embrace the gibbering madness lurking in the deepest corners of ones awareness is suddenly able to seize hold of the slightest insinuation of detail and thrust it mightily to the forefront of the imagination and force one to confront that which is both within and without!
Translation if you need it: He distracted you with fancy words so that your subconscious can run away with the details.
The counter argument here is that language changes, and his work has just become dated. Not just from a syntactical standpoint either, but the actual fears that his work played to are no longer founded or relevant in society today. A prime example would be "Cool Air" if you've ever read it.
Personally, I've never found the language to be much of a barrier. His work just isn't as relative as it used to be.
Post by: misko27 on March 16, 2017, 10:25:00 pm
There is no greater horror than small-town America.Stephen King is about 1% horror, 99% small American town soap opera.This is controversial? I'm pretty sure he'd agree with you.
Everything went wrong when the papists broke from the true church. Return and all shall be forgiven.Personally I blame protestantsCan we not make this the "act snide about liberals" thread? I know a couple people have been using it for that occasionally, but it's going to ignite an argument. You can phrase these criticisms without sounding like you just got out of a fight on another site and are trying to bring it here.I'm not acting snide about liberals. I lean left myself, in many respects. But it's undeniable that some on the far-left defend deplorable practices, as long as it is a practice from a group they identify with (communists, anarchists) or are deemed "oppressed" (Islam).
Post by: Enemy post on March 16, 2017, 10:29:42 pm
Everything went wrong when the papists broke from the true church. Return and all shall be forgiven.Personally I blame protestantsCan we not make this the "act snide about liberals" thread? I know a couple people have been using it for that occasionally, but it's going to ignite an argument. You can phrase these criticisms without sounding like you just got out of a fight on another site and are trying to bring it here.I'm not acting snide about liberals. I lean left myself, in many respects. But it's undeniable that some on the far-left defend deplorable practices, as long as it is a practice from a group they identify with (communists, anarchists) or are deemed "oppressed" (Islam).
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwHzmPYrROY)
Post by: wobbly on March 17, 2017, 02:35:42 am
Stephen King is about 1% horror, 99% small American town soap opera.This is controversial? I'm pretty sure he'd agree with you.
well it's not really, was more following up on what Max was saying above.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 17, 2017, 02:39:11 am
He was important, and he did important things, but most of his contemporaries and later authors in the same vein (Ligotti for example) were much better writers.
Post by: wobbly on March 17, 2017, 02:45:48 am
Post by: Neonivek on March 17, 2017, 03:01:50 am
The issue is the same thing wrong with George Orwell... He is to dang popular for his own good.
So you have someone who a LOT of people outright misinterpret (For example people are under the assumption that all the protagonists eventually go insane, die, or transform in his books... when that sparsely occurred) while at the same time book beating you with the fact that they are some unapproachable genius.
As well like George Orwell every single hack writer and videogame creator is copying their themes and styles... usually badly.
I like the Lovecraftian themes but even I am starting to feel pushed towards hating the guy.
Post by: Max™ on March 17, 2017, 04:41:27 am
I would literally sacrifice an entire crate full of live babies for an At the Mountains of Madness movie, especially if it had a scene where the entire screen is black except for the tiny little bit over in the corner illuminated by our explorers before one of them pans their light upwards across a huge engraving which spans the entire rest of the screen.
The Colour Out of Space creeps me right the fuck out and back in and out once again for good measure.
That one story uh, Beneath the Pyramids I think, with the uh... Sphynx? My imagination had fun with that one.
Kadath is weird but doesn't really feel like a proper Lovecraft story until it gets to the part where he notices some of the mountains seem to be moving.
I had an amazing time reading Innsmouth to the missus, especially the look in her eyes when it clicked that despite all the noise outside his room... nobody had said a word and she suddenly decided maybe she didn't want me to keep going but knew I was going to anyways.
Really though the best Lovecraft story is Equoid, by Charles Stross, and that reminds me I need to fix the wussy ass unicorns in my main df mod...
Post by: helmacon on March 17, 2017, 04:34:35 pm
(Basically, yes, but it seems like King just took the "use more words" part and ran with it.)
Wait, what? Are you serious? King is incredibly colloquial. His stories are almost always more blue collar, and the characters more relatable than the elitism you get in lovecraftian stories. His stuff is about as simple as it gets!
Quote
The Colour Out of Space creeps me right the fuck out and back in and out once again for good measure.+ motherfucking 1
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 17, 2017, 04:38:59 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 17, 2017, 04:52:06 pm
Ironically, I disliked Call of Cthulhu.
Post by: redwallzyl on March 17, 2017, 05:11:25 pm
My favorite Lovecraft story isn't even really horror, The Nameless City. It's so amazingly atmospheric and really gets the whole emotion of archeology. For cosmic horror I go with The Shunned House, and for madness The Rats In The Walls. Of all the famous stories At The Mountains of Madness is the best written.my near eastern archeology professor literally showed the first bit of the exorcist in class. not sure its a great advertisement for the profession. :P
Ironically, I disliked Call of Cthulhu.
Post by: nenjin on March 17, 2017, 05:30:14 pm
But his dialog IS terrible, which is why his stories rarely include it. I get the impression of a man who didn't talk a lot with other people face-to-face. He was much more into correspondence and that comes out in his writing, and why so many of his stories take the form of correspondence.
So ideas: A+.
Execution: C+, on average. Some stories are better than others, likely due to brevity.
Quote
Kadath is weird but doesn't really feel like a proper Lovecraft story until it gets to the part where he notices some of the mountains seem to be moving.
I forget where but I remember reading something that said The Doom That Came To Sarnath and The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath were both homages to a similar kind of story, set in a fantastical city, written by a contemporary of Lovecraft's. Kadath is one of his earlier works too so it's likely he was cribbing another author's style closely, which is why it doesn't fit nicely with his other stories.
edit
Ah. Right. Lord Dunsay. Guy used to write a lot of poetry and I think that's why Kadath seems weird for Lovecraft. I remember there's a lot of poetic prose in that, which isn't how you'd describe Lovecraft's later prose at all. It's pretty much the opposite of poetic and flowing.
I think one of my more favorite Lovecraft stories is The Silver Key, because it's sort of about the dream cycle but excludes the mythos and most of the horror elements of his other stories.
Also Steven King stories would all around be better if he would drop the romance sideplots/main plots. Going back to the Dark Tower though, it's just his thing, which I guess you get out of a lot of late 70s, 80s writers: a preoccupation with sex. I really enjoyed the Dark Tower up until the main character starts shacking up with different women and there's whole weird vaguely misogynistic vibe going through it. And then later books just double down on it.
I think that's why many of his books make for decent normie fare though. People can relate to it a lot easier than, say.....Clive Barker, because it's drawing on the experiences of average midwesterners and easterns in small towns.
Post by: itisnotlogical on March 17, 2017, 05:49:32 pm
And yet some of Disney's earliest work is still hailed as the Second Coming. ::)
I have to give credit where it's due though, milking Snow White for eighty years via generic princess merchandise (and the odd item related to the seven dwarves) is pretty impressive.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on March 17, 2017, 05:52:19 pm
The Dark Tower is a good example, and IMO it was a mistake. I loved the first novel with it's surreal tone. The rest dropped it (sometimes retconning stuff outright) in favor of standard cookie-cutter fantasy, which to me, made everything very bland.
When he wants he can Lovecraft it like the pro he is, though. Just look at Pet Semetary.
Post by: Antioch on March 17, 2017, 06:07:38 pm
Most 2D Disney is severely overrated. Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc. were all good movies. They are good for kids. But Disney + Pixar has tackled much more adult stuff, leaving in the things that 2D Disney didn't have the balls to tackle, while still creating movies that small children can comprehend and enjoy.
And yet some of Disney's earliest work is still hailed as the Second Coming. ::)
I have to give credit where it's due though, milking Snow White for eighty years via generic princess merchandise (and the odd item related to the seven dwarves) is pretty impressive.
I think among the 2D Disney films the Lion King does really stand out. Several others are indeed just "good" (though not only for kids, I still enjoy those films).
I agree that a lot of Pixar films are just as good or better though.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 17, 2017, 06:22:29 pm
You may or may not have heard of Rage, which was published under the Richard Bachman pseudonym. The reason you might not have heard of it is that King pulled it from publication. The reason you probably have heard of it is the reason he pulled it -- the book is not about King's usual fare but is in fact entirely about a school shooting. Unlike most such pulls, there is even semi-good reason to believe that a specific shooting was inspired by the book.
The problem here is that, in my opinion, this is the best thing King has ever written. It is a perfect book about the failures of society towards teenagers as well as an amazingly tense hostage drama. You know how people repeat the nonsense they were told in English class about Catcher In The Rye and how it's a breakdown of all society's bullshit? Rage is actually that book. I'd assign it as standard reading if I had the power to do so.
Fun Fact: I read Rage while in high school. Not concurrent with going to high school, while I was physically in my high school. That probably could have gone over badly, in retrospect.
Post by: misko27 on March 17, 2017, 06:34:17 pm
Most 2D Disney is severely overrated. Lion King, Aladdin, Little Mermaid, etc. were all good movies.Unacceptable. Aladdin is terrible. Ja'far true hero of story. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-77cUxba-aA)
Fun Fact: I read Rage while in high school. Not concurrent with going to high school, while I was physically in my high school. That probably could have gone over badly, in retrospect.Given I read that one person on reddit is under investigation after his school found the text of "Meet the Sniper" on his calculator, yes it could have gone terribly. Like as bad as you can possibly imagine.
I feel like school administrators are, with rare exception, all terrible. Either terrible at their jobs or just terrible human beings in general. And in particular, they love to freak out about everything.
Post by: Max™ on March 17, 2017, 06:38:06 pm
I'd love to see Rant done with the switches from each narrator POV including mild changes to Rant's appearance for some, entirely different actors for others, from obnoxiously young and awkward looking for one character, to gawky redneck for another, beautiful sexgod to one, attractive but unsettling for another, and never specify which one was the "real" one, because you only ever is in the eyes of other people.
I mean it's just so many fucking words and for what? The only idea of his I really found interesting was the Langoliers, and I didn't even read it, just saw some of a horribly overlong movie and dug the "weird toothy maws that clean up all the moments you aren't in" concept.(Basically, yes, but it seems like King just took the "use more words" part and ran with it.)
Wait, what? Are you serious? King is incredibly colloquial. His stories are almost always more blue collar, and the characters more relatable than the elitism you get in lovecraftian stories. His stuff is about as simple as it gets!
Hell it might be a deep seated thing, because I recall all this hype over the Stand, went to the library and started going through it and gave up, I mean, I will read some boring shit, I've read multiple sets of encyclopedias for fuck's sake, but I just cannot get me eyes to stop sliding off the page when I read King... or Jordan actually, I dug the wheel of time setting and mythos but I just couldn't get into them like I did with Pratchett or Baxter or Stross or Banks and goddammit two of them are dead now!
Quote
I did an image search trying to find a drawing I saw of that moonlight train story he did and kinda regret it, even though this isn't super high budget or anything... fucking nothx. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxTywiItvOo)QuoteThe Colour Out of Space creeps me right the fuck out and back in and out once again for good measure.+ motherfucking 1
Post by: Strife26 on March 17, 2017, 07:06:41 pm
Post by: helmacon on March 17, 2017, 10:19:18 pm
Quote
I mean it's just so many fucking words and for what? The only idea of his I really found interesting was the Langoliers, and I didn't even read it, just saw some of a horribly overlong movie and dug the "weird toothy maws that clean up all the moments you aren't in" concept.
Hell it might be a deep seated thing, because I recall all this hype over the Stand, went to the library and started going through it and gave up, I mean, I will read some boring shit, I've read multiple sets of encyclopedias for fuck's sake, but I just cannot get me eyes to stop sliding off the page when I read King... or Jordan actually, I dug the wheel of time setting and mythos but I just couldn't get into them like I did with Pratchett or Baxter or Stross or Banks and goddammit two of them are dead now!
I went back over some of his stuff, and I think you might be right. I've read most of his short stories, and a few of his more famous works, but I sort of forgot about the other stuff.
Post by: Cthulhu on March 17, 2017, 10:24:34 pm
Here's my unpopular Stephen King opinion:
You may or may not have heard of Rage, which was published under the Richard Bachman pseudonym. The reason you might not have heard of it is that King pulled it from publication. The reason you probably have heard of it is the reason he pulled it -- the book is not about King's usual fare but is in fact entirely about a school shooting. Unlike most such pulls, there is even semi-good reason to believe that a specific shooting was inspired by the book.
The problem here is that, in my opinion, this is the best thing King has ever written. It is a perfect book about the failures of society towards teenagers as well as an amazingly tense hostage drama. You know how people repeat the nonsense they were told in English class about Catcher In The Rye and how it's a breakdown of all society's bullshit? Rage is actually that book. I'd assign it as standard reading if I had the power to do so.
Fun Fact: I read Rage while in high school. Not concurrent with going to high school, while I was physically in my high school. That probably could have gone over badly, in retrospect.
I thought the early stuff he released as Bachman was all kind of preachy. There were some parts where it really hit you over the head with what it was trying to say.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on March 17, 2017, 10:37:44 pm
somethingsomethingmetaphoricalrejection
Post by: NJW2000 on March 18, 2017, 04:34:11 am
Goes from mathematical universe hypothesis to the multiverse. Not necessarily too controversial, but some people might definitely disagree.
Post by: RoseHeart on August 25, 2017, 11:13:21 am
I even really like this show and it's been really weird. Now I will say I knew it was unpopular going in so that probably affected it. I watched it with my sister and we finished watching the first season just really wondering why people were upset. I then went on to watch Luke Cage and while I really liked the tone of that show I have to say Iron Fist and it's characters even its 'villains' I felt a lot more of a connection and interest in their immediate ongoings. It's also Madam Gao's strongest representation, which is expected because it's also her latest.
I enjoyed Jessica Jones a lot, but I definitely felt far-flung and removed from that comic book vibe. It almost felt like an extra.
Daredevil I'm just slowly chugling my way through. When I first saw it I thought it was a bit corny a few years back but now I'm really liking it.
Defenders really pointed out this contrast to me I definitely was more interested in any of the characters that had appeared at some point in Iron Fist.
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 25, 2017, 11:39:04 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 25, 2017, 11:43:58 am
Unpopular idea: Treating human corpses like anything other than Meat,Fertilizer, or Health Hazards is absurd and a waste of time and reasources, with the possible exception of murder victims.good meat https://youtu.be/t37KyWUZFPo
Post by: Trekkin on August 25, 2017, 11:44:25 am
Unpopular idea: Treating human corpses like anything other than Meat,Fertilizer, or Health Hazards is absurd and a waste of time and reasources, with the possible exception of murder victims.
What about using them as the subjects of scientific experimentation and/or as medical cadavers? There's actually a lot of good that could come of having corpses donated to large -omic studies being de rigueur. That and we could refer to it as necroinformatics, which is just cool.
On a more serious note, that's not universally unpopular; Vajrayana Buddhists, for example, would canonically agree that there's no need to preserve a person's corpse, for which reason they practice sky burial (among other things) to make best use of it.
Post by: Antioch on August 25, 2017, 12:35:51 pm
It was always my impression that the tribes doing it ate the dead with great dignity and respect. It was a way of passing on the strength of the deceased person unto yourself.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on August 25, 2017, 12:39:03 pm
I mean it's just so many fucking words and for what? The only idea of his I really found interesting was the Langoliers, and I didn't even read it, just saw some of a horribly overlong movie and dug the "weird toothy maws that clean up all the moments you aren't in" concept.(Basically, yes, but it seems like King just took the "use more words" part and ran with it.)
Wait, what? Are you serious? King is incredibly colloquial. His stories are almost always more blue collar, and the characters more relatable than the elitism you get in lovecraftian stories. His stuff is about as simple as it gets!
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: overseer05-15 on August 25, 2017, 12:57:55 pm
I have always felt the taboo on cannibalism is rather overrated.
It was always my impression that the tribes doing it ate the dead with great dignity and respect. It was a way of passing on the strength of the deceased person unto yourself.
Perhaps, but there's a number of serious health hazards equated with humans consuming human flesh iirc, including a particularly nasty prion.
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 25, 2017, 01:00:12 pm
Post by: overseer05-15 on August 25, 2017, 01:05:39 pm
If you count brains as flesh sure. I don't, I only count skin muscle and fat as "flesh" or at least that's how I've usually used the term. *shrugs*.
My mistake, I thought the rest of the body was dangerous too.
Post by: Trekkin on August 25, 2017, 01:29:03 pm
If you count brains as flesh sure. I don't, I only count skin muscle and fat as "flesh" or at least that's how I've usually used the term. *shrugs*.
There's PRPsc in skin, muscle, and fat too; eating brain tissue increases the rate of the disease, but it's certainly possible to contract kuru without eating any brains at all.
Post by: Max™ on August 25, 2017, 01:37:59 pm
I have always felt the taboo on cannibalism is rather overrated.Someone has spent some time in a tanning salon, methinks.
It was always my impression that the tribes doing it ate the dead with great dignity and respect. It was a way of passing on the strength of the deceased person unto yourself.
One starts getting a hankering for a big roasted soccermom sammich!
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 25, 2017, 02:03:28 pm
I have always felt the taboo on cannibalism is rather overrated.
It was always my impression that the tribes doing it ate the dead with great dignity and respect. It was a way of passing on the strength of the deceased person unto yourself.
Perhaps, but there's a number of serious health hazards equated with humans consuming human flesh iirc, including a particularly nasty prion.
Only if you eat sick humans anyway. Who the hell would do that. If you go long pork, go for free range, healthy humans.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 25, 2017, 02:08:09 pm
Post by: Avarice on August 25, 2017, 02:13:13 pm
Yeah just chuck a whole person in a hangi and eat them up.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 25, 2017, 02:25:04 pm
Usually if someone dies "naturally", as in not violently or in an accident, they were NOT healthy. The way you get large amounts of healthy human meat is by murder.Hey, you're the one who wants to eat other people. I'm just advising as to how to obtain the best cuts. What you do with this info is your responsability.
I believe the standard way to avoid committing murder is to become the warlord or dictator of your own country and designate an ethnical, political, or religious minority that you're not particularily fond of as "food". It kind of works itself out after that
Post by: Trekkin on August 25, 2017, 02:31:22 pm
I believe the standard way to avoid committing murder is to become the warlord or dictator of your own country and designate an ethnical, political, or religious minority that you're not particularily fond of as "food". It kind of works itself out after that
Not that I'm advocating this, but designating vegetarians/vegans as food would significantly mitigate the risk of transmitting increasingly pathogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease by having cannibals eat cannibals who ate cannibals and so forth.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 25, 2017, 02:32:48 pm
So no, that's no way around murder at all.
Also I wasn't the one who wanted to eat humans. Other meats are tastier.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 25, 2017, 02:37:09 pm
Also I wasn't the one who wanted to eat humans. Other meats are tastier.
Well, I've never eaten human meat per se, but when I was a student, I DID smell toasted human meat when they used electric cautery during surgery.
Now, I want you to imagine the juiciest, tastiest bacon you've ever smelled....
Post by: Egan_BW on August 25, 2017, 02:40:11 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2017, 03:20:14 pm
MOSTLY because marriage offers less and less to men, and they get less ownership of their things, space, and time.
It seems to be quite sound reasoning from what I've seen and read.
Before you ask "Why is it controversial?" well, if you look at a lot of studies that look towards why men don't want to be married they tend to crucify them and put the blame onto men themselves.
(Seriously YouTube why so many of these in my YouTube suggestions? I don't even watch male oriented videos >_<)
---
None of this unfortunately applies to me...
Post by: Playergamer on August 25, 2017, 03:23:50 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on August 25, 2017, 03:26:04 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2017, 03:27:49 pm
Government-recogized gay marriage makes no sense.
I get the impression it isn't supposed to make sense. It is an appeal to emotion, but I think that... is the point?
It is like a Trophy. We already know you are the best, why do you need a trophy for it?
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 25, 2017, 03:36:08 pm
Government-recogized gay marriage makes no sense.
I get the impression it isn't supposed to make sense. It is an appeal to emotion, but I think that... is the point?
It is like a Trophy. We already know you are the best, why do you need a trophy for it?
How is letting people marry each other like giving out trophies?
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2017, 03:37:38 pm
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 25, 2017, 03:39:37 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2017, 03:40:33 pm
Two people...er mounting each other and sharing property doesn't sound like it's just "symbolic".
They have that anyway.
While controversial, common law marriage does state that all you have to be, in order to be married, is live together.
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 25, 2017, 03:44:58 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2017, 03:46:11 pm
What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.
People gave them that power in order to litigate divorce proceedings, property and ownership between families, and many other things. Plus there are some protections marriage offers such as accessory or incrimination.
Or rather the government gets involved when it needs to negotiate things between people.
Though Legally for a gay couple... Gay marriage is better to not exist than the other way around. At least from what I understand of the way it is set up (unless there are really nice tax breaks I am unaware of)...
Err wait.. MAYBE adoption is easier for legally married people... That would be a genuine benefit.
Post by: martinuzz on August 25, 2017, 03:55:20 pm
And then there's just plain basic non-discrimination.
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2017, 03:56:04 pm
Not just adoption. Hereditary rights in case one of the partners dies is another reason for gay marriage to be legally possible.
And then there's just plain basic non-discrimination.
Ahh yes I forgot it helps incase someone falls into a mulcher.
Post by: Helgoland on August 25, 2017, 04:04:24 pm
What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.This. Interestingly both the far-left and (relatively) far-right portions of my friends at university emphatically agree with this: The latter because they don't like gay marriage, and the former because they don't want discrimination against poly people.
Post by: Trekkin on August 25, 2017, 04:09:01 pm
What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.This. Interestingly both the far-left and (relatively) far-right portions of my friends at university emphatically agree with this: The latter because they don't like gay marriage, and the former because they don't want discrimination against poly people.
The poly thing has always bugged me. The nuclear family is not the only socially beneficial way for people to coexist; even if you want to maintain marriage as a legal instrument for social control (ew), that's still no reason to legally enforce monogamy. Splitting up the rights currently afforded to married couples into individually assignable associations would solve so many future debates about who can get married -- or, at least, make them about economics and legal issues rather than cultural ones.
Post by: martinuzz on August 25, 2017, 04:47:30 pm
I think there's a total of 3 different legally recognized forms of bonding.
1) marry for the church (/mosque/synagogue/insert religion here). Usually the wife takes on the last name of the spouse, with the exception of old nobility (in which case a compound last name is formed), and perhaps some religions.
2) marry for the state, or civil marriage. At the time of marriage, last name is chosen. The couple can choose to either take either spouse's last name, or a compound. (although traditionally, 99% adopts the man's name. Civil marriage being a longstanding secular / humanist tradition, most city halls in the Netherlands will have a designated marriage hall, for traditionally a civil marriage will take place at the city hall, instead of the church.
3) legal contract for living together. Both spouses keep their own last name. Last name of children is chosen at birth, but first choice is binding (you cannot have your children have different last names).
Post by: Max™ on August 25, 2017, 05:13:11 pm
I have long said: plants are what food eats, so I see no ethical problem with eating anyone who advertises that they are herbivorous.I believe the standard way to avoid committing murder is to become the warlord or dictator of your own country and designate an ethnical, political, or religious minority that you're not particularily fond of as "food". It kind of works itself out after that
Not that I'm advocating this, but designating vegetarians/vegans as food would significantly mitigate the risk of transmitting increasingly pathogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease by having cannibals eat cannibals who ate cannibals and so forth.
Post by: Bumber on August 25, 2017, 08:03:48 pm
Vajrayana Buddhists, for example, would canonically agree that there's no need to preserve a person's corpse, for which reason they practice sky burial (among other things) to make best use of it.I'd like to think that involves a powerful catapult.
While controversial, common law marriage does state that all you have to be, in order to be married, is live together.Controversial because some people live with family?
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on August 25, 2017, 11:16:44 pm
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2017, 11:22:18 pm
While controversial, common law marriage does state that all you have to be, in order to be married, is live together.Controversial because some people live with family?
Controversial because that law states that if you, say, have a female room mate... BOOM! you are married!
Post by: redwallzyl on August 25, 2017, 11:27:54 pm
Unpopular idea: Treating human corpses like anything other than Meat,Fertilizer, or Health Hazards is absurd and a waste of time and reasources, with the possible exception of murder victims.Obligatory:
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/ethical-consumption
Bad idea for many reasons including disease and culture.
What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.Also bad idea, there is a reason they do in the first place. marriages are economic contracts and so need legal enforcement in a materialistic society. not to mention thousands of years of society and culture being built upon the idea. oh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy. monogamy is a fundamental human social structure literally in our DNA so most people are naturally drawn to it and we naturally develop systems and cultures around it. not that we aren't wildly divergent but even in society's that possess a socially acceptable option outside of monogamy the vast majority of people are monogamous or effectively monogamous. you might note for instance that their is usually a first wife that has way more status and the others are subservient to her in polygamist societies often legally as well. please don't get on the discard culture train that is really stupid. it does a ton of damage. i may be liberal in outlook but its backed by science and i fully understand how fundamental this stuff is to functioning human societies. do not break them, bad things happen.
Now time to make my own unnecessarily provocative statement that makes people argue endlessly until the next one.
the statue controversy:
Statues are and have always been primary a tool of propaganda and are used to shape peoples fictionalized views of history know as cultural imaginarys. as such the systematic destruction of the imaginary requires the removal of all propaganda related to it by a moment that seeks to destroy it. followed by the education of children in the academic history of the civil war in great detail and depth. no perpetuating propaganda, no fantasy narrative, no imaginary, no nostalgia, no power in its symbols. that is how you destroy a cultural imaginary and kill a history. remove the romanticism and you kill the source of histories power. boring history, the great killer of interest.
Post by: Neonivek on August 25, 2017, 11:39:12 pm
Quote
oh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy
Good catch. The writing on the wall SEEEEEEEEMS to suggest humans are not naturally sexually monogamous.
There is even strong suggestion that humans aren't monogamous species.
But the creepy thing? In the future they might have a drug that makes you monogamous.
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 26, 2017, 01:44:28 am
EDIT:...I also mentioned health hazards in my very first post which was meant to imply that those who have died from things that can be passed on post moretem even after preperation should just be used as fertilizer.
Post by: redwallzyl on August 26, 2017, 09:38:52 am
Fun fact, 50% of the offspring of socialy monogamous species are not with the partner. Lession, nature sleeps around alot but still works togheather.Quoteoh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy
Good catch. The writing on the wall SEEEEEEEEMS to suggest humans are not naturally sexually monogamous.
There is even strong suggestion that humans aren't monogamous species.
But the creepy thing? In the future they might have a drug that makes you monogamous.
Post by: Neonivek on August 26, 2017, 09:43:58 am
Post by: Hanslanda on August 26, 2017, 10:08:44 am
Why does this male Hillary's "Men are like dogs" quote somehow accurate in retrospect... (well ignoring the male aspect)
Rephrase that question to make sense please.
Are you saying, "Why does Hillary's male-related "Men are like dogs" quote seem accurate?"
Or... Something else that I can't parse because you cannot into English?
Post by: Neonivek on August 26, 2017, 10:13:26 am
Post by: Trekkin on August 26, 2017, 10:15:43 am
Fun fact, 50% of the offspring of socialy monogamous species are not with the partner. Lession, nature sleeps around alot but still works togheather.Quoteoh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy
Good catch. The writing on the wall SEEEEEEEEMS to suggest humans are not naturally sexually monogamous.
There is even strong suggestion that humans aren't monogamous species.
But the creepy thing? In the future they might have a drug that makes you monogamous.
I'd love a source for this and the bit where we're biologically but not sexually monogamous.
Post by: Hanslanda on August 26, 2017, 10:20:18 am
Men are like, well. Humans. And maybe Chimpanzees mixed with Bonobos. We're violent, sexual creatures. Whereas women are like, slightly less violent per capita, but still violent, sexual creatures. Cuz we're the same species, with ever so slightly different biochemistry.
Politicians are not a good source for accurate quotes.
Post by: Neonivek on August 26, 2017, 10:22:27 am
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2017, 10:34:54 am
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on August 26, 2017, 10:39:13 am
Why does this male Hillary's "Men are like dogs" quote somehow accurate in retrospect... (well ignoring the male aspect)
Rephrase that question to make sense please.
Are you saying, "Why does Hillary's male-related "Men are like dogs" quote seem accurate?"
Or... Something else that I can't parse because you cannot into English?
Ya, what is that sentence?
the statue controversy:
Statues are and have always been primary a tool of propaganda and are used to shape peoples fictionalized views of history know as cultural imaginarys. as such the systematic destruction of the imaginary requires the removal of all propaganda related to it by a moment that seeks to destroy it. followed by the education of children in the academic history of the civil war in great detail and depth. no perpetuating propaganda, no fantasy narrative, no imaginary, no nostalgia, no power in its symbols. that is how you destroy a cultural imaginary and kill a history. remove the romanticism and you kill the source of histories power. boring history, the great killer of interest.
Well first of all, the history of the Civil War is anything but boring. It's actually pretty fucking daredevil.
Secondly, that's some revisionist bullshit. While I agree with you on thoroughly educating children, a lot of the statues being torn down are of great generals. I for one, don't give a fuck whether the Civil War was fought for "States Rights" or for slavery or just for power, those men were a.) Americans, and b.) Pretty fucking awesome at being generals. I mean. They are statues. they are not on their own proliferating the (highly fucked up) ideology of the Lost Cause.
Slavery is despicable, and the fact that people could get behind it at one point in our nation's history is shameful, but to say that all these people were were just misguided racists is equal to saying Hitler wasn't a person and no real human is capable of doing what he did. WE could never do that. WE would never do that. We're BETTER than they were. That could never happen again, let's forget about the time when people subscribed to slavery and built statues of people whom they admired whom we no longer admire--THAT'S fucking propaganda. I mean, how can you tear down a soldier's monument? A women's monument? People--a lot of people, most of them poor--lost their lives fighting in a war they didn't want to fight in, got nothing from, and were conscripted into!
Ya, there were a lot of fucked up honkies back then, but the solution to changing (too many) people's racy opinions of them is definitely not to tear down their statues and forget them.
*Some statues, however, SHOULD be moved to museums.
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2017, 11:21:32 am
Slavery is despicable, and the fact that people could get behind it at one point in our nation's history is shameful, but to say that all these people were were just misguided racists is equal to saying Hitler wasn't a person and no real human is capable of doing what he did. WE could never do that. WE would never do that. We're BETTER than they were.
That makes no sense. We're not saying they weren't people, we're saying they're people who did bad things and shouldn't be celebrated for that.
Post by: Trekkin on August 26, 2017, 11:40:11 am
I for one, don't give a fuck whether the Civil War was fought for "States Rights" or for slavery or just for power, those men were a.) Americans, and b.) Pretty fucking awesome at being generals.
If they were Americans, it follows that they managed to lose 620,000 of their own men while killing zero enemy troops.
So either they're traitors, or they're the most colossal military failures in American history.
So which one justifies the statues?
Post by: TheDarkStar on August 26, 2017, 11:43:42 am
Post by: Trekkin on August 26, 2017, 11:53:54 am
...? Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died. It was a civil war, hence both sides being American while still trying to kill each other.
That 620,000 includes them.
My point was that if we're going to say they were Americans (despite fighting against America for a nation explicitly formed to not be America) then the results of the war look even worse than if we just acknowledge that they were traitors in the eyes of the USA and no longer American citizens according to themselves. There's no way to look at the Civil War and say the guys leading the losing side need to be remembered by the country they tried to leave for their military skill. They could, perhaps, have statues put up in the country they fought for, had they not lost so badly it no longer exists.
I'm perhaps being too snarky to get my point across, which is this: there is no metric I can see whereby bloodily failing to leave the US should qualify someone for a statue in the US. Britain didn't put up the statue of Washington in London of their own accord; America gave it to them 148 years after the fact. When the CSA sends us a Robert E. Lee statue, then it might be worth pondering where to put it.
Post by: Egan_BW on August 26, 2017, 02:04:26 pm
Post by: NullForceOmega on August 26, 2017, 04:23:31 pm
...? Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died. It was a civil war, hence both sides being American while still trying to kill each other.
That 620,000 includes them.
My point was that if we're going to say they were Americans (despite fighting against America for a nation explicitly formed to not be America) then the results of the war look even worse than if we just acknowledge that they were traitors in the eyes of the USA and no longer American citizens according to themselves. There's no way to look at the Civil War and say the guys leading the losing side need to be remembered by the country they tried to leave for their military skill. They could, perhaps, have statues put up in the country they fought for, had they not lost so badly it no longer exists.
I'm perhaps being too snarky to get my point across, which is this: there is no metric I can see whereby bloodily failing to leave the US should qualify someone for a statue in the US. Britain didn't put up the statue of Washington in London of their own accord; America gave it to them 148 years after the fact. When the CSA sends us a Robert E. Lee statue, then it might be worth pondering where to put it.
Let's get something straight right this damn second, by congressional act ALL soldiers who fought in the civil war are U.S. veterans, not open to debate.
So just to be absolutely factual, yes 620,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that amounted to nothing but a radical idealogical shift for an entire nation, and ended slavery as well as finally proving that Federal authority has higher priority than State authority. And none of that changes the fact that those men fought for their nation and deserve to be respected for giving their lives for those nations, be it U.S.A. or C.S.A.
The war happened, and people on both sides died, it doesn't matter that one side held an ideal that was repugnant to the other, it matters that they felt strongly enough about it that they were willing to die for it.
Post by: Trekkin on August 26, 2017, 04:39:51 pm
Let's get something straight right this damn second, by congressional act ALL soldiers who fought in the civil war are U.S. veterans, not open to debate.
So just to be absolutely factual, yes 620,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that amounted to nothing but a radical idealogical shift for an entire nation, and ended slavery as well as finally proving that Federal authority has higher priority than State authority.
No one is arguing either of these points as far as I can see. That the subjects of the Confederate statues are veterans is beside the point; it's their being traitors and losers that kind of undermines Urist McScoopbeard's point that they deserve statues in America on the basis of their military acumen.
...if every one of those soldiers fought for their nation, and they were all Americans, how on Earth did we have a war in the first place?
Post by: Strife26 on August 26, 2017, 04:50:36 pm
Let's get something straight right this damn second, by congressional act ALL soldiers who fought in the civil war are U.S. veterans, not open to debate.
So just to be absolutely factual, yes 620,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war that amounted to nothing but a radical idealogical shift for an entire nation, and ended slavery as well as finally proving that Federal authority has higher priority than State authority.
No one is arguing either of these points as far as I can see. That the subjects of the Confederate statues are veterans is beside the point; it's their being traitors and losers that kind of undermines Urist McScoopbeard's point that they deserve statues in America on the basis of their military acumen.
...if every one of those soldiers fought for their nation, and they were all Americans, how on Earth did we have a war in the first place?
The most entertaining monument in the US is the one to Benedict Arnold's leg.
Besides, American armies have been dying on pointless tasks and causes since before there was an America.
Post by: NullForceOmega on August 26, 2017, 04:54:50 pm
Edit: It is further worth noting that there are several monuments to Robert E. Lee, including the Arlington House memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2017, 04:56:06 pm
Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point. As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.
Funnily enough I read something about a women who was still getting about 70 bucks a month from the VA as the daughter of a civil war veteran.
Post by: Trekkin on August 26, 2017, 05:11:12 pm
Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point. As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.
Edit: It is further worth noting that there are several monuments to Robert E. Lee, including the Arlington House memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.
Arlington House is specific enough in its remembrance of Lee that I don't actually have a problem with it, but regardless, you make a valid point. When we come up with a way to represent the people who fought and died for the Confederacy in a way that acknowledges both their valor and their crimes, I'll chip in for it. Let's not pretend that the current crop of monuments has that context, though.
Post by: NullForceOmega on August 26, 2017, 05:15:55 pm
Nonetheless, pulling down those statues without due process of law is straight up destruction of public or private property and is an actual crime.
Post by: Trekkin on August 26, 2017, 05:31:07 pm
Okay, I can go with that. It is worth noting that while the majority of the statues in question are problematic, some are just straight up memorials to fallen soldiers, with no additional context. To my mind removing those is akin to pulling down the WWII memorial or the Vietnam Wall, in that they are intended to be a reminder of the deaths the war caused, not celebrations of the ideals.
Nonetheless, pulling down those statues without due process of law is straight up destruction of public or private property and is an actual crime.
No argument here with either point. Have people been trying to get monuments like the Civil War Unknowns Monument pulled down?
Post by: Starver on August 26, 2017, 06:08:35 pm
Wife(/widow) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Janeway)!Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point. As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.
Funnily enough I read something about a women who was still getting about 70 bucks a month from the VA as the daughter of a civil war veteran.
(No pension, but see also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maudie_Hopkins). And if you link hop to Alberta Martin's page, - who got backpay...)
Post by: SquatchHammer on August 26, 2017, 06:26:50 pm
Post by: Sheb on August 26, 2017, 06:43:17 pm
Wife(/widow) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Janeway)!Their being statues of U.S. soldiers is completely relevant to the point. As U.S. soldiers they are equally entitled to representation, be that something as simple as their living descendants having veterans benefits (I don't think there are any left but it was relevant), to having memorials bear their names or images.
Funnily enough I read something about a women who was still getting about 70 bucks a month from the VA as the daughter of a civil war veteran.
(No pension, but see also (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maudie_Hopkins). And if you link hop to Alberta Martin's page, - who got backpay...)
I was thinking of this one. (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-08/civil-war-vets-pension-still-remains-on-governments-payroll-151-years-after-last-shot-fired)
Post by: Starver on August 26, 2017, 07:15:46 pm
Amazing how few handshakes (or other contact, in this case) are needed to get back so far. There was something I read about the English Civil War (mid 17th Century, just a tad before the Thirteen Colonies took their shape), and the possible connectivity is remarkably terse.
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 27, 2017, 03:47:10 am
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 27, 2017, 03:47:49 am
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 27, 2017, 04:01:46 am
How is that controversial?
I'm in the United States it seems to me that suggesting anything here that restricts anything that can be viewed as religious is controversial here. *shrugs*
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2017, 04:23:44 am
How is that controversial?
I'm in the United States it seems to me that suggesting anything here that restricts anything that can be viewed as religious is controversial here. *shrugs*
Not just religious, the US tends to let parents rather than medical proffessionals have much more of a say. That explain some of the outcry about that British kids that was prevented from moving to the US for experimental treatment that wouldn't have done any good.
Post by: Trekkin on August 27, 2017, 08:15:27 am
So yes, faith healing should be illegal. But it should also be laughable, and that a significant fraction does not find it so is evidence that we have perhaps spent too much time encouraging people to think for themselves and not enough time teaching them how.
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2017, 08:22:18 am
Of course, if they actually do anything that even hint of discouraging people from taking their real treatment, they should be jailed for manslaughter.
Post by: Frumple on August 27, 2017, 08:44:42 am
If the stuff wasn't trying to take the place of actual treatment, or wasn't causing people to avoid treatment in favor of the stuff, I don't think very many people would particularly care about it. Consider the folks using it a little silly or naive or somethin' at worst, probably. Mostly how I see people that are currently using both get considered, as is, least so long as the cost isn't terribly punishing.
Less sure how common a sentiment the manslaughter thing is, though. Criminal or civil penalties for things along those lines are definitely on board, but dunno how many want to go that far.
I'd say go for it, though. Right now a lot of it isn't a good faith attempt to provide comfort through deception or whathaveyou, but a exploitative attempt at fraud that's implicitly or explicitly trying to get people to be less healthy, up to and including dead, so they can take money from them and give back nothing except a lie.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 27, 2017, 09:43:02 am
Then let me propose something controversial: Faith healing, homeopathy and other stuff of that ilk are perfectly fine and nice as long as they don't interfere with real treatment. Sure, they're just glorified placebo, but placebo works (Otherwise we wouldn't need double blind trials for drugs) and if you have cancer and are goign to suffer through shitty side effects anyway, any little bit helps. Since doctors cannot lie to you (and I think that's good), it's nice to have people dedicated to giving out really nice placebo.
Of course, if they actually do anything that even hint of discouraging people from taking their real treatment, they should be jailed for manslaughter.
Hmm, I want to point out that think you're mixing up the placebo effect with trials vs placebo. Conceptually they are different. You try it versus placebo in order to make things more alike and account for random incidents (including the placebo effect but lets be real, the placebo effect is nil in most serious diseases). But bear in mind, trials are seldom literally "versus placebo". Often it's versus BAT (best avaiable therapy) + placebo, or even just vs BAT. (in fact, the Helsinki declaratiom recommends this). In fact, a trial vs just placebo would be unethical and illegal in many scenarios. You can't reasona
Post by: Sheb on August 27, 2017, 09:47:24 am
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 27, 2017, 03:43:27 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 27, 2017, 04:15:11 pm
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 27, 2017, 04:56:22 pm
The only thing controversial about that is excluding the nervous system.
I think it's just not the best idea until we understand the nervous system to a point where we can make accurate predictions as to what making changes to it will actually do to a person, precisely no matter which neurons are being discussed, I personally don't think we are their yet.
Post by: overseer05-15 on August 27, 2017, 05:03:58 pm
The only thing controversial about that is excluding the nervous system.
I think it's just not the best idea until we understand the nervous system to a point where we can make accurate predictions as to what making changes to it will actually do to a person, precisely no matter which neurons are being discussed, I personally don't think we are their yet.
If you modify the human body, by default, you have to mod the nervous system. It's basically everywhere.
Post by: ChairmanPoo on August 27, 2017, 05:06:36 pm
That's a huge blanket statement. I assume you're not against neurosurgery for the treatment of epilepsy or brain tumors, intrathecal chemotherapy for CNS tumors, or against cell therapy clinical trials to treat central nervous system diseases or damage. And all count as modification of the cnsThe only thing controversial about that is excluding the nervous system.
I think it's just not the best idea until we understand the nervous system to a point where we can make accurate predictions as to what making changes to it will actually do to a person, precisely no matter which neurons are being discussed, I personally don't think we are their yet.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on August 27, 2017, 05:10:46 pm
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 27, 2017, 05:37:49 pm
Post by: Starver on August 27, 2017, 07:46:27 pm
Replace the peripheral nervous system all you want (especially if it's to add back on the full function of an amputated limb, and let's skip over whether it's correcting an injury or a replacement towards transhumanism), that's just making things better for the rest of the body. It's just a matter of signalling. Ideally at the right speed/time-delay, too. Even if less than the replacement optimum - crank it up later, as well as gradually adding sensitivities and ranges, to get the reactions (both ways) adapted without the clumsiness of the young toddler or the old codger, unsynched or desynched.
But start messing with the 'processing' bits, in the truly central(ised) nervous system, and you're treading heavily. For one thing, it's more complex than detecting something (a sense or a desire to move, electrical or chemical at either end) and passing it on. However far up/down the chain or tree. Now you've got to replace it with a comparator. (Let's assume replacing one to one, because that way we're not multiplying the complexity of an already amorphously variable component.)
And if you match your replacements perfectly enough (functionally, one by one) then you're going the way of the Ship Of Theseus. Then things get weird.
Even more weird if you imagine it's possible that if you've got a way of progressing through the original nerves, in turn, analysing what and how to replace them with... Then, as well as actually replacing it, also slot another copy into the collection of previously-separately-copied 'replacements' that you've got sitting on another table (or simulated in a computer!) , keeping it supplied with build-edge transfers of impulses detected during the attempt to copy the original's reaponses.
You'd potentially have a second brain, by the end of the process, thinking the same thoughts. Or as many of the same thoughts as you'd allow it (staring out through its duplicate eyes, it could likely tell it was 'cogito'ing from the alternate location, ergo secundi, if you didn't purposefully deceive it).
Or how about what you do with the extracted biomatter? Can it also be done carefully enough to be reassembled, in a cradle of surrogate interfaces (and other messy biological provisions) to generate a third copy. Arguably the copy most like the original by virtue of being all the original bits, even!
Or at least that's all within the limits of your already marvelous ability to effectively wholesale replace(/relocate) wetware that is designed by time, and honed by its plasticity, with your (presumably) silicon-based replacement modules. But for this thought(s!) experiment, one has to assume the clever stuff is done and dusted. Much as with the problems of Transporter technology, in a different branch of speculative fiction. (Although there was that DS9 episode with Vedek Bereil!)
Post by: Baffler on August 27, 2017, 09:02:39 pm
I do agree with you 100% about leaving the brain alone, and I would in theory extend that to genetically engineering humans in everything else that isn't an outright unambiguous defect like a missing arm or muscular dystrophy. In practice I don't think even that is restrictive enough to prevent the technology from eventually spreading out wider into more dystopian territory.
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on August 28, 2017, 07:25:17 am
Post by: Trekkin on August 28, 2017, 10:06:53 am
I guess what I was saying is that have little problem with say for a simple example producings someone with with filamensts other than the usual human hair growing from their skin, at least hypothetically I don't the main problem for me being that it's still fairly hard to change the biology of adult humans, at least time I checked.
Depends what you want to change. Between engineered retroviruses and admittedly overhyped technologies like CRISPR, there's a lot we can do to change the genome, and while a good deal of anatomy is already set in adults, physiology isn't. Of course, you could always grow whatever new stuff you wanted from self-harvested induced pluripotent stems, attach it surgically, and fuse the nerves with PTEN inhibitors so it works.
Post by: martinuzz on August 28, 2017, 11:08:01 am
Post by: Trekkin on August 28, 2017, 11:44:31 am
Why would you call CRISPR overhyped? Sure, it's hyped, but in all fairness it was a major breakthrough with huge practical applicability, so I'd say it deserves the hype.
From outside the field it looks amazing, yes, but that's mostly because it was well marketed, easy to explain, and has a convenient moral angle; it's a perfect storm for science journalists, because they can write a bunch of smart-sounding articles about the ethical implications without needing to explain the boring technical limitations and know that they'll get clicks from the frightened and the scientifically illiterate. It's to their advantage to play up its capabilities to appeal to the "science will kill us all" crowd, so people have overestimated what it can actually do and at what efficiency.
It's new, and it's useful, but it's not unprecedented; there's less utility in specifically swapping out short segments of DNA than you might think, particularly when compared to cre/lox, FLP/FRT, or even transient transfection. In CRISPR's case particularly, much of what laypeople want to do takes longer alterations than CRISPR can handle, especially in eukaryotic genomes.
In other words, CRISPR is evolutionary, but it sounds revolutionary if you've never heard of any of the alternatives. It's also subject to the same constraints on how little we actually know of the translation between genotype and phenotype for a number of traits.
Post by: Sheb on August 31, 2017, 02:28:29 am
Post by: WealthyRadish on September 04, 2017, 07:16:40 pm
Post by: Paxiecrunchle on September 04, 2017, 07:28:24 pm
Post by: WealthyRadish on September 04, 2017, 07:32:51 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on September 04, 2017, 07:48:11 pm
Post by: Trekkin on September 04, 2017, 09:52:41 pm
I mean shit, looking into it, some mouthwashes already have up to 27% alcohol by volume, more than fortified wine. Maybe you could sell the mouthwash packaged with antacid tablets that also happen to contain a chemical that neutralizes the denaturing chemicals in the mouthwash completely, so by the end you have a bottle of peppermint schnapps that's higher proof and half the cost.
We've played this game before, during Prohibition. It ends with a bunch of people dead, because it's way easier to find something to poison alcohol with than it is to be completely sure you neutralized all the poison. Then, too, the people with the chemical expertise to verify that any given bottle would be safe to drink tend not to want to buy bargain-basement liquor. Even if you did succeed, how long do you think you could sell UrbanGiraffe-Brand Probably Still Kinda Poisonous Peppermint Definitely-Not-Schnapps before your success motivated new legally mandated denaturants?
That isn't even touching on the lawsuits, like Egan_BW mentioned. A business built on exploiting alcoholics by selling them poison to evade government regulations is the kind of thing prosecutors dream of.
Oh, and you'd need to find a chemist willing to do this in the first place.
Post by: WealthyRadish on September 04, 2017, 11:03:16 pm
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232220456_What_happens_if_people_start_drinking_mouthwash_as_surrogate_alcohol_A_quantitative_risk_assessment (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232220456_What_happens_if_people_start_drinking_mouthwash_as_surrogate_alcohol_A_quantitative_risk_assessment)
To summarize their conclusions, light and moderate consumption was found to have negligible health effects distinct from consumption of other alcoholic beverages, and the chronic effects linked with heavy consumption were due to certain compounds that could be avoided in this hypothetical alcoholic-friendly formula. They found that by far the most toxic component of the mouthwash was the ethanol itself. If you were formulating mouthwash to be as drinkable as possible while meeting the ATF requirement for denatured ethanol, you would obviously ensure that it's as safe or safer to drink than other mouthwashes (that's sort of the whole point, to tailor it to illicit drinking). It would be absurd to compare it to substances containing methanol that killed people in the prohibition example (any mouthwash formula would be insane to include something that toxic).
Post by: Trekkin on September 05, 2017, 01:49:13 am
At any rate, we need not speculate about hypothetical chemical compounds. Formulating mouthwash to be sold in the US is going to involve compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Chapter I, Subchapter A, Part 21; in particular, as a Specially Denatured Alcohol it must have denaturants added per one of formulas 37, 38-B, 38-D or 38-F. If you can find something on that list that is safe to drink chronically in large quantities, cheap to buy pure, and not totally abominable-tasting, I suppose you could start competing in the mouthwash-as-gutter-booze market.
Post by: Sheb on September 05, 2017, 02:02:32 am
Post by: WealthyRadish on September 05, 2017, 03:01:43 am
The study you found involved buying a bunch of cheap mouthwash, performing NMR on it, and then looking at the reported acceptable daily intake (ADI) of whatever compounds they found; they did no actual toxicology at all. It's a stretch to say that the ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) characteristics of the denaturants aren't going to be impacted by the simultaneous alcohol consumption, particularly chronic consumption of the levels you'd need for any kind of significant profit margin, and ADIs are computed with fairly arbitrary safety factors anyway; what you want are human NOAELs, which are the actual levels at which adverse effects don't show up.
Not sure if you read more than the abstract, but they referenced both ADI and NOAEL values (when they computed the margin of exposure). Yes, this does not consider the possible interaction between ethanol and the additives (which is important and a good point), but you're dismissing highly relevant information entirely while pretending to be an expert.
At any rate, we need not speculate about hypothetical chemical compounds. Formulating mouthwash to be sold in the US is going to involve compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 27, Chapter I, Subchapter A, Part 21; in particular, as a Specially Denatured Alcohol it must have denaturants added per one of formulas 37, 38-B, 38-D or 38-F. If you can find something on that list that is safe to drink chronically in large quantities, cheap to buy pure, and not totally abominable-tasting, I suppose you could start competing in the mouthwash-as-gutter-booze market.
What, this list (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2003-title27-vol1/xml/CFR-2003-title27-vol1-sec21-151.xml)? I see almond oil, cinnamon oil, clove oil, lavender oil, pine oil, rosemary oil... Listerine gets away with 27% alcohol by volume by including menthol (mint), thymol (thyme), methyl salicylate (wintergreen), and eucalyptol (eucalyptus extract). That's it, that's all they need to add for it be classified as denatured ethanol in the US, and these are the sorts of compounds whose minutia of toxicity we're discussing.
Reminds me of that case where sixty-odd Russians died of drinking "Totally just bath oil". (http://abcnews.go.com/International/62-die-siberia-drinking-counterfeit-bath-oil/story?id=44324727)
Again, this is an issue with methanol, which nobody in their right mind would deliberately include in any mouthwash, let alone one they're covertly intending to be consumed. It's a product of terrible production practices and no quality assurance (though you can certainly bet that Russia would be market #1 for my hypothetical "Plasterine").
Post by: Sheb on September 05, 2017, 03:15:14 am
Post by: ArchimedesWojak on March 01, 2021, 10:33:16 am
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 22, 2021, 08:18:22 am
slut is a gender neutral term of endearmentAmongst equal friends perhaps, much in the same way that one could call one's best mate a fuckface but you wouldn't greet a stranger as so without expecting great insult to be incurred
Post by: hector13 on April 08, 2021, 09:59:35 pm
It’s not really gender neutral either. Promiscuity among females is still viewed pretty universally poorly, whereas the inverse is true for promiscuous males.slut is a gender neutral term of endearmentAmongst equal friends perhaps, much in the same way that one could call one's best mate a fuckface but you wouldn't greet a stranger as so without expecting great insult to be incurred
Post by: Rolan7 on April 09, 2021, 11:09:17 am
It does get a lot of gender-neutral use nowadays despite its original meaning. Words change and all!
Related unpopular opinion: I still don't really like being referred to as "queer", even in completely benign contexts. But I like that other people like it? I'm actually happy that my gut feeling is unpopular, reclaiming slurs is tricky but cool.
Remember when "nerd" was a really rude thing to call someone? And it's still possible to use it as a real insult, despite being a bit defanged these days.
Sounds like a good way to get sued when someone doesn't follow the exact instructions that you can't include without being classed an alcoholic beverage.My favorite is those Prohibition-era don't-brew-this-at-home kits (https://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/prohibition-potpourri/prohibition-products/). Jeez, the Budweiser Malt package has a guy literally winking.
Quote from: A law abiding retailer
“After dissolving the brick in a gallon of water, do not place the liquid in a jug away in the cupboard for twenty days, because then it would turn to wine.”
Post by: Iduno on April 09, 2021, 12:37:02 pm
Context matters a lot too. It has a completely different meaning coming from a stranger on the street instead of a close "friend", or describing oneself :P
It does get a lot of gender-neutral use nowadays despite its original meaning. Words change and all!
Related unpopular opinion: I still don't really like being referred to as "queer", even in completely benign contexts. But I like that other people like it? I'm actually happy that my gut feeling is unpopular, reclaiming slurs is tricky but cool.
Remember when "nerd" was a really rude thing to call someone? And it's still possible to use it as a real insult, despite being a bit defanged these days.
For me, Queer is way easier than LGBTQ+ because you don't pronounce each letter and also I transpose numbers/letters sometimes so I need to be careful and double-check acronyms. Plus it's been used as a slur the least during my lifetime, which is helpful with my comfort. Edit: For me to be called. I do my best to call others what they want, but I'll fall back on my own comfort if I don't know/remember others' preferences.
And yeah, I was GMing a TTRPG at a comic book store, and felt weird about referring to the players as nerds.
Post by: McTraveller on May 16, 2021, 03:52:43 pm
- Spoiler: There are no such things as accidents. (click to show/hide)
- Spoiler: You cannot "die before your time." (click to show/hide)
- Spoiler: You cannot be "born in/with the incorrect body." (click to show/hide)
Post by: Loud Whispers on May 17, 2021, 04:08:44 am
Post by: NJW2000 on May 17, 2021, 05:30:15 am
Have you ever considered studying metaphysics? I think it'd be perfect for you.
Potentially controversial opinion: it would be in the best interests of almost everyone in the region for Israel to formally annex all or most of Palestine. This is the only outcome likely to offer the citizens of Palestine any measure of peace and security.
Post by: McTraveller on May 17, 2021, 07:46:39 am
I guess the "controversial" aspect is really that careless use of phrases is dangerous. So yes while I understand that common use of the phrases I listed, I think those common uses end up supporting a problematic view of the universe. Words and ideas do matter.
Post by: hector13 on May 17, 2021, 08:06:08 am
Ah, "useful words and phrases in ordinary language are wrong because of these very literal and specific interpretations of them". That's not a controversial opinion, it's a quibble about semantics dressed up to look like a thesis about the real world.
Have you ever considered studying metaphysics? I think it'd be perfect for you.
Potentially controversial opinion: it would be in the best interests of almost everyone in the region for Israel to formally annex all or most of Palestine. This is the only outcome likely to offer the citizens of Palestine any measure of peace and security.
Well… Ireland comes to mind as an example of why that’s not a good idea. Politics and religion don’t mix too well.
Equally so, Netanyahu, while likely on the way out, has expressed disdain for the Arabic parts of Israel, so it still wouldn’t do them any good.
Post by: Bumber on May 17, 2021, 08:46:40 am
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on May 17, 2021, 09:10:16 am
Home fries are superior to hash browns.
Yes. Is this controversial? Every time I've ordered hash browns in stead of home fries I've (unfortunately) lived to regret it, most places I've been to that serve "hash browns" just serve lightly brown strips of potato flesh and honestly it's gross as hell.
Post by: Frumple on May 17, 2021, 09:37:24 am
Post by: Starver on May 17, 2021, 11:14:56 am
Horses for courses, naturally. (But let's not also bring lasagne into it, ok?) We're also in danger of bringing the Belgians into this fight.
Post by: martinuzz on May 17, 2021, 12:52:03 pm
Post by: Bumber on May 17, 2021, 05:16:00 pm
Yes. Is this controversial?
Maybe if you hate onions.
Post by: Frumple on May 17, 2021, 06:06:20 pm
fake e: wait, shit, I see the problem now, there's at least two different things called home fries and I wasn't thinking about the one that does tend to have onions in it. The other's just well seasoned french fries/potato logs, and usually is just that and naught else.
... though tend is still not necessarily. Home fries sans onion are fine, too. Better to me 'cause onions are the metaphorical devil's asshole, but still. Either sort's better than hashbrowns tend to be when onions aren't involved.
Post by: Rolan7 on May 17, 2021, 10:21:02 pm
"So, how do you want the eggs?"
*Blinking tiredly, realizing my order's weird* "Ah, scrambled, mixed in there"
"No problem!"
The twist is that this was apparently very controversial to their manager, who gave them a hard time for passing on a weird order and then for giving *me* trouble. All this, like, right in front of me- I was "engrossed" in my phone for politeness but there's no divider, and I'm still very auditory. Ugh.
So apparently it's controversial to protein-up some hashbrowns with egg. Hearing a service worker be berated for a perfect performance was an unpopular experience, for me.
Yeah okay real on-topic opinion: Tipping is an awful practice. It originated as a means of hiring black people without paying them, and today it serves to divide the front workers from back workers. It's the epitome of the Karen desire for control over "lesser" people.
I don't even know if my tip went to the right person there, or got shared with their boss (who probably isn't an inherently shitty person, just hard-pressed by the low margins of fast food).
Post by: George_Chickens on May 17, 2021, 11:37:32 pm
Yeah okay real on-topic opinion: Tipping is an awful practice. It originated as a means of hiring black people without paying them, and today it serves to divide the front workers from back workers. It's the epitome of the Karen desire for control over "lesser" people.Is this controversial? The only people I see saying anything else are a niche of "future billionare if I just work hard at McDonalds" Americans, whereas pretty much everyone else thinks the idea of tips as a wage substitute is awful.
I don't even know if my tip went to the right person there, or got shared with their boss (who probably isn't an inherently shitty person, just hard-pressed by the low margins of fast food).
Post by: Rolan7 on May 17, 2021, 11:49:11 pm
Post by: Iduno on May 18, 2021, 09:04:14 am
Is this controversial? The only people I see saying anything else are a niche of "future billionare if I just work hard at McDonalds" Americans, whereas pretty much everyone else thinks the idea of tips as a wage substitute is awful.
I've gotten a lot of people angry by saying rapist, bigots, and genociders are bad. Like you said, mostly Americans, but some otherwise civilized-seeming people as well.
Not paying people for work, because they're doing a "lesser" job? Lots of people here support that.
Post by: None on May 18, 2021, 09:18:14 am
Essentially subsidizing the employee's wage through customers based on pity or social obligation is pretty rank, though.
Post by: ArchimedesWojak on May 18, 2021, 10:08:33 am
Post by: martinuzz on May 18, 2021, 11:00:31 am
Post by: ArchimedesWojak on May 18, 2021, 01:26:35 pm
I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
Post by: hector13 on May 18, 2021, 01:33:56 pm
I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
It’s as morally correct as sending the kids to conversion therapy in the first place, as I think was martinuzz’ point.
Post by: voliol on May 18, 2021, 01:35:30 pm
I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
Forcing people into loving/accepting themselves seems... fine to me. Though doing it to kids still dependent on their non-supportive parents is not too great, so at least make sure to direct them to some support groups.
Post by: martinuzz on May 18, 2021, 02:30:09 pm
Yes indeed. Or as morally correct as forcing your religion on your children as a parent. IMO, religion should get a 18+ only restriction just like smoking and drinking.I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
It’s as morally correct as sending the kids to conversion therapy in the first place, as I think was martinuzz’ point.
And no, I am in no way being serious about becoming a conversion therapist. Just my 2 cents for the Controversial Ideas Thread
Post by: ArchimedesWojak on May 18, 2021, 02:39:48 pm
Yes indeed. Or as morally correct as forcing your religion on your children as a parent. IMO, religion should get a 18+ only restriction just like smoking and drinking.I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
It’s as morally correct as sending the kids to conversion therapy in the first place, as I think was martinuzz’ point.
And no, I am in no way being serious about becoming a conversion therapist. Just my 2 cents for the Controversial Ideas Thread
Sorry about that i just got really concerned
Post by: hector13 on May 18, 2021, 02:41:51 pm
Yes indeed. Or as morally correct as forcing your religion on your children as a parent. IMO, religion should get a 18+ only restriction just like smoking and drinking.I'm thinking of settling myself as gay-converstion therapist. I will take money from orthodox parent folks, and then I will convert their child to atheism / agnosticism / or some version of their preferred belief that does not cast them out / threaten them with eternal hellfire for their sexuality or gender identity.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Let those kids be whatever they want to be and don't force them to be anything
(Please don't do this it is not morally correct and it is fucked up in a lot of ways)
It’s as morally correct as sending the kids to conversion therapy in the first place, as I think was martinuzz’ point.
And no, I am in no way being serious about becoming a conversion therapist. Just my 2 cents for the Controversial Ideas Thread
Sorry about that i just got really concerned
As someone that frequently posts non-serious things, you are not so good at reading it :p
I do agree with martinizz that religion is a dangerous thing though. Should probably be restricted.
Post by: martinuzz on May 18, 2021, 02:46:36 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on May 18, 2021, 03:57:17 pm
I strongly support the death penalty
That's quite vague. Would you expand on what you mean?
Post by: ChairmanPoo on May 18, 2021, 04:23:35 pm
He means people who have relationships with opossums. ArchimedesWojak is very militant against zoophilia due to his deeply held religious beliefs.I strongly support the death penalty
That's quite vague. Would you expand on what you mean?
Post by: ArchimedesWojak on May 18, 2021, 04:35:37 pm
I strongly support the death penalty
That's quite vague. Would you expand on what you mean?
One of the amendments of the constitution say that "The punishment must fit the crime" So i believe that if you ruin someone's life there will be fatal consequences
Murderers, rapists, pedophiles and all other sorts of terrible people honestly deserve to die.
He means people who have relationships with opossums. ArchimedesWojak is very militant against zoophilia due to his deeply held religious beliefs.
I exhaled out of my nose.
Sigged.
Post by: None on May 18, 2021, 05:22:53 pm
Can you quantify the amount of, say, drugs you'd need to peddle to determine it to be life-ruining, knowing fully well that the legal system disproportionately targets minorities or the disadvantaged?
Is sodomy life-ruining, among consenting adults? You could still be prosecuted for it in America as late as 2003. With the protections for abortion rights being in jeopardy in the courts right now, would you have mothers put to death in the wake of a 'life-ruining' miscarriage?
You can't un-death someone if you've got the wrong guy, change your mind about what the appropriate punishment is, laws change, or death is not the desired outcome from the defendant. There will be no plea deals or speedy trials if the death penalty is on the line, straining a legal system that already frequently takes months.
It's barbaric. It offers no opportunities for repentance or redemption. This is not justice and justice does not decide who 'deserves' to die. Life is not so simple, so binary, that 'death' should be an answer to it, and if you find yourself wishing death on people, you need to reflect on your valuation of life.
Post by: McTraveller on May 18, 2021, 05:47:16 pm
As I've said before, what I'd like to see is that culture changes to see abortion as the option of last resort, no higher. Sadly it's not really easy (or even possible) to legislate culture that way.
Abortion can be legal, because there are situations (however few) which warrant it. But 99.9% (for however many 9s you think are appropriate) are performed for convenience or because of social stigma or some other emotionally-charged reason.
Put another way: I think abortion is wrong, but I think it should be legal. I think many things fall into that category; it's not exclusive to this topic.
Post by: Frumple on May 18, 2021, 06:05:57 pm
Abortion can be legal, because there are situations (however few) which warrant it. But 99.9% (for however many 9s you think are appropriate) are performed for convenience or because of social stigma or some other emotionally-charged reason.Last I noticed it's closer to .9 or 9 than 99%, much less higher. Most of them aren't for convenience (unless you're wildly misusing the term, anyway) or social stigma or that kinda' stuff, it's due to major issues with carrying to term, either material or medical. It's damn rare it's anything but a last resort for the vast majority of the people that have them.
Post by: None on May 18, 2021, 06:18:31 pm
The efforts to strip away protections to be able to get the traumatic work done and the ethical signaling behind that is where my concern lay, particularly with how the legal system is leveraged against those with less. There is injustice already in the justice system- again, within the last two decades there were legal ramifications for having gay sex. The system is already leveraged against those with less, we cannot reintroduce lethal outcomes.
Post by: McTraveller on May 18, 2021, 06:33:25 pm
Last I noticed it's closer to .9 or 9 than 99%, much less higher. Most of them aren't for convenience (unless you're wildly misusing the term, anyway) or social stigma or that kinda' stuff, it's due to major issues with carrying to term, either material or medical. It's damn rare it's anything but a last resort for the vast majority of the people that have them.
I'm happy to be corrected - but is there a source for that? And is it in a limited geographical area? Worldwide, Worldometers.info estimates births so far this year are estimated at 53 million, with 16 million abortions. That is going to have to be some compelling evidence that a ratio of one abortion per 3.3 births is not "rare", or that an abortion rate that high is due to medical necessity.
Post by: dragdeler on June 15, 2021, 12:41:53 pm
Post by: Bumber on June 15, 2021, 08:42:31 pm
Post by: Starver on June 15, 2021, 08:55:19 pm
Post by: MrRoboto75 on June 15, 2021, 09:14:49 pm
Post by: Bumber on June 16, 2021, 12:11:09 am
Post by: Laterigrade on July 04, 2021, 04:28:33 am
Opinions are an illusion, there exist only various degrees of ignorance with which each and everyone of us disqualifies humanity from it's perpetuation....that’s an opinion
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 04, 2021, 12:43:38 pm
Only a sith deals in absolutesOpinions are an illusion, there exist only various degrees of ignorance with which each and everyone of us disqualifies humanity from it's perpetuation....that’s an opinion
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 04, 2021, 02:29:05 pm
Post by: Ziusudra on July 04, 2021, 04:18:56 pm
Post by: dragdeler on July 05, 2021, 06:50:07 am
ok maybe its reputation is too good
Post by: Frumple on July 05, 2021, 10:51:37 am
Bacon is greatly overrated.I've found the witch!
No need to keep looking, everyone can go home or order natural prophylactics as desired.
Post by: Grim Portent on July 07, 2021, 02:42:04 pm
Gist of it is that if you belong to an organisation, be it corporate, political, cultural or spiritual which holds certain values, or publically state certain values as a private citizen, then acting in contradiction with those values is a felony punishable by either the prescribed punishment from the source material you derive the values from, or a misdemeanour felony, punishment waived if you recant the principles you violated at trial.
Examples would be someone who is publically pro-racial equality being caught being racist in private, or an abrahamic fundamentalist man being caught with a gay prostitute. In the former case the punishment would probably be a fine and social ostracisation, because that's generally speaking the expected punishment for racism, while the latter case would be punished according to the rules layed out in the religious text they follow, which IIRC in most abrahamic texts is death. Either could get out of their punishment by admitting publically that they don't really hold to the principles they claim to.
Post by: anewaname on July 23, 2021, 03:54:36 am
Had an idea rattling around my head for an unworkable thing that I'm calling 'Hypocrisy Laws' and figured this is the best place to put it.Something like a "list-of-crimes-and-their-punishments" exists in most non-corporate organizations already, but their problem is that these organizations are usually legally bound by state, federal, or international laws, so that ostracism is the most the group can legally use against members that transgress. Ostracism can be financially and emotionally devastating, since it often involves family and/or vested assets.
Gist of it is that if you belong to an organisation, be it corporate, political, cultural or spiritual which holds certain values, or publically state certain values as a private citizen, then acting in contradiction with those values is a felony punishable by either the prescribed punishment from the source material you derive the values from, or a misdemeanour felony, punishment waived if you recant the principles you violated at trial.
Examples would be someone who is publically pro-racial equality being caught being racist in private, or an abrahamic fundamentalist man being caught with a gay prostitute. In the former case the punishment would probably be a fine and social ostracisation, because that's generally speaking the expected punishment for racism, while the latter case would be punished according to the rules layed out in the religious text they follow, which IIRC in most abrahamic texts is death. Either could get out of their punishment by admitting publically that they don't really hold to the principles they claim to.
I think this is all part of the "separation of church and state" discussion, where the government is not allowed to accept a religion's laws as its own (in the USA's First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”). And in governments where one religion has become embedded in the government, you will see other religions being ostracized within that government and nation. And to further complicate it, the traditional religions have been joined by the -isms ideologies (this short political cartoon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El7qgQXd-xs) is a gem, where every image shows a hypocrisy that some people currently rant about and that others accept as their privilege). When the "-ism ideologies" get embedded in a government, you see members of that ideology ostracizing members of other ideologies.
I think my take on it is, no group should have control over those who are not a part of their group and as a corollary, all sub-groups of a group should have political representation within the larger group. There are always people who seek political power for the intention of ostracizing sub-groups that they do not represent. They will always be hypocrites and they will always be supported by those who stand to gain financially from the ostracism.
Post by: McTraveller on July 23, 2021, 02:11:11 pm
We have a worker shortage (not just in the USA, but all over the world), and according to articles restaurant workers are literally walking out in the middle of shifts. It's a self-fulfilling downward spiral: working conditions are more difficult than usual because of a shortage of staff. So let's walk out and make the shortage more acute.
I'm going to have no tears, only anger, for those people that complain that all their local stores closed because they had no customers because they had no workers because those people refused to work through a difficult time. I mean around where I live, wages and hiring bonuses are pretty high for every single grocery store, fast food, and sit-down restaurant in the area. Every restaurant and local shop (hardware stores, etc.) has reduced hours, too, because they can't get workers. So I can't even run errands after work, because stores are closed.
Post by: wierd on July 23, 2021, 02:27:30 pm
More, people want work that is PERSONALLY satisfying or rewarding. That reward may or may not be monetarily based.
I had a conversation at work about 4 days ago about this-- I asserted that if I somehow became a multimillionaire tomorrow (and thus, with proper investments, never need to work again for financial reasons), I would STILL seek employment-- Most likely, I would seek a low-tier position at a computer repair place, doing bench monkey work, simply for the mental stimulation of the kinds of "wow" people can do to their computers to break them. I would not have anxiety about the job-- losing it, or needing to quit it because the boss/management are assholes would not have any fear on my part-- being a multimillionaire. I would not NEED the job for anything other than mental stimulation and enjoyment, and any such attempts at muscling me would be met with attestations of that fact, and my walking out (quite blissfully) if they could not take that hint.
Mostly, the business owner (and merchant capitalist) classes want to pretend that this kind of job seeking can never exist, because a situation where that is routinely possible (which is what a world with basic income safety-net would look like) would mean that they could not routinely ABUSE their workers for profit. What they pretend, and what is reality, are not the same thing however.
Should the business owners and merchant capitalists finally get the clue that they can no longer ABUSE their workers, they will find that their employment situation is quite tractable.
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2021, 02:37:55 pm
The folks acting selfish and spoiled are largely the bloody bosses, wanting to continue to squeeze blood from the stones they were used to wringing dry. People have their limits, and eventually all that shit piles up and they figure it's time to try something else.
It's about damn time it started happening more, ha.
Post by: McTraveller on July 23, 2021, 03:06:31 pm
If you expect great rewards during a time of crisis, and stop trying deal with the crisis while it's going on, society crumbles because generally those rewards don't exist to be handed out in the first place.
I believe situations can only be improved by being better than the situation deserves.
Post by: wierd on July 23, 2021, 03:10:08 pm
Now that shit hit the fan, and the employer is no longer able to threaten outsourcing to india, the bill has come due on all those "Should have been given a raise, and you never fucking did, because you were too fucking greedy, you asshole" situations. The leverage is in the hands of the worker, because the employer cannot replace them, because there are no workers to replace them *WITH*.
Now, it is "YOu *WILL* give me that raise, and you *WILL* fix these shit work conditions, or you *WILL* go out of business."
The employers are crying very bitter tears about it.
No, I am not ENTIRELY unsympathetic for the employers: They genuinely HAVE painted themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. However, the people who are holding the brush that did the painting, are they themselves.
It is OBSCENELY WELL DOCUMENTED that US workers have-- ACROSS THE WHOLE GODDAMN BOARD-- NOT been getting pay increases that are asymptotic with inflation, and non-asymptotic in the NEGATIVE DIRECTION for the trend. Basically, americans have been getting paid the functional equivalent of "Less and Less" every decade, routinely, for the past 70 years. What workers are demanding now, really is just "Actually workable wages." Not "Deal breaking wages."
The ISSUE, is that the employers have made a house of cards based on the presumption that this trend could continue forever.
It could not, and now, will not.
Is it likely to crash a good portion of the economy? YES.
Is that painful? YES.
Is it necessary to fix this problem? Sadly-- YES. Being "asked politely during the good times" has been OBSCENELY WELL DOCUMENTED to NOT WORK. The long-standing argument from the employer has been "But we paid what was industry standard rates!!!! We had to stay COMPETITIVE!!!" Well--Under these NEW pressures, MOST of their competition-- SPECIFICALLY-- the ones that *CANNOT* (*or will not) pay the newly demanded wages, in order to secure the now scarce employment pool, WILL GO UNDER. This means that their depressed wage scales will no longer be tabulated as part of same said "Industry standard wages!!", and the new wages that were demanded will become the norm. The shortage of labor will remain, which means that it is impossible for the remaining employers to become monopolies of the market (because it will not be possible to satisfy all demand.) This means that there will be a BOOMING market to meet that demand, at the newly adjusted price structure curve intersections.
The market will BRUTALLY ADJUST.
Post by: McTraveller on July 23, 2021, 03:29:55 pm
Incidentally no amount of non-national organized labor will cause the big-box companies to go out of business. So all that walking out of restaurants does is kill the small local shops and further entrench the megacorps. Even franchises - if you happened to have a locally-owned franchise (which is hard enough), if you put that local owner out of business the only thing that's going to come in is a conglomerate that owns many locations, which is more abusive, etc.
I wouldn't cringe so much if the people who walked out of these restaurants started their own competing restaurant instead, but I don't see that. Even with past abuses (which I concede, especially for "low-level" jobs) I don't see the excuse for not starting your own business. Either you accept the "abuse" of employers because you don't want to take on the personal risk of running a business, or you take that risk. I don't believe you can have it both ways. I've known too many people who have tried to start their own businesses, some succeeded and some failed, to say that this isn't possible.
Spoiler: Maybe I'm just venting today.... (click to show/hide)
Post by: wierd on July 23, 2021, 03:39:50 pm
Customers claim they wont pay the requisite higher prices, needed to meet the requisite higher demanded wages. This is untrue. They might go out to eat LESS OFTEN, but they will STILL go out to eat.
This is why demand is modeled as a curve, with potential areas of intersection. The customer is currently accustomed to bargain basement prices, driven by the absurd drive to EXPAND!!! EXPANNNNDDD!!!!! EXXXXXPAAAANNNNDDDD!!!! from the employers. They accomplished that, by cutting their costs--- which is a fancy way of saying they were systemically fucking over their employees for a very long time. Since the customers got used to the ever lower prices (and since they themselves were likewise getting paid less and less and less, due to the across the whole goddamn board trend in pay for the whole damn nation, and thus also less and less able/willing to pay the older, larger prices anyway!), this was a "rush to the bottom"
That kind of trend cannot ever continue forever.
When the companies offering 1$ value meals go under, and more to the point-- the remaining employers can no longer offer unreasonable/unlivable wages-- people will become much more willing (and suddenly much more capable!) of paying the requisitely higher costs for the ACTUAL VALUE of the products and services they are purchasing.
That is when the boom on unmet demand will spur new businesses.
Post by: Rolan7 on July 23, 2021, 03:40:34 pm
It's certainly ridiculous that the onus should be on individual workers to suffer low wages and grueling work just to keep the business around. I get the idea of working hard to save one's nation, but employees owe their bosses nothing. Essential workers went above and beyond the call of duty during the worst months of the pandemic, to keep our nations working, and were rewarded with words rather than substance. Owners sacrificed NOTHING, and I am not sympathetic that they "earned" less than they otherwise would have.
I expect people to pull together during a crisis - specifically, I want the people with all the power to use that power positively. They did not, they guilted the least powerful into working even harder.
Eh, wierd said it better but that's my 2 cents.
Post by: McTraveller on July 23, 2021, 04:46:12 pm
Here's the deal---
Customers claim they wont pay the requisite higher prices, needed to meet the requisite higher demanded wages. This is untrue. They might go out to eat LESS OFTEN, but they will STILL go out to eat.
True, but that will only result in more money to pay workers if the reduction in quantity purchased is proportionally less than the increase in price. I don't know the elasticity of demand for restaurants, but it's likely that restaurants have already priced for maximum revenue - otherwise they could already increase prices, get lower demand, but higher overall revenue. So why don't they? Do you really think these businesses are intentionally leaving money on the table?
The better argument is that more of the net income of companies needs to go to employees instead of owners.
Or even better, move to make all people owners in the first place, instead of just "employees." Give people some vested interest in the success of their specific employer, and maybe they would treat it better. Sure that can come from the employers themselves. I'd prefer this over UBI, which kind of makes everyone owners of everything - that sounds good but there is no specific interest in the success of your current employer if you choose to have one.
Much blame is on the corporate leaders here, but I don't think the working class is really all that innocent either. I'm lucky (which is unfair, I know) to have an employer whose vision and implementation of that vision is something I enjoy and believe in and I want them to succeed. I did have to leave my previous employer to do this, by the way, because the leadership prior to that sold us to a company in whose vision I did not believe. But when I did that I didn't reduce the labor pool - I gave my labor somewhere else.
So I will refine my argument: I don't have trouble with people quitting shitty jobs - I have trouble with them quitting a shitty job and not looking for (or creating) a better one. And no, sorry, I don't believe that "but there are no good jobs" or "all owners are greedy assholes" is true.
Post by: wierd on July 23, 2021, 05:12:54 pm
The deviation from that spiral before we hit actual rock-bottom, and implode the entire economy--- eg, where we are now, where people are saying NO to the lower wages, and forcing a course correction--- (which will ultimately result in many smaller businesses going under, which I never contested)-- is the best outcome.
Will it be a fun happy time for everyone? FUCK NO. Will it make many businesses go out of business? FUCK YES/
Here is the thing though. Yes, the big multinationals will be the one who survive-- HOWEVER-- they cannot meet the resulting demand, even though they have no competition, because meeting the demand requires workers, and the workers ARE NOT RETURNING TO WORK. That means that there is unserviced demand in the economy, and thus OPPORTUNITY.
In order for people to make good on that opportunity, they need seed money. Seed money comes from 2 places--- Either save money, and take a risk-- OR-- Take a loan, and take a risk.
In either situation you need a cash flow that can either satisfy the savings needs, or can satisfy the risk interest of the bank.
In either situation, therefore, you need the higher wages, BEFORE you can work to capture that opportunity.
So, there will be an immediate bottom-drop in food services, and other convenience industries, as labor blows away, and wages spike up to actually reasonable levels. This will FORCE the multinationals to raise their prices. THis will force customers to accept the higher prices. THis will also have the effect of raising the "Industry standard wage", and the market will adjust.
The people wanting food and other convenience services are not going to just die. They are going to still exist. That demand will be there. What will change, is the pricing curve.
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2021, 06:57:58 pm
So I will refine my argument: I don't have trouble with people quitting shitty jobs - I have trouble with them quitting a shitty job and not looking for (or creating) a better one. And no, sorry, I don't believe that "but there are no good jobs" or "all owners are greedy assholes" is true.I mean, okay, then you largely don't have a problem. People aren't exactly entirely disconnecting with the labor market to any meaningful degree -- the vast majority of folks walking out of shit jobs are going on to either look for better work or train for a new field. They still have to eat, and most places in the world you can't exactly live well on the local safety nets... barring the people just dying, I guess. They don't eat 'cause their country decided them dying was better for the social good than not.
To the extent complete disconnection actually is something happen, they're disconnecting from the paid labor market in order to do shit like take care of family, kids, elderly, disabled, whatever. Which says more about how fucking abysmally most countries value caretakers or domestic laborers than anything about work ethic.
Post by: McTraveller on July 23, 2021, 07:26:52 pm
The people wanting food and other convenience services are not going to just die. They are going to still exist. That demand will be there. What will change, is the pricing curve.
Right, you're talking about the business cycle... which has a large component of leaving things unchanged except for the pricing curves, the exception being when there is some new technology that changes real productivity (not productivity measured in currency units).
I'd like to see the business cycle broken - so we have meaningful sustained increases in standard of living (which should be the real thing we care about, not wages, although sometimes they do track together). I guess I'm a Romantic when it comes to this.
To the extent complete disconnection actually is something happen, they're disconnecting from the paid labor market in order to do shit like take care of family, kids, elderly, disabled, whatever. Which says more about how fucking abysmally most countries value caretakers or domestic laborers than anything about work ethic.
Interesting thought - I can't find data to indicate what people are doing instead of working. I know the summer high school and college students aren't doing home care or anything else - that's the big part of the workforce around here that seems to be missing. I have no idea where they all went.
Post by: Frumple on July 23, 2021, 07:45:06 pm
My first guess for "where had summer high school and college students gone instead of work" would be "vacation". Since, like. They're in between one probably wildly stressful semester and another that's likely to only be so much better? Y'know? Take a bloody break if it's offered and you got the means.
E: There's also no telling how many have shifted to some form of telework, for that matter. Probably other stuff, too, that could be making workers in that age range less visible.
Post by: Urist McScoopbeard on July 23, 2021, 07:47:26 pm
On the whole, nobody wants to perform labor for someone else. People put up with it largely because it is impossible to change. However, I am consistently shocked that people think there is some kind of moral imperative to continue working hard or perhaps even harder the worse a situation gets, whether it's the usual shtick of industrialists and capitalists making lives worse because they can or because there is some natural disaster doing it for them. We do not live in war economies, our labor (on the whole) does not go towards any great or noble goal, simply the perpetuation of the successful creation and sale of mundane goods and services. While these things are nice, I see no reason to invoke anxiety, risk ill-health, or potentially our lives and ability to enjoy life for a select few individual's bottom lines. Working hard does not make you a good person, it does not define who you are, and I'm not sure why people take such pride in their ability to produce in the name of others.
First of all, if you are in a bad situation and can get out of it easily, why would you not? That doesn't make any sense. If conditions deteriorate to the point where people will leave regardless of whether or not they can immediately support themselves, why is the blame on the workers??? The workers are there to do a specific job, not to care about some authoritarian owner's dream of a successful company, no matter the human cost. Talk down to me about economics all any of you want, but at the end of the day it boils down to unregulated greed. People who do nothing demand a larger cut from the people who do something because they invested in the company or bought the shares, etc. In the modern economic environment there is no good faith to be had between owners and workers--even good owners could eventually be forced to exploit their workers unfairly, because success demands it. If you want to torture yourself, if you want to be the "this is the way the world is" guy and eat misery for a chance at more physical resources later, go ahead, but don't think you somehow deserve those things more than the people who said no, I won't do it.
Second, I will reiterate that your ability to work, your drive to work, and ultimately the amount of work you actually do is not a measure of your worth as a human being... in fact, I see it as the furthest thing from it. If you live in a world where you only accord humanity to those who are productive, shame on you. No one should have to earn their right to exist. If you are born, you deserve a good life, end of story. We will all naturally <<<do things>>> there is no reason to poke and prod and whip people into action, there is no great human endeavor to somehow "be better" or advance civilization, the most any of us should hope for is a good life full of expression and action meaningful to us, to go about it responsibly, and help each other along the way.
Finally, this modern economic idea of permanent growth is fucking insane. Let the world relax. Do it responsibly, but it let us all relax. Yea there will be problems we need to solve, individually and societally, but what are we all working for? Very little I can see beyond what should have always been our right to do, but is now (and has been for a long time) locked behind economic and political barriers.
rant over.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 23, 2021, 08:16:52 pm
People are too selfish, spoiled, and and have no work ethic on top of that.
Reward hard work then. Actually give me a raise for working hard. Actually promote from within.
Do you know what hard work gave me. More work, doing the work of two or three workers my level or the responsibility of the people above me yet no actual increase in pay or even a change in job title. Why should I carry lazier workers on my back if I just end up with the same paycheck as them?
People want a job, but they don't want to work or something. Or worse, they want to get paid and not even have a job.
Probably because for once in their lives, the other option other than putting up with your shit isn't dying on the street.
People don't want to work for nothing, sue them. Sadly most jobs want to give them next to nothing, and minimum wage won't pay for rent anywhere in the US.
If slightly higher unemployment is better than your offered wage, the wage needs to be higher. I guarantee doing nothing is better than any minimum wage job, so your job's benefits, including wage, need to be better than doing nothing.
But I don't know what you can even do with that money, because everything has a staff shortage.
Pay rent, eat, that phone/internet you'll need just to apply for the job...
Post by: ChairmanPoo on July 23, 2021, 10:37:11 pm
Quote
On the whole, nobody wants to perform labor for someone else.
Lets go a bit deeper into this statement: Would you say that given the chance any group of workers would rather establish a cooperative to do their current job than to keep working for their current employer? For the purpose of this thought experiment: it´s economically viable for them (at least a priori) to take over the business as a cooperative.
Post by: McTraveller on July 24, 2021, 07:22:45 am
I will reiterate that your ability to work, your drive to work, and ultimately the amount of work you actually do is not a measure of your worth as a human being...
I agree. I would extend it slightly though - if you do choose to work, the integrity with which you do that work does reflect your character. I don't care if you are a CEO or a trash collector, if you do that job haphazardly or lazily, that's what raises my ire. Especially in the US - nobody (likely) forces a person to work for a particular employer (I see arguments for being effectively "forced to work somewhere"), so if you choose to work for say a retail outlet, and instead of being diligent and helpful you are standing in a corner sitting on your cellphone, yeah that's a bunch of crap. I would, in fact, rather you not work at all if that's how you treat it. I'd also argue that paying those people more wouldn't make them "better workers."
As for not getting recognized for exemplary performance - yes that is an issue that crops up often. I think it's a different issue than the situations I see around me, where there are people who are not even paying attention. The key there is to recognize when exemplary performance results in higher sales with which to be rewarded, and when it doesn't. I had a previous employer who was like "everyone please work more billable hours" but while that looked good in the short term, it just meant we finished our projects faster but burned out some of our employees - overall revenue didn't change, because our sales department couldn't get new contracts. So unless "rewards" came from docking other people's pay (we were a small company, I know the finances, and the owners were not making much more than anyone else), there wasn't anything to reward them with, other than vacation.
Sadly most jobs want to give them next to nothing, and minimum wage won't pay for rent anywhere in the US.
Statistics never lie, but you can make them say whatever you want. First I was talking about teenager and college students, who generally don't pay rent so that's a non-sequitur. Secondly, while the housing and rental markets are indeed fubar, the stat is that median rents in reported urban areas are more than 30% of minimum wage. It doesn't mean that there are no housing options for single-earner minimum-wage households in literally every municipality in the country. Not yet, anyway.
EDIT: Oh I almost forget: yes I totally agree that a sustained position is better than trying to get "always growing". This only works, though, for those already at high standards of living...
Post by: Magmacube_tr on July 24, 2021, 03:23:25 pm
Change my mind, if you dare!
Post by: Starver on July 24, 2021, 04:44:58 pm
(But I'm not going to go so far as to say it supports your controversial idea, Magma.)
Post by: Telgin on July 24, 2021, 08:47:50 pm
Cringy fanfictions are objectively superior to professional novels.
Change my mind, if you dare!
The hilariously bad Lion King fanfics someone showed to me once prove that bad fanfics can definitely be more entertaining. You know the kind. Where the main character is an anthro half-lion self-insert who eats the characters they don't like and get with Nala, who usually also eats other characters by unhinging her jaw like a snake to slurp them up in one go. Bad grammar and spelling are like the garnish on top. The description of someone being "covered in boozes" (covered in bruises) and someone else having a "budge in her thought" (bulge in her throat, from eating Scar I think it was) are my personal favorite lines that aren't NSFW.
Then there are the ones like Waluigi's Taco Stand, where they become great memetic material.
Post by: ArchimedesWojak on July 25, 2021, 01:16:48 am
Cringy fanfictions are objectively superior to professional novels.
Change my mind, if you dare!
To add to this.
Fanfiction is a lot more fun to write, i have been asked by friends to write stories about their edgy fursonas to which i have a lot of fun writing the most outlandishly ridiculous shit possible and i have a very strange writing style so the way that i write stuff is similar to the surreal bullshit that i'm writing which means i'm not ever going to write any professional stuff (i'm not even good at writing) but it makes the fanfics even more stupid and hilarious.
Post by: George_Chickens on July 25, 2021, 04:17:47 am
Cringy fanfictions are objectively superior to professional novels.I can't change the truth. Not only are bad ones way funnier to read than real bad novels, they're also better than the writing of many professional television shows now. My Immortal > Star Trek Discovery.
Change my mind, if you dare!
Post by: LordBaal on July 25, 2021, 02:40:44 pm
This itself shows democracy is flawed unless only the smart people with true interest in the general wellbeing and progress are allowed to vote... the general public is too idiotic and prone to fall for pretty words and promises of a easy life to be trusted choosing the destiny of an entire nation.
Or you know, there is always the choice of implementing something like voting license. Just being born in a place is not enough to trust you with such important responsibility. However if such thing is implemented in any biased way... then all roads lead to benign AI.
Post by: Starver on July 25, 2021, 04:28:12 pm
Or you know, there is always the choice of implementing something like voting license. Just being born in a place is not enough to trust you with such important responsibility."Service Guarantees Citizenship. Do you want to know more? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4)"
I don't think there's a general desire (or requirement) for that in today's climate. Though it could be argued (by all kinds of people, for opposing reasons) that there should be "Civics" classes to encourage both significant participation and considered participation[1].
I only really hear about Civics Classes to some degree in relatively recent US school-based fiction, though usually it's usually conveyed as a "Why do I have to do this?" chore. (Like having to attend mandatory Sex. Ed./PSE but without the giggly bits, or also the Drivers' Ed. without the individual joy/fear of at some point being put personally in control of a ton or so of metal.) Totally outside my own experience, so maybe I don't understand its purpose and (non-fictional) reality correctly. There'll surely be some who take to the lessons like teenage Leonidas, or at least a William Hague.
I do know that if you ask random people in the street if they're against sufferage, they tend to say yes. That probably is meaningful. ;)
Of course, making the attending of a Civics class a necessary qualification (to be part of the dēmos that by some means kratos) is a step on the way to having to Pass the class, and then its a few short steps onwards. But I could imagine arguments (and counter-arguments) to making Civic Qualifications necessary to even be ellegible for a selection in a Demarchy.
How about indeed further tying it to a Franchise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)) system? ;) If you cant trust One Man One Vote (especially it's the autocratic version where The Man is the Man) then One Man No Vote might solve it.
[1] "You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!"
<omnes>"We're all individuals!"</omnes>
<solo>"I'm not!"</solo>
Post by: feelotraveller on July 26, 2021, 11:07:37 am
I do know that if you ask random people in the street if they're against sufferage, they tend to say yes. That probably is meaningful. ;)
I'm imagine them looking at you weirdly, thinking, 'Another proponent of all ages suffering'.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on July 26, 2021, 01:05:13 pm
It wouldn't make people actually vote any better.
Post by: Starver on July 26, 2021, 04:24:05 pm
(I said I didn't know much about them, apart from their existence.)
Spoiler: Though a semi-personal anecdote... (click to show/hide)
If the class can properly teach how everyone can register to vote (or keep registered), like getting everyone on the ladder to obtaining a learner's licence (that's right?) in the case of Drivers' Ed, then surely that helps. I'd hope there's a good non-partisan mix of how the whole system works/tries-to-work, with "how to avoid disenfranchisement" information (whether or not disanfranchisement is partisan itself), but know well enough not to pin my hopes on any of that.
(Also, I don't think this is actually a controversial idea, except by the kinds of people who really like to disproportionately disenfranchise others. Sorry to get all boringly standard in this thread.)
Post by: LordBaal on July 26, 2021, 04:40:45 pm
Post by: Laterigrade on July 28, 2021, 04:26:53 am
Quick starver, add some abortion and some 5g vaccines theory in your post to make it controversial before you get thrown out of the thread!Maybe throw in something about gender, just to make sure.
Post by: dragdeler on August 14, 2021, 04:38:09 am
dutchy expat in east belgium: total buur, acts like he doesn't understand you when he doesn't want to comply, super entitled, will want to speak to your manager
I swear they are actively making me racist. Worst customers. Like that motherfucks who put plastic bags on the green waste (lawns and hedges and stuff), asks me "niet goed?" and once I cut them open and empty them needs to pretend he wanted to keep the bag because I didn't stroke his retarded karen ego. I will actively discriminate against any dutch accent that ventures in my hood from now on, this is a promise. Fucking white trash. They are not sending their best.
Post by: martinuzz on August 14, 2021, 10:23:25 am
They are not sending their best.This. I wanted to say "that behaviour is in no way representative for the average dutch person", but heh, we seem to have sadly bred a subculture of rowdy savages.
Not just white trash, it's morroccan trash, turkish trash and black carribean trash too, it's a subculture based on social demographic rather than race, and they are overrepresented amongst dutch tourists /expats in Europe, making us look bad indeed.
They randomly kill people in Spain (the victim happened to be dutch too), they destroy fountains and put people in hospital in Italy, and they are rude to you in Belgium.
(Laat ik het de "ik-doe-wat-ik-wil-schijt-aan-de-rest-cultuur noemen)
Post by: dragdeler on August 14, 2021, 11:54:51 am
Friend works at hotel, his boss also rents bungalos or something in that vein. Some bulgarian dutch rented for 5, showed up as 14, trashed the place and then made a scene when asked to pay, then gaslighted the owner "to chill down" when police was mentionned... In the end they had to block the parking with a bunch of cars to make sure they pay up.
But you were supposed to disagree according to thread etiquette bro ;)
Post by: feelotraveller on August 14, 2021, 12:16:18 pm
But you were supposed to disagree according to thread etiquette bro ;)
Yeah, I wanted to see blood. Or at least a quick ten day campaign or something.
Post by: Starver on August 14, 2021, 03:05:41 pm
A French speaker can get short-shrift for trying to speak French in the non-Francophone bit. The person can pretend not to understand. Until it's picked up that it's an actual French interlocutor, then they'll happily parler entirely fluently and pleasantly. (As a bad French speaker, it might be even better for me. Hopefully they'll switch to English. Ich ne hablo pas sua lingvon, guv!)
I have absolutely no idea about the rest of the issues. It sounds like yet another layer of culture.
Post by: Laterigrade on February 28, 2022, 10:47:37 pm
A necromantical unpopular take.
Post by: hector13 on February 28, 2022, 10:56:13 pm
I am assuming it is either a bog standard open-world action-RPG, or a soulsborne?
Post by: Laterigrade on March 01, 2022, 03:01:43 am
I’m just wondering why you’d want this extremely pricy new game and not play the previous, much-cheaper games, that are… the same thing. Have all the people buying it, despite reports of lag and poor performance, played the other souls games, or sekiro, all of which are cheaper and more available?
Not to say it’s a bad game, and to call it ‘exactly the same as other soulsborne games’ is surely wrong — just the hype and absolute spread of it over games forums or reddit seems unwarranted to me.
Post by: Loud Whispers on March 01, 2022, 04:57:56 am
Post by: MrRoboto75 on March 01, 2022, 09:03:15 am
Having not played it yet, I refuse to call Elden Ring a soulsborne game until it is confirmed that it contains a tragic fight with an old man
It at least has a poisonous swamp section.
Post by: None on March 01, 2022, 09:27:20 am
Not gonna lie, some of it feels more like the bog-standard medieval fantasy fare that Dark Souls is usually good about navigating around, and in the effort to fill the open world with shtuff, some of it just feels pointless (a column of zombies marching into the ocean? A bunch of scythe bearing dudes standing around a ring of small holes summoning a slightly larger zombie?), and the woefully small amount of direction the genre generally gives the player allows you to rather easily traipse past fundamental gameplay elements and be none the wiser for their existence. You turn left somewhere and you're getting two-banged by blue guys, and then you turn right and find a mine mini-dungeon where the boss at the end is.... a slightly larger mook that you already fought several of at the castle down the road. The crux of the open world is that the sense of pacing is totally lost on the player, I find.
The open world is the novelty, really. Whether or not it holds up against the other entries remains to be seen, but I'm enjoying it regardless. I'm also one of those weirdos whose favorite was Dark Souls 2, so my opinion may not be so valuable.
Post by: Laterigrade on March 01, 2022, 09:44:23 am
Post by: None on March 01, 2022, 10:09:03 am
It's no bait-and-switch and it's not woefully incomplete. I don't think anyone buying in will feel they've been cheated.
Post by: Magmacube_tr on March 01, 2022, 11:57:55 am
Post by: Iduno on March 01, 2022, 12:11:44 pm
Twitter sucks.
The new changes to make it harder to view without signing in made it somehow even worse.
Edit: definitely the wrong thread, though.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 01, 2022, 12:24:03 pm
It takes people who I'd normally roll my eyes at, encourages them to literally troll for replies, and it *works*. I remain very glad that my account got hacked by a spambot and banned before I could really engage. I could link my Google account, but I'm juuuust self-aware enough to realize that I'm better off not getting pulled in. I absolutely *love* getting in slap-fights online but Twitter feels like the crack cocaine version of that. It's impressive engineering and very frightening.
Occasionally I load Facebook to see something from my mom, and it's pretty similar. I know serious documentaries have been made on this topic, but it's still wild.
tldr; The largest social media platforms have become very good at raising engagement by helping people get angry at each other (which is literally addictive). Actual discourse is a casualty.
Post by: None on March 01, 2022, 02:09:25 pm
It's wild, wild brain poison.
Post by: Laterigrade on March 01, 2022, 06:16:42 pm
Twitter sucks.I think that’s actually a pretty popular opinion, nowadays.
Return to the forum, to the disconnected community-centred bubble!
Post by: martinuzz on March 01, 2022, 06:29:41 pm
Literary aside, I have read 'The Every' (by Dave Eggers) recently. Recommended read on this topic.
Post by: lemon10 on March 01, 2022, 10:20:17 pm
Do you think the hype is deserved, None?I think the hype about an open world Dark Souls is deserved.
I do not think that listening to the hype as someone that has never played Dark Souls is wise though, any more then hyping up the official DF release on steam as a normal human is.
In my opinion as a Dark Souls fanatic I think the game is great and 10/10 and love it. If you like the Dark Souls style at all (and your comp/console can play the game*) then I wholeheartedly recommend it. If you don't like the Dark Souls style or don't like sadistically hard games in general then maybe give it a pass.
Despite that the game has noticeable and obvious issues.
The fact that its easy to miss core mechanics and key stuff even 20 hours into the game, or how the world feels empty of people aside from enemies**, or even how its just "Dark Souls; but open world and using different words for everything".
* Which is its own problem due to the poor optimization and how computers that should be able to run it just fine might not be able to.
**I know its the world being empty and dead and hostile of human life is a key DS theme, but it still feels funky how all the factions unilaterally go to murder you the instant they see you even if they seem to be able to do shit without killing everyone in sight just fine.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 01, 2022, 10:28:17 pm
I guess I have a responsibility to put this somewhere after sharing my presumably controversial take (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=139883.msg8356419#msg8356419):
There is nothing wrong with selling DLC.
Overcharging for products is obviously... bad? I'm not even sure if even that is inherently malicious. Fooling people into overpaying is what's bad. So if a DLC model tricks people into overpaying for something, that is definitely bad! Likewise, "lootbox" gambling is predatory and bad.
However: Developing and releasing a DLC for a finished and fun game is not predatory. It's theoretically laudable, something we should encourage. Frankly a sequel often means an engine "update" which has higher requirements and edges people out. I like when a game I enjoy gets new content, and sometimes I'm willing to pay for that.
My perspective may partially come from running a 2015-ish video card in a frankenstein desktop for over a long time. Or the time I really wanted to play Thief 3 at any framerate but was unable due to "pixel shading". It also comes from enjoying cosmetic DLC in games I truly enjoy! Killing Floor 1 offers golden versions of various weapons, and I purchased a golden katana as a tip for all the good times. I haven't truly played KF1 in a while but I don't regret supporting the devs, because they kept adding stuff long after I bought the game.
I think that selling cosmetic DLC allowed them to do that. You know, under capitalism.
Post by: Egan_BW on March 01, 2022, 10:44:50 pm
Like I enjoy HuntShowDown and can appreciate that they need to sell things to people who already have the game to continue development and don't want to have any pay to win stuff in there so it's all cosmetics, but... all of their DLCs are that you can play as some guy who looks like a default character who has a special version of an existing gun which has maybe engravings or something? I think it's because of the game's art style, it's all very dark and grounded.
And of course there are "DLCs" which actually add stuff to do or expand a bunch of gameplay or are just littler games in their own right. Something like a mini campaign where you play as a different character from the main game or something is very welcome.
Now that's all assuming that I'm an adult who knows how to spend my money. Selling cosmetics or energy packs or whatever to kids is really scummy.
And obviously the ideal scenario for gaming is that capitalism mysteriously trips and falls into a gorge while on a hike and thus forth everybody gets to be supported while they make whatever kind of art they like. We would never see another assassin's creed game again!
Post by: hector13 on March 01, 2022, 10:50:04 pm
You are correct that DLC on its own is alright though. I’ve bought plenty of DLC because I’ve enjoyed a game and want more, and opted out of DLC because my experience of the base game was plenty.
Some things are a bit cheeky though, like on-disc DLC, or incremental additions that don’t necessarily add up to “content” as it were.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 01, 2022, 10:56:17 pm
Emotions are real, though. And I really appreciate that the core of my point isn't as controversial as I thought. Predatory microtransactions are still a huge problem, particularly as they target children.
Hell, I wasn't even thinking about mobile devices.
But DLC has a proud legacy. Even Descent 1 had an expansion pack, as they used to be called before downloading was so easy. That call-and-response between developer and player, releasing more content for a well-received game, has a special place in my heart. I argue it still exists today, but caveat emptor.
Post by: Egan_BW on March 01, 2022, 11:07:52 pm
But on the other hand on-disk DLC tends to be in the most useless and pointless category of palate-swap cosmetics, so I don't really care about them that much. And most game don't come on a disk these days either! ;p
Post by: Horizon on March 01, 2022, 11:43:55 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on March 01, 2022, 11:59:11 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on March 02, 2022, 12:07:02 am
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Horizon on March 02, 2022, 12:25:47 am
Capitalism good. :PCommunism good xDSpoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: MrRoboto75 on March 02, 2022, 12:45:05 am
Post by: Horizon on March 02, 2022, 12:45:58 am
ur mum goodur dad gud
Post by: Rolan7 on March 02, 2022, 12:56:15 am
Capitalism good. :PCancelled!!!Spoiler: Why would I, Rolan, even look at this (click to show/hide)
Post by: Egan_BW on March 02, 2022, 01:00:06 am
Capitalism good. :P
Communism good xD
b-but have you considered anarchism? :v
Post by: memzak on March 02, 2022, 01:06:43 am
No idea why this is still a controversial idea, but for some reason it seems to be one.
Post by: Laterigrade on March 02, 2022, 01:25:51 am
Cancellation cancelled!Capitalism good. :PCancelled!!!Spoiler: Why would I, Rolan, even look at this (click to show/hide)
Post by: Frumple on March 02, 2022, 08:52:25 am
Everybody be praising Elden Ring, nobody be talking about how the online play is basically non-functional.isn't that because that's the default state for souls games and nobody wants to admit it :V
Post by: EuchreJack on March 02, 2022, 12:20:06 pm
Capitalism good. :PCommunism good xD
b-but have you considered anarchism? :v
Free healthcare is good. Alternatively, if you are British: Free dental/optometrists is good.
No idea why this is still a controversial idea, but for some reason it seems to be one.
In an anarchist society, healthcare is indeed free, as it is not available. Take your Patriarchial Western/Eastern Statist Big Brother Medical Knowledge somewhere else!
Post by: Frumple on March 02, 2022, 12:39:32 pm
Post by: wierd on March 02, 2022, 12:47:26 pm
Enjoy your radium based health and wellness cremes, arsenic tonic water, and other amazing remedies!
Post by: Frumple on March 02, 2022, 01:06:11 pm
Post by: None on March 02, 2022, 01:23:47 pm
Everybody be praising Elden Ring, nobody be talking about how the online play is basically non-functional.isn't that because that's the default state for souls games and nobody wants to admit it :V
Oh, here's the unpopular idea- Dark Souls 2 was the best one. SOFTS is brilliant visually and performatively. (except for the ice DLC, forget that noise).
Not a lot of multiplayer going on in that one, and none at all if you want to dick around with any of its mods.
Post by: Horizon on March 02, 2022, 03:29:02 pm
Post by: None on March 02, 2022, 03:58:55 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on March 04, 2022, 11:32:53 am
The old gain power and lose openness to new ideas.
Eventually, life extension will turn the world into a sociological swamp. Putin proves that well enough.
We can't prolong human life forever, or we'll create The Imperium of Man from 40k lore.
Post by: hector13 on March 04, 2022, 03:05:35 pm
Eventually, life extension will turn the world into a sociological swamp. Putin proves that well enough.
These two sentences don’t seem to have any connection to one another.
Post by: EuchreJack on March 04, 2022, 05:15:59 pm
You forgot the most important sentence:Eventually, life extension will turn the world into a sociological swamp. Putin proves that well enough.
These two sentences don’t seem to have any connection to one another.
The old gain power and lose openness to new ideas.
The longer people live, the more Putins exist. Old people with old ideas and tons of power. I'm picking on the guy that is universally reviled: There are other, more controversial comparisons.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The point, of course, is that it will only get worse, not better. Imagine all those folks 25 years older in mindset but not in ability.
Post by: MrRoboto75 on March 04, 2022, 05:21:11 pm
Post by: hector13 on March 04, 2022, 06:41:18 pm
Old people in and of themselves aren’t the problem then, as you point out: lack of open-mindedness is. That can be taught, it just won’t be because it requires critical thinking, but critical thinking is a danger to people in power, who aren’t going to be adding it to the curriculum anytime soon.
Post by: LordBaal on March 04, 2022, 08:50:27 pm
Post by: Frumple on March 04, 2022, 09:00:44 pm
You can't predict the effects of a hypothetical future without aging based on the current state of things regarding aging, 'cause, y'know. The current state won't be there.
Post by: EuchreJack on March 05, 2022, 05:44:40 am
I mean… democracy is an old idea.
Old people in and of themselves aren’t the problem then, as you point out: lack of open-mindedness is. That can be taught, it just won’t be because it requires critical thinking, but critical thinking is a danger to people in power, who aren’t going to be adding it to the curriculum anytime soon.
Don't be bashing on democracy. Autocracy and communism are MORE effected by the old gaining power rule. Although Communism will purge its old once a generation, it's hardly enough.
Democracy is a horribly broken system, but its the best form of government because the Ruling Elite can be overthrown peacefully. All other forms of government required overthrowing the Ruling Elite violently.
Post by: hector13 on March 05, 2022, 09:01:43 am
The people who tend to be elected in democracies are old people, particularly for leadership positions, and there are usually only a handful of parties to choose from, that usually have well-established positions, so “overthrowing” a democratic government just means replacing one set of old people with old ideas with a slightly different set of old people with slightly different old ideas.
Post by: Iduno on March 05, 2022, 09:43:13 am
I’m not bashing on democracy, I’m exploring your points :p
The people who tend to be elected in democracies are old people, particularly for leadership positions, and there are usually only a handful of parties to choose from, that usually have well-established positions, so “overthrowing” a democratic government just means replacing one set of old people with old ideas with a slightly different set of old people with slightly different old ideas.
Yeah, it quickly becomes an oligarchy if parties are allowed, and if only 2 of them are viable, you end up with a duopoly, and all of the issues that brings.
Post by: Laterigrade on March 05, 2022, 10:13:42 am
I’m not bashing on democracy, I’m exploring your points :pI think the ideas get younger each time, though. I suppose that’s really the basis of all political fighting, the age of the ideas in question. Or it’s a nice-sounding simplification, at the least, haha.
The people who tend to be elected in democracies are old people, particularly for leadership positions, and there are usually only a handful of parties to choose from, that usually have well-established positions, so “overthrowing” a democratic government just means replacing one set of old people with old ideas with a slightly different set of old people with slightly different old ideas.
Post by: Egan_BW on March 05, 2022, 04:18:40 pm
I mean… democracy is an old idea.
Old people in and of themselves aren’t the problem then, as you point out: lack of open-mindedness is. That can be taught, it just won’t be because it requires critical thinking, but critical thinking is a danger to people in power, who aren’t going to be adding it to the curriculum anytime soon.
Don't be bashing on democracy. Autocracy and communism are MORE effected by the old gaining power rule. Although Communism will purge its old once a generation, it's hardly enough.
Democracy is a horribly broken system, but its the best form of government because the Ruling Elite can be overthrown peacefully. All other forms of government required overthrowing the Ruling Elite violently.
How does representative democracy uniquely allow that? After all, if the democratically elected ruling elite really wanted to, they could use the power they were democratically granted to, fully legally, replace the constitution and be rulers for life.
Post by: martinuzz on March 05, 2022, 04:37:49 pm
How does representative democracy uniquely allow that? After all, if the democratically elected ruling elite really wanted to, they could use the power they were democratically granted to, fully legally, replace the constitution and be rulers for life.Not nescessarily. Over here, a change to the Constitution needs to be approved by two consecutive parliaments and two consecutive senates.
Post by: EuchreJack on March 05, 2022, 04:51:52 pm
... it's amazing how Congress never fails in it's vote to raise the salary of Congressional Representatives...
Post by: hector13 on March 05, 2022, 05:13:26 pm
I mean it also involved Rick trying to get a presidential pardon by transmogrifying himself and Morty into turkeys and then the president transmogrifying into a turkey and then the turkeys taking over the America, but it was a good episode.
Post by: Laterigrade on March 07, 2022, 09:53:19 pm
Post by: EuchreJack on March 08, 2022, 11:28:56 pm
This thread seems to need a neverending stream of controversiality to keep chugging along.Sir, your comment is not controversial enough to fuel the thread.
I consider this failure on your part to be highly controversial.
Crisis adverted.
Post by: Autohummer on March 09, 2022, 02:27:02 am
Post by: Frumple on March 09, 2022, 10:15:42 am
Post by: Rolan7 on March 09, 2022, 10:29:42 am
Yeah though, Jedi police each other obsessively for hints of the dark side. I feel like it's implied that their fear of the dark side leaves them emotionally stunted and ironically vulnerable to "falling". "Oops I slipped up or did a bad thing for good reasons, guess I'm fully evil now. Wow emotions are fun actually, I'm never going back!" Unleashes a lifetime of weaponized resentment before burning out
Whereas rogue force users can have both strong emotions and the maturity to control them. Theoretically. A lot of them seem to go the edgy anti-hero direction, but that's probably due to being hunted by both Sith and Jedi (and being marketed to edgy teens).
Post by: EuchreJack on March 09, 2022, 12:17:59 pm
...so they're going to pick up the crazy from their teacher.
Post by: Frumple on March 09, 2022, 12:25:04 pm
Post by: Starver on March 09, 2022, 12:38:12 pm
Post by: Egan_BW on March 09, 2022, 01:22:44 pm
Post by: Rolan7 on March 09, 2022, 01:41:39 pm
Prominent 'latent' Force Users (escaped the tutilidge system, therefore drawn fully neither to the Dark nor Light Sides) include Han Solo and Jar Jar Binks.I honestly forgot that Jar Jar Binks's powers were never confirmed in canon, so I missed your joke and assumed that Han exhibited force powers in some EU story.
I sorta like Han Solo being a Badass Normal but it's a fine theory. Then there's the notion that everyone is at least loosely connected to the force, which I like, but that's a mess of a conversation :P
Post by: EuchreJack on March 09, 2022, 01:46:24 pm
Also, wasn't the pre-Clone War's Jedi track record of like 100 years since the last Jedi turned to the Dark Side? They seemed to be doing quite well until Political Animal Palpatine joined the Sith.
Post by: Starver on March 09, 2022, 02:15:20 pm
That he is hyper-competent and/or hyper-lucky in most things he does seems to be relevent. That he thinks he is an otherwise 'mundane' person is not proof-positive (see an example in another genre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xanth_characters#Bink)). Certainly an innate - if unconscious - link to the Force explains much of his story-arc. Navigation, piloting, combat(/escaping combat) and weapon-use, language skills (understanding/being understood), actually getting the hunk-of-junk Millenium Falcon to fly at all[1]. And happening to be in just the right place at the right time on more occasions than plausible, given the size of the galaxy.
As for Jar Jar: hyper-incompetent yet hyper-lucky to compensate. Possibly the unknowing balance-in-the-Force for the Jedi-heavy era, just as Han is a key rebalancer in a Jedi-light one.
Anyway, I was happy to posit this here, in the Unpopular/Controversial Ideas Thread, as a not entirely unknown idea with decades of back-catalogue to it (at least for Han). I was actually worried that it might be too acceptable to everyone, cheers for clearing that up. (I refrained from mentioning Chirrut, as he also clearly believed, whether or not he was also similarly plot-armoured.)
[1] Lando might be ok being just having had a history with it. Rey+Finn, either/both being Latent at the time in their own way, got the abandoned Falcon flying and in combat straight out of a junkyard...
Post by: martinuzz on March 09, 2022, 04:23:05 pm
Jedi's were taught to not have emotions by Spock.
Post by: LordBaal on March 09, 2022, 05:14:16 pm
Post by: Starver on March 09, 2022, 05:37:07 pm
Post by: martinuzz on March 09, 2022, 05:46:25 pm
You want controversy? Star Wars can kick Start Trek ass in ALL levels.Naaaaah, Star Wars is just another single episode Star Trek anomaly
Post by: Frumple on March 09, 2022, 06:43:15 pm
Realistically, if they somehow encountered each other, they probably wouldn't start fighting to begin with so it's a moot question :P
Post by: Laterigrade on March 09, 2022, 10:00:14 pm
You want controversy? Star Wars can kick Start Trek ass in ALL levels.For the sake of controversy, I’m going to assume you meant ‘as a franchise and entertainment medium’, and, for the sake of controversy, I am going to whole-heartedly agree. Come at me, Star Trek lovers. Bring it on.
Post by: Rolan7 on March 09, 2022, 10:15:08 pm
Sure, Star Wars is the only series to pull off a superior prequel story until Borderlands. And maybe it's more entertaining than some of Star Trek. But nothing in the Star Wars canon can compare to Star Trek Voyager.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: hector13 on March 09, 2022, 10:51:37 pm
In saying that, Neelix is one of my favourite characters.
Post by: Starver on March 10, 2022, 01:52:09 am
Paris is a properly insubordinate shit though.It's built into his character origin... First (non-space) scene of the first episode, IIRC, is that he's recruited straight out of detention for the latest low in a "promising but self-spoiled" career with first Starfleet then the Maquis.
Though his series-story was supposed to be one of redemption, he always was going to be impetuous. A different type from the non-Academy backgrounds of most of the rest of the melded-crew who came from the Maquis (often more individually disciplined because of less buffering against incompetence - never outright, rogues or they'd not be much use).
Quote
In saying that, Neelix is one of my favourite characters.He's helpfully saved from being the "pet alien" by him, in turn, bringing Kes on-board almost as soon as he is. (A situation that continues despite all the other potential simultaneous candidates, and Seven Of Nine adopted later on, etc, even with her 'comedy naïve' moments. They did a lot to her to make her overcome her basic short-lived nature, including making her immortal, but I think she remained the pet almost all the time until then.)
I suppose he took on the Guinan role, for me, when not acting as native-guide or spiv.
Post by: EuchreJack on March 10, 2022, 10:07:56 am
Is Doc McCoy from the original series the ancestor from the days when crew were limited in number by budget and biases (only the white guys got to give advice)?
Post by: Scoops Novel on December 13, 2022, 06:46:56 pm
Alright, fine!
Sure, Star Wars is the only series to pull off a superior prequel story until Borderlands. And maybe it's more entertaining than some of Star Trek. But nothing in the Star Wars canon can compare to Star Trek Voyager.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Andor... compares.
Post by: dragdeler on December 15, 2022, 02:16:41 pm
Here's is the based take on intellectual property: Publishing a work in progress without consent would amount to a severe breach of privacy, but my sweet summerchild, the nanosecond you publish something to the world it is not your's anymore, it belongs to our collective history and the conscience of anybody who got to perceive it. That's kinda the whole fucking point, rejoice in every impression, or don't and destroy them all, something will still persist. I get that people have to sustain their livelyhoods, but it's not like that doesn't apply to anybody who isn't an artist too, there is no law of nature that says people should be able to sustain themselves with the thing they prefer doing, or the thing they most excel at. There are things that could be done to amend such problems to give each their own, not everybody can hope to be drowning in success like toady, rightfully so I might add, but there simply isn't enough time in the century to give everybody their stagetime so to say, besides not everybody could manifest their genius in an obvious way given such an opportunity... So giving "their" legal arguments credibility (whomever "they" might be) is such a bad move, these people would lock the entire culture in cryogenic state only to extort a buck, the insane amount of control that gives them is just a free bonus on top, but the following chessmoves are little fucking more dystopic than not having access to all episodes of your favourite TV show.
I've had a few artistic endeavours on my own, and I accepted long ago that I am not owed anything, but rather that's it's an immense priviledge to be able to access those means of expression. The economy is fucked no doubt, but to me that is an allmost entirely separate issue.
I think people will get quite good at telling what's AI made and what's not, as AI progresses so will we, fads will come and go, and if it takes skill to stay ahead of the others, well there crumbles your whole merit based argument doesn't it?
Stuff will allways organize itself along a quality bell curve, it's not a question of merit, but a simple necessity of classification. The sum total of art increasing must allways be considered a win, but the real win here is more accessibility to means of expression. To argue against that most likely equals to overestimating your own importance in our cosmic voyage.
Post by: Rolan7 on December 15, 2022, 03:32:51 pm
I've long defended the value of intellectual property. I feel like there's a tendency in the left (the actual left) to want to decommoditize things, which is good in theory, but FOR NOW we have to live under capitalism. Creative work is still work.
Under an ideal economy it would be available to everyone, as it benefits everyone. Until then, can we stop pretending that pirating games is praxis
This episode of Trash Future gives a less drunk, more nuanced take on creative work. Focusing on journalism: https://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/e/john-henry-mnemonic-ai-week-part-1-ft-james-vincent/
Post by: McTraveller on December 15, 2022, 04:14:24 pm
There are many ways to compensate people for their creative acts that don't try to enforce scarcity where no physical scarcity exists. For example, musicians can get paid for concerts (which cannot be copied; sure a recording of a concert can be copied, but that's not the concert itself), or works can be commissioned.
And I say this as someone for whom a large part of their income is supported by intellectual property law.
Post by: dragdeler on December 15, 2022, 06:13:37 pm
On the one hand I'm sure there are enough of artists who consider normal people stuff beneath them (I'm not going to mention honest work barf, is there such a thing? an honest salary for honest work? even if there were some examples to cite just nevermind about honest work too idealistic of a notion...) no just normal stuff like leaving a place like you found it, or threating catering personal as humans. Even if they were shitting gold it's not up to others to pick it up behind them.
On the other hand if art needs to sell, and also if art can sell for a lot sometimes, there will be all kinds of personas and institutions stealing attention for questionable contributions.
There is no solution in here to small artists problems, I know that and I don't pretend to. It's just when I hear people going on like: "I spent this much on equip, I spent this many years learning, I quit my dayjob, I deserve blabla" empathy instantly leaves my body and I'm like "yup all these things you did for yourself, I wish you best luck but nobody owes you shit".
But honestly we didn't need to go as far as me being an asshole about piracy. I think with AI generated art the argument is extremly shallow that something would constitute a copyright infringment, even if images served as training, the output is by it's nature "transformative" as stipulated by fair use. Them acquiring your art for their database illegally would be reason for a raised finger at best, we only punish those who redistribute for financial gain. But let's be honest if they did just fine with the low res files freely available on your portfolio, that's though luck lol. I think the far better move would be to claim right to the AI since you helped train it, "well ok let me go tit for tat with the AI into infinity if that's so, you made mine yours, I'll make your's mine, we shall refine our styles ad infinitum", instead of "you owe me because I learned a thing nobody asked me to".
Oh obligatory, he posts so rarely there is chance if you know hbomberguy you still didn't notice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0twDETh6QaI
Post by: McTraveller on December 15, 2022, 08:01:34 pm
If you don't do work because you want or need the results of the work, and you don't do work because someone paid you to do it, but are merely hoping someone will pay you for it in the future... that's risky behavior.
Post by: lemon10 on December 15, 2022, 09:50:22 pm
Legal?Yeah, it seems quite likely that grabbing tens of millions of images to use as training data is legal as long as the images are publicly available.
I could def see the law changing and say, Disney and Getty Images working together to make it illegal to use anything copyrighted for training purposes unless ou own it.
It wouldn't help normal people at all of course, AI art would still be huge and all the normal artists get screwed over anyways and all that would change is the models would suck since they would only be able to use 1/1000th of the stuff out there and you would have to pay 15 bucks per month to disney to use their Mickey+ model.
---
I do feel a lot of sympathy for artists here, because studying for years only to get kicked in the balls by new technology really sucks.
That said, I feel their position of "AI ART IS CRIME AND ANYONE THAT USES IT IS EEEEVVVVVILLL" is kind of stupid.
---
I don't just feel sympathy for artists by the way; but everyone AI is going to replace, which is going to be a hell of a lot of people. Hell, I'm worried that it might be able to replace the entire concept of humans brains having any real value alltogether due to simply being better and/or being OOM cheaper then having a actual human doing something.
But my worry and sympathy doesn't really matter, AI isn't going anywhere and as long as there is profit potential in AI research it won't be stopped just because its a existential threat to the entire human race.
Post by: EuchreJack on December 15, 2022, 11:26:21 pm
And How Dare They deny us the Glory of Radium. It's Glow in the Dark properties were Well Worth the increased risk of Cancer in those nearby and certain death of those tasked with applying it.
Honestly? Any traction these arguments get is NOT because Poor Starving Artists are organized, influential, connected, or even...sane enough to have a salient point.
Hell No
These arguments get traction because Rich Fucks worry THEY will lose money, so they mobilize their Spin Doctors, Paid Politicians, and Pampered Professors.