FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3hr ago
A friend built his own MMORPG about twenty years ago; it's a very lo-fi thing, a real artifact of the year 2000, but it is in fact an RPG and it does in fact have massive multiplayer capability. He's recently started reworking it, using AI to assist in development, and I've been playtesting, suggesting improvements, and working on improving the art. It's a lot of fun, and the AI's contribution to the pace of development is staggering.
My other current project is trying to figure out Unity's Behavior system for setting up npc and enemy AI, with the goal of getting functional enemies into one of my old projects.
I don't recall whether you've laid out your political history in the past. Were you a blue, once upon a time? Did you have the experience of getting in a fight with other blues, and reaching for common ground and solidarity, only to have those appeals rejected out of hand because your refusal to get in line was considered proof that you were an ist or a phobe of some description? If you did, how did it incline you toward the people who treated you so?
Back in the day, before I made the decision to no longer have opinions on the subject, I lost count of the times I was called a nazi and an antisemite for arguing in favor of what appeared to me to be basic, foundational moral and legal values when it came to Israel's policies and the behavior of its agents. I stopped having those arguments, and indeed stopped consuming news about Israel or its various conflicts, because I realized I was becoming legitimately antisemitic through frustration and disgust with the behavior of my opposites and their coalition. And for what it's worth, with some years of remove, I can recognize that I bought into extremely foolish underdog narratives of the other side, and gave them a pass for their own crimes and atrocities because they were committed against the side I saw as more in the wrong. This was stupid, but it didn't spring from congenital hatred of Jews, it came from the observation of entrenched and fattened callousness and injustice. You might say I believed I was judging them by the content of their character.
Now, I no longer have an opinion on the subject. This statement is not a pose or a linguistic strategy; I do not want and will not allow myself to have an opinion, to root for a side. I have done my best to cauterize the portion of my brain previously dedicated to such concerns, and this is a policy I intend to maintain for the rest of my life. My conclusion is that the land is cursed, and people generally would be well-advised to live elsewhere.
That being said, as someone who has been through this from the opposite side and is watching the shifting sands of ideology, I think the sort of reflexive dismissal you and many others have deployed on this topic doesn't seem like it's working well long-term.
When considering the culture war as a whole, would you say that accusations of racism or sexism have generally been false?
And certainly there are a lot of American Jews who don't like Netanyahu or don't like various actions Israel has taken. There are very few who want Israel to cease to exist as a Jewish state.
Yes. This is my point. There are significant differences between "I don't like this" and "I think something should be done about this" and "I am willing to fight to see something done about this". With regard to the general Jewish population, negative attitudes toward Israel cluster around the first of these, and the last of these are very, very rare.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
It is impossible to have a Jewish, democratic state in the territory currently controlled by Israel because that territory contains more Palestinians than non-Haredi Jews, and without a genocide (real or technical) is likely to continue to do so.
This is the sort of answer I would expect, yes.
Absolutely, and inside-the-Green-Line Israel was (and still is, in so far as it can be conceived of separately from the West Bank settlements).
How did that particular chunk of land get to be supermajority Jewish? If we handwave how it was established, what policies are acceptable in keeping it supermajority Jewish? If they build a wall and refuse all non-jewish immigrants, is that an acceptable policy just for them, or should other states be permitted to act in a similar way?
My point is obvious, I think; progressive values and principles are flatly incompatible with the function and form of Israel as a state, this incompatibility is severe enough that it probably cannot be maintained in the long term, and that this fact presents a serious dilemma to western Jewish people who have heretofore been closely aligned with progressive politics.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
I wouldn't say the general Jewish population is as easy of a class to read here. Lots of individual Jews will have different opinions with different nuances. It might statistically skew one way or the other, but there will be important variance from one to another.
Lots of individuals having different opinions with different nuances is irrelevant, when the sum of those nuances skews heavily one way or the other. I'm reliably informed that ten Jewish people will hold eleven different positions on a topic, and yet our government consistently provides large-scale economic and military aid to Israel, provides Israel with powerful diplomatic cover, and even, in your assessment, fights wars on Israel's behalf, and it does not appear to me that the general jewish population is interested in seeing these policies change. It is evident to me that one of the strongest bulwarks against these policies changing has been accusations of antisemitism against those advocating such changes.
Antisemites is an easy class simply due to the category itself (when properly applied) inherently being people who would want the Jews to look bad and be hated.
From my perspective, the question is whether the category is properly applied, and what you intend to do if you find it is being misapplied. If you or your coalition could meaningfully police the application of the term to only those areas where it was appropriate, the problem could easily be solved. But the problem is that Antisemitism is, at its core, a term that the general jewish population owns, and to the extent that they in general disagree with you over where and when it should be applied, the sum of their opinions will be dispositive.
I disagree, even with the people who "support Israel as a state" lies a ton of different nuance. Heck, one of the most rabidly anti Israeli left wingers I know is an ethnic Jew himself. That's not very common, but this is the sort of thing I mean by not wanting to treat Jews as a "cohesive class".
In your view, what does the phrase "general [x] population" mean, and why do you use it if you believe that it can be overridden by anecdotal examples?
I often find that my ingroup contains infinite, fractal complexity when criticisms of its collective behavior are presented, so it seems we are as brothers in this matter. And yet, I also find that large-scale populations are capable of coordinated action in the pursuit of long-term goals. If I can engage productively with criticisms of Christians or Muslims, men or women, Blues or Reds, Boomers or "the kids today", it is not obvious to me why "the general jewish population" alone should be an amorphous enigma of which no concrete critique can be made, other than the observation that when such critiques are made, the person making them is inevitably labeled an antisemite.
And people can change their minds too so I'm not gonna write everyone off from their ethnicity. Hell even within Israel, some of the literal soldiers committing abuses have come to regret it.
I don't doubt that some of them have. I do doubt that the general jewish population is interested in bolstering that regret through actual policy consequences. I think many Israelis regretted their involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacres; I saw a movie they made about it once. And yet, I note that such regret did not result in legible justice toward those involved, and the commander who coordinated their involvement still got to be Prime Minister, and most of those who thought this was a bad thing did not, for example, think it was a bad enough thing to really do much about it.
It does not seem to me that these observations amount to "writing off people for their ethnicity"; no society is perfectly just, but some societies are trying for something I recognize as justice, and other societies are not. If you consider Israel an unjust society, what do you think should happen as a consequence? What do you think will happen as a consequence? What role do you expect the general Jewish population to play in the transition from ought to is?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
the "pistols" in question are essentially AKSU-style carbines with no stock installed. I'm given to understand they're fairly popular.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
The strategy of both Israel and the actual antisemites has been the same here, to link Israel and the general Jewish population as inherently linked.
You've got two classes here: Anti-semites and Israelis, and you note that both of them want to link Israel to the general jewish population.
The general jewish population is also a class, no? What do they want with regard to the connection of Israel and themselves?
Only one-third of American Jews say they identify as Zionist, even as nearly nine in 10 say they support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and Democratic state, according to a new survey conducted by Jewish Federations of North America.
Do you, personally, believe that Israel has a right to exist as "a Jewish and Democratic state"?
Do you, personally, believe that a state can in practical terms be both "Jewish" and "Democratic" in the commonly-understood definitions of those terms? That is, assuming the general positive-valence progressive understanding of "Democracy" as a social system, do you think "Democracy" is broadly compatible with an explicit ethno-state?
Overall, more than 70% of Jewish adults who responded to JFNA’s survey agreed that “I feel emotionally attached to Israel,” and 60% said Israel made them proud to be Jewish. At the same time, nearly 70% also agreed that “I sometimes find it hard to support actions taken by Israel or its government.”
What are the bounds of discourse? It's pretty clear how much criticism of Israel is acceptable to Israel (little to none) and how much is acceptable to antisemites (almost all to all). I think it's pretty clear that the general jewish population likewise has something like coherent bounds on the amount of criticism of Israel they consider acceptable; are those bounds closer to the Israeli limits or the antisemite limits?
You appear to want to limit this discussion to Israel and the Antisemites, since both of these are your outgroup. But the general jewish population is a cohesive social cluster, and one that is not, to put it delicately, a complete stranger to the organization and exercise of political power. My observation is that the general jewish population is strongly supportive of Israel as a state, as they have been for decades. Criticism of specific actions of Israel or its agents does not change this fact.
I used to be very strongly pro-Israel. I went very strongly anti-Israel when I went blue. Now I am committed to, as best as I am able, no longer having an opinion on the matter either way. If your strategy is otherwise, I wish you the best with dodging the antisemite label yourself, but do not expect your dodging to work. I do not think you or your coalition generally will be able to carve out a stable middle-ground where "antisemite" retains its negative valence and yet effective, consequential criticism builds toward an effective social consensus. I think a major reason this will not happen is because the general Jewish population does not want it to happen, and will organize against you to keep it from happening. When they start calling you a Nazi, know that to at least a minor extent, you have my sympathies, and my hope that the experience is educational for you.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
"chud is an acronym. It stands for cannibalistic humanoid underground dweller, from the name of a group of such monsters in a really old horror movie. Calling someone a Chud is calling them a subhuman monster."
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3d ago
Mostly revolvers like 38 specials or .32s, maybe the occasional .25 auto, but rarely a .45 or 9mm. Whereas now when my clients get caught with guns, 90% of the time it's a 9mm, with a .45 or .40 putting in an occasional appearance.
The crime wave in the 70s got the gun culture much more serious about self-defense, and that lead to a far more "scientific" approach to the question of acceptable handgun chamberings. The social consensus was that anything less than a 9mm was too little gun, and this had a marked impact on the self-defense market as a whole. Once the idea spread through the police force, I'd imagine criminals largely picked it up as well.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
I would say it's more that values that can be compromised will be, so it's tautology that values that can't be compromised are where compromise will break down.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11d ago
The EFF will leave the platform for others like TikTok, a choice it is careful to point out is not an "endorsement" because those walled gardens are still in desperate need of their attention. There is no mistaking the announcement for an emphatic Mission Accomplished which makes the non-endorsements more awkward. The message is also complicated by an attached blog post which offers almost entirely different reasoning. Take your pick of whichever reason for why they're leaving. I translate it as, "Celebrate, if you want, but don't worry if you don't want to celebrate."
What does "mission accomplished" mean in this context? Who would be wanting to celebrate and who would be wanting to not celebrate, in their (or your) view?
This whole thing sounds very confused.
I will second the recommendation to read the entirety of Achewood, whether introduced casually or not. It is a monument of a more civilized age.
"Your endeavors shall not want for the horrors of the canine body."
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11d ago
Noted.
I think your analysis and predictions are mistaken, but I really, really, really hope you are right and I am wrong. Time will tell.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
12d ago
Time Braid is a controversial Naruto fanfic that tends to have a fairly polarizing effect in the social justice era. no idea what KuroBaraHime is, googling indicates possibly some sort of e-girl?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
12d ago
If we have ships routinely paying tolls, and America does not resume bombing, will you score that as a loss for America?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
12d ago
Ok so you also didn't read a single thing said then, because the free press does not cite Letters from Leo. TFP was first. You got the basic timeline wrong, you do not even understand even the simplest elements of this story and yet try to dismiss everything about it. That doesn't suggest you're participating in good faith, if anything it makes me doubt if you even tried to read the Letters from Leo piece to begin with cause even in the pre paywall section he makes it clear that TFP was first.
Having gotten off work and gotten the kids to bed, I read this and was gearing up to snipe back, but decided to double check first. And you are entirely correct, the TFP article did come first, the LFL article mentions this in several places, all of which I was too busy looking for names of actual sources to actually take in. Likewise, the LFL article is claiming corroboration from its own sources; and for an additional bonus, I see now that I have not even now read all the LFL article, since an unknown portion of it is also behind a pseudo-paywall.
There's much more I'd like to say, but it seems to me that the best move would be to note that my own priors have shifted significantly toward the report being basically accurate, and apologize for polluting the discussion with basic factual errors. I will attempt to be more careful when posting in the future.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
12d ago
It was addressed to someone other than you, but I tagged you in it since I was discussing your previous post.
Actually, it is The Free Press and LettersFromLeo that are making such assertions.
You wrote:
It turns out Greenland/Denmark and Canada aren't the only friendly countries that the US has been threatening, the Vatican's ambassador to the US (according to The Free Press and Letters from Leo a Catholic focused blog) was given both explicit and coded threats of military force against the Holy See.
That reads to me like a person making a factual claim, and presenting evidence to back up their claim. The problem is that the evidence you've presented is "someone somewhere said it", and that you appear to be trying to frame the discussion as though you have no actual position to defend in it. The latter bit, in particular, I am very sure should not be tolerated here.
Bari Weiss is a pretty reliable centrist who is friendly to the Trump admin in many areas. I doubt she would be letting through blatant lies on her main journalism site right?
Bari Weiss is a journalist. Why would I conclude that she would not print blatant lies on her main journalism site? That is something that Journalists have been frequently doing since the invention of the profession. Further, whatever additional status Bari Weiss has for herself is attenuated by the fact that she did not write this piece, and I would be most surprised if she edited it in any meaningful way. Some guy I've never heard of wrote it, and Weiss's site published it.
I have just attempted to read the piece, but it is behind a paywall. Does the free press piece cite any sources other than the Letters from Leo blog? Has the Vatican confirmed the Blog's account? If not, my prior would be that this rumor was posted by the blogger, the Free Press journalist repeated it in his article with no further verification, and it proliferated from there through the rest of the press ecosystem. In which case, your attribution would be incorrect: if the Free Press got it entirely from LettersFromLeo, then it is just from LettersFromLeo, not from both them and the Free Press. Further, this exact method of laundering baseless allegations is the entire basis for the "journalists very rarely lie" meme.
Else Bari Weiss and her staff are risking all the good will they've built up for a relatively minor story in the grand scheme of things.
Show me an instance of a press outfit losing "all the goodwill they've built up" due to repeating someone else's lie uncritically. If this event turns out to not have happened, people such as yourself will simply say "well, they never said it happened, they only reported that someone else said it happened, which was entirely true!" I know this, because this is exactly what people like yourself have done in the many, many, many previous incidents where journalists were caught blatantly lying. Your apparent reluctance to stake a position for yourself on the claim's truth or falsity telegraphs the maneuver.
By making it "your assertions" like above, you hinge the entire credibility on me, an internet stranger. And not the established journalists who broke the story.
You, an internet stranger, have considerably more credibility than an "established journalist", in that I do not know for a fact that you earn your paycheck through professional dishonesty. Further, I can have a discussion with you about the facts of a matter, and I cannot do this with most journalists. Further, I can maintain a running tally of previous conversations with a person like you, which I generally cannot do with most journalists. You are part of the reputation economy here; you stand to lose much more from this being a lie than the journalist in question does. That makes direct conversation with you a much better filter than consuming journo-slop directly.
Sure but if they can't be bothered to even read what is there (like they missed a collective five references to the original story being from TFP)
In what sense does "the original story" belong to The Free Press? Did they investigate and present corroborating evidence? ...Have you yourself actually read TFP's article, or did you read one of the hundreds of free articles repeating the story uncritically, and attributing it to "The Free Press and Letters From Leo"? If you yourself aren't actually clear on where the "original story" actually came from, aren't @omw_68's questions warranted?
In any case, I would say that the point is to discuss what we believe and why. Hence my previous questions, and I think they're pretty good ones given your responses so far.
There has to be some sort of baseline before meaningful discussion occurs. I think "read the words that are on your screen and in the link" is the bare minimum.
There does indeed need to be some sort of baseline. One part of that baseline is to speak plainly, and a major part of that is to take an actual, personal position in the matters you discuss. Likewise, from the introduction at the top of the thread:
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win.
I aim to understand what you think and why. Digging in to how you evaluate evidence on an issue is part of that. On the other hand, neither your OP here nor your subsequent replies nor your previous participation here that I've noted indicates to me that you have a good grasp on what the point of this place is. Certainly it does not seem like you make a habit of arguing to understand, which is a shame.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
13d ago
What's the point of a discussion if "I won't read" is the starting point?
You appear to be making assertions of fact. People ask you for your evidence behind these assertions. You say that they can look for evidence if they want to:
Perhaps Ferraresi and the rest of the TFP team have shared more details elsewhere, but I'll leave that to you to scour their social media if you want to know.
and they decline:
I've had enough experience with TDS that I'm not going to bother. The chances that it will lead to anything other than vague "sources" are just too low.
They do not appear to be declining to read. You do appear to be declining to back up your assertion beyond "these people said a thing".
These people did indeed say a thing. Do you believe them? If so, why? That is a discussion. If you believe you have good reasons to believe them, or other people have poor reasons to not believe them, than taking a position and explaining your reasoning behind it produces good discussion. Even if someone else is dismissive of your reasoning, making a solid argument is persuasive to onlookers, and this forum exists precisely to facilitate that sort of discussion.
I've asked you whether you personally believe this report, and if so, why. Do you think that question is a good basis for discussion? if not, why not?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
13d ago
Do you, personally, believe the event in question happened? What evidence leads you to your conclusion? Is your assessment of that evidence derived from general principles, or is this a case of any stick being sufficient to beat a dog?
Which alleged event do you think has a stronger evidentiary basis: Trump's underlings threatening the Vatican, or Biden raping Tara Reade?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14d ago
If America stops bombing Iran, and then six or even three months from now announces that we need to start bombing Iran again because otherwise they'll get a nuke, does your confident prediction commit you to arguing that they're lying and no bombing is necessary?
I care a lot about the idea of a "confident prediction". I would really, really like all of your predictions to be correct. But what is, is.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
15d ago
It is true that Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones have large audiences, and that most of these audiences are Red Tribe.
It is also true that they are opposed to the war with Iran, and yet we are having a war with Iran, and at least to date that war is overwhelmingly popular with Red Tribe.
I do not see how it is possible to claim that Red Tribe is both taking Owens, Carlson, and Jones' arguments as authoritative, and also overwhelmingly supporting a way they vehemently oppose.
So let us speak plainly here: is it your argument that Red Tribe should be taking Owens, Carlson, and Jones' arguments as authoritative? If so, why do you, yourself, personally, think that would be a good idea?
Bonus Question: One of your more notable posts, in my opinion, was your extensive arguments that Red Tribe is increasingly converging on anti-semitism of the Fuentes/groyper variety. I believe I've previously noted that I consider this one of the worst arguments I've seen on this forum in quite some time, but have not yet had the time for engaging with the substance of your arguments in detail (or indeed with most other arguments, sadly.) Still, pursuant to such engagement, could you elaborate on your personal understanding of the nexus between Israeli government influence and Trump's decision to go to war with Iran?
I think they correctly assessed that the various white supremacist orgs posed little to no actual threat, but that their activity directly benefited SPLC through driving donations and strengthened political advocacy for the policies SPLC preferred.
More options
Context Copy link