YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
3d ago
It's been awhile since I saw the show, but it really jumped the shark. The Spader character wasn't actually Raymond Reddington, I forget who, but was somehow related. The real Reddington was someone else, and then someone else from that. It was a series of fake faces. I don't remember the woman part, but the show got bad, so I buy it.
YoungAchamian
3d ago
Where does he fall on the spectrum, I imagine there are different camps of thought?
This might be a little culture war-oriented, but I know we have some dissident right folks on here. I'm trying to learn/understand their viewpoint more. Does anyone have a list of blogs, twitter, (insert medium of distribution) of folks that I could read to get a handle on the beliefs/narratives/ideology.
I know of Yarvin, but he's the only one I consistently remember. The others are I partially remember but am unclear on are McIntyre(?) Fuentes, BAP(?) Sargon of Akkad, Kulak(?? is he DR?). There was a bunch of internal drama posts here awhile back on this area that I might try and dig up.
EDIT: Thank you all this will keep me nice and occupied for awhile with some reading.
Is he being forced to reply? There's this weird behavior some people do where they can't keep their shit to themselves. Some general thread of the topic, some tribal consensus building, and because you disagree, you NEED to respond. Damn the consequences! The TRUTH is the most important thing. Never-mind its truth as you see, it without room for how others do. It's very annoying, self-centered behavior that makes me want to cuff these people like their parents should have.
In your example your reply of God Does Not Exist was in reply to a thread about what workplace activities we could do to advance muslim goals then that is very different from saying it in the middle of a budget meeting.
Are they talking to you? Or are you butting in? There's a bunch of unknowns in this case that make it unclear what the context was. If this was attempting to use funding from his department/group, then he has lee-way to intercede. But if a general google forum for their workplace is having this discussion, then he's engaging in asocial behavior trying to butt in and swing his dick around, being a "Debate Me Bro" at work.
If people who bring up politics at work should be fired then it is the liberals of Google who should be on the block, not him, since they are the ones who brought it up.
Your terms are absolutely acceptable. I want near zero tolerance for this shit. It's annoying unprofessional behavior.
YoungAchamian
4d ago
He said "gender doesn't exist and god doesn't put people in the bodies of the wrong sex" I wouldn't call that going against trans activism. I'd call that believing that trans people don't exist and anyone claiming so shouldn't be given any special considerations, polite or otherwise.
If I said "god doesn't exist" and want anyone making theological arguments to be denied special considerations for their beliefs, you wouldn't call me "being against christian/jewish/muslim/etc activism"
This is a classic: don't bring up politics at work, end of story. People who do should be fired.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
Curious, my understanding is it felt very much like side act, you just go do some optional quests but very little impact on the story. If you think it's worth it maybe I'll check it out on my next run. Can you convert Solomorne to not dogmatic?
YoungAchamian
6d ago
I enjoy it but yes there is quite the learning curve to push past. I'm not even truly degenerate about builds yet and I try to stay away from reading build guides as it sucks the fun out of it for me. The story is good, its fairly responsive to your choices. The romances feel great, the core set of characters have good arcs and potential. You can push your followers towards Chaos/dogmatic/humanism in ways that make sense. Overall it's a very enjoyable game.
Void shadows is a must. It seamlessly integrates with the core story very well. Technically the core story left side missions with references/hints prior to its release which makes it feel like it fleshed those out and made them immersive. The classes it adds are unfortunately very OP and very fun. 1.5v was a balance patch that mostly just hit them.
The gameplay tips if you are starting out is to abuse office mechanics via Cassia, you get extra turns on your heavy hitters allowing to scale up the needed buffs to be monsters. Late game they generally start fights with the buffs so its less relevant, but at low levels the power fantasy hasn't taken off yet.
Oh DOS2, I have fond memories but yeah very much same feeling. I always hated how you pretty much had to spec your party towards one armor type strip or bust. I remember using the hell out of mods to try and fix it, make combat more interesting to some success but it was just a lot. I haven't tried modding Rogue Trader yet.
RPGs have always suffered from that tension. Real humans have a nasty habit of dying horribly when they take one bolter round to the face.
Funny enough this still happens with high level parties in Rogue Trader, which is part of the combat problem(on unfair). If you aren't alpha striking the enemy they are alpha striking you. I'm not sure what a satisfying system looks like. Thinking back idk if I've run into an rpg system that does it well.
EDIT: on further thought, its the power fantasy that probably causes the combat problem.
YoungAchamian
6d ago
I've become really addicted to my 3rd play through of Owlcat's Rogue Trader CRPG, staying up until 2am on work nights to play it. I'm doing this run as dogmatic priest and am very much enjoying the RP. I just wish the game had a more creative difficulty setting. I play on unfair and don't use an officer(gives lots of extra turns) and combat still only lasts 1-2 rounds. Meaning most builds are just about pumping for 1-2 turns of play knowing that any downsides from consumables/items/abilities will unlikely to affect the combat. The recent 1.5v update added some new talents for less common play styles and I love them.
I haven't gotten the new Arbites DLC but i hear its not very good, unlike the Void Shadows one which is excellent.
YoungAchamian
7d ago
I think the implication is that they arrive and marry Muslim men, have Muslim kids and engage in demographic replacement of the native western population.
A real monkey's paw.
natural-law conservatism
The initial section lauding natural-law as a fundamental building block of an ideal society was great. But then it immediately tried to smuggle the assertion that natural law can be revealed through theological text rather than discovered through interaction with reality. This is a bad trick attempting to smuggle credibility from natural-law into religion. It smuggles an ontological claim “there are objective structures of human flourishing” into a doctrinal one “those structures are what our religion already says”. It's sophistic.
If this passes for a serious intellectual political system then its a bad joke. Worse its a bad joke that was already tried and was specifically repudiated during the Enlightenment because it did not work. This is right version of the Marxists: "No true natural-law conservatism has ever been tried". The tragedy is that Conservatives could do that using the Enlightenment version of natural law, but that version requires trusting human reason more than faith, and modern religious conservatives of this variety are pathologically incapable of accepting classical liberalism.
EDIT: Not attributing any of this to you. Reading that article left me with a very strong opinion/urge to object.
YoungAchamian
29d ago
Now, now don’t get your horses in a bunch.
YoungAchamian
29d ago
It's water under the bus.
YoungAchamian
30d ago
thinking that they're going to get game theory to do their work for them. I've noted before that most of these attempts misunderstand the basics of game theory, and you can see by their actions that the Wokists actually understand some elements of game theory better than their opposing sect.
Can you explain this claim a bit more. It is not self evident to me what specific basics the anti-woke atheists are missing nor what elements the Wokies get better.
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
Are there not large continents of mainstream democrats calling for a conversation and a step back?
If you are expecting some sort of capitulation, i think you have a far worse model of human political behavior than is reality.
Also hot take, but i’d say that politicians have a pretty rocky relationship with what the average person wants. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. And activists are nothing if not squeaky with an incentive to play up how large of a congregation they purport to speak for.
I forgot where it states this forum was an explicitly political forum.
Or where screaming, insane people on twitter constitute the “mainstream”.
Putting lots of mental energy into politics is blatantly unhealthy behavior and a sign of an overly neurotic personality. Especially when you do it predominantly online.
Politics is the mind killer
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
Look, the most you'll get out of me in terms of concessions is that there probably was a decent chunk of people who just kept quiet, and the reason they kept quiet is that they were privately horrified by what happened, but didn't want to be seen attacking their own side, or risk being attacked by them.
More like most of us don't have political brainrot. We don't post on social media. We touch grass, talk to our friends, coworkers, and communities and otherwise live out our lives not terminally online. Your algorithm isn't going to push our content because there isn't any. This is the only social media I use and it barely counts. Everyone I know from my far left friends to my right wing friends all found it horrifying. We all agreed its very bad, I have yet to know one person that was not terminally online already cheering for Kirk's murder.
Wasn't it Scott that said 90% of posts online are from insane people?
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
I feel like this must be wrong, archaeologically speaking, but my history is terrible and I can't counter you with a good example.
I agree and here's a good example. Prior to 1066, (it started to get better after) Norman male nobles were basically illiterate. Reading was unessential to their role in society and was confined to administrators and clergy. Much like Alethi society, Norman noble's role was primarily martial; hunting, fighting, and warfare. Norman women were expected to manage the estate and were consequently more literate. This is in contrast to Anglo-Saxon nobles who had a much high expectation and tradition of literacy. History clearly demonstrates who won that "fitness" contest. Literacy doesn't affect fitness in a highly martial medieval warrior society.
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
FIRE is full of classical liberals. They are the political tribe that cares about freedom of speech as a principle. These days being a classical liberal means you caucus with the right. I think the last couple weeks have been eye opening to CLs(it was to me) that many right-wingers aren't really into freedom of speech either. They were/are just mad they were the bootee instead of being the booter
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
This is the post Christian world that the postmodernists wanted
Yes because Christians were famously tolerant of their enemies. Human's have hated their enemies since we had enemies to hate. The thin veneer of civilizing flavor has never been much of an impediment.
This would be a good example of political hypocrisy, thinking that one's side is near blameless and is full of virtue and the other side is daft villains and rapscallions.
YoungAchamian
1mo ago
Not really, its the bias about how people think people are. I exist in a blue bubble surrounded by red. I have met many men and women who have conservative parents and are now progs, and your biased heuristic is pretty inaccurate.
This is hypo-agency for women and hyper-agency for men.
YoungAchamian
2mo ago
This is literally the same logic as the libertarian "taxation is theft" argument
I guess I see that. I am libertarian-adjacent... I've spent time arguing that argument and I think the devil is in the details. They tend to smuggle a bunch of assumptions into the "is theft argument" even if the core of the argument is the same as mine. Assumptions about the role of government and the necessity of funding it. The President has no clothes argument is meant to convey that the law can be without real governmental purpose unlike most taxes.
I see what you are saying about the noncentral fallacy argument. You are right it does apply. I also understand how it can be abused. However I feel that leaves me at an impasse. To me this argument is not prescriptive, but descriptive. I would love for someone to prove to me this is not how the government functions, it's not now how societies function. Calling this the noncentral fallacy (even if the shoe fits) is essentially trying to ignore the actual meat of the argument to argue over the colloquial definition of violence. "The logic is sound but you can't call it violence because people don't want to think about it like that", feels like an appeal to lemmings and ostriches. Idk how to craft the verbiage to get around that counterpoint. And so it feels like the attribution to a fallacy is akin to attempting to silence the argument. The noncentral fallacy is in of itself a rhetorical trick.
With the qualification that it's not absolving the perpetrator of blame or evil spirit. I suppose I can accept that the words themselves are not directly violence from a definitional standpoint. But from a functional standpoint I think someone acting with "evil" intentions towards you, and using words as a medium for those actions merits a response that might heuristically map towards words->violence.
YoungAchamian
2mo ago
I mean the concept might be foreign to you but you just invoked it. The "Should" is saying you expect me to feel sympathetic. It is prescriptive. You believe I owe sympathy in this situation. You insist that if I don’t sympathize, that reveals a deficiency in me. That means you are treating sympathy as an obligation, just in moral rather than transactional terms. My emotional framework is different than yours, you and I feel sympathy for different things and different causes but you want me to work in your emotional framework, rather than accept my own. It's no different than what my lefty friends do, I reject it here as much as I reject it there.
Thank you!
More options
Context Copy link