omfalos
Nonexistent good post history.
User ID: 222
The term right wing refers to the seating arrangement within a legislature. Creating a corporation whose board members are appointed by the right half of a legislature is the quintessential example of right wing patronage. This is a pedantic point to make, but I couldn't resist. I know what you really mean.
I have an idea for a way to secure government funding for right wing art patronage. Most governments have broadcasting corporations like the BBC, CBC and ABC. The USA has one called the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The CPB is governed by a nine-member board of directors. Board members are selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
My idea is to split the CPB into two corporations called PBC1 and PBC2 which will be controlled by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party respectively. The boards of directors will be selected by the party leaders in the House of Representatives and confirmed by their party caucuses. Annual funding of PBC1 and PBC2 will be proportional to the number of seats held by each party in the House of Representatives.
omfalos
1yr ago
A purely technological ecosystem sounds cool. It's a shame there won't be any conscious beings to experience it.
omfalos
1yr ago
Politicians should follow election platforms blindly without regard to changing circumstances like enchanted broomsticks from "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" until an election gives them the opportunity to adopt a new platform.
omfalos
1yr ago
The reason why OP's post is objectionable is because OP is doing a thing. He wants to post a quote about how Jews owned a large percentage of property in Slovakia. He considers the high percentage to be noteworthy and wants to share it with The Motte, and yet, he disguises his reason for sharing the quote by pretending to refute it. He pretends to make an argument that the large percentage is not noteworthy, while expecting the reader to reject his pretend argument and conclude that it is indeed noteworthy.
OP wants to make posts that speak truth to Jewish power but feigns to believe that the moderation team of The Motte will silence him if he does so in an open and forthright manner. He adopts the guise of an antisemitism skeptic who tries to refute hate facts and fails. I think as well that OP expects his disguise to be recognized. Which means his true intention is not even to deceive but simply to express resentment that his posts speaking truth to Jewish power are unwelcome on The Motte.
omfalos
1yr ago
I wouldn't even think that 100% "Jewish" ownership meant that that "Jews" controlled the economy
This reads like something a fashy person would say through a sock puppet account that pretends to oppose antisemitism while making self-defeating arguments.
Also, how is it that your reply was made ten hours ago, but I am only able to see it now?
omfalos
1yr ago
I think this racist is better than the last, but the next racist will be the really good one. That will be our lucky racist. He will grant us three wishes.
omfalos
1yr ago
This is a troll post where you pretend to make an argument that 38% property ownership is not high enough to justify discrimination against Jews, while intending for the reader to ignore your argument and just react to the 38% figure as being too high.
omfalos
1yr ago
Try searching for "Misleading Liberal Democrat Bar Graphs" and you'll find a bunch of examples. It's become an internet meme.
omfalos
1yr ago
Harry Nilsson had this relationship with John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/harry-nilsson-didnt-enjoy-praise-from-the-beatles/
omfalos
1yr ago
Spitting is represented onomatopoetically by the word patooey. The letters p and t accurately represent they way the lips and tongue are formed when spitting. First, the lips are pursed to make a p sound. Second, the tongue is pressed against the teeth to make a t sound. Pushing the tongue forward should also push saliva or toothpaste forward so that it collects behind the lips. Third, the diaphragm contracts to builds air pressure behind the tongue. Fourth, the tongue and lips open simultaneous to allow air to pass through. This amounts to making the p and t sounds simultaneously. Try telling your kid to, "go patooey!" I believe teaching her the word patooey may actually teach her to spit.
omfalos
1yr ago
I've also realized that the DRY principle is a great thing for writing code but terrible for conversation. If you only say what needs to be said, then you come off as "dry". I suppose 1 more reason added to the "conversation isn't about exchanging ideas or information" bin.
When engaged in pleasantries, I have tried to make it a habit to always say two things. For example:
"Hello."
Wait for response.
"Nice to see you again."
"Goodbye."
Wait for response.
"See you around."
"Thank you."
Wait for response.
"Have a nice day."
I know this sounds incredibly autistic, but I used to just say one thing, without following it up by saying a second thing. I've only recently made it a habit to queue up multiple pleasantries in my head so I can rattle them off in sequence.
I just finished Disco Elysium. The ending came sooner than I was expecting. Solving the murder by interviewing a lone gunman feels a little anticlimactic. I was expecting another epic showdown after the mercenary tribunal. That's not to say a second showdown would have improved the story. It's just what I was expecting. I believe the storywriters made solving the murder anticlimactic on purpose, because by that point the player has learned there are other things transpiring in the world more important than the murder.
All I think the game needs is an epilogue in the form of video clips that play while the credits are rolling. It would be nice to see a short video epilogue for each character. What I would want to see most is a series of clips with the harbor gate opening, the strike coming to a resolution, and the vehicles parked in the roundabout driving away. Come to think of it, much of this could be done by fans using the Collage Mode included with the game, though unfortunately, there is no way to open the harbor gate or remove the parked vehicles in Collage Mode.
Tagging: @ArjinFerman @Aransentin @TheDag @Lazuli @sansampersamp
omfalos
1yr ago
The way that ripples spread in ponds supports your conclusion. The topography of watersheds is somewhat analogous as well. The way that prisms refract light makes me think of immigration, too. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of your point is snail shells.
However, one could just as easily argue the opposite point by making reference to the waxing and waning of the moon, the patterning of warts on toads, the Nitrogen cycle, bees, cracked glass, or the formation of snowflakes.
omfalos
1yr ago
I just had a dream about watching a movie called "French Bleu". At a certain point, there was a fantastical CGI sequence in the movie. It was very detailed for a dream, but I remember thinking to myself, "Oh great, now AI generated animation is showing up in movies. I bet this took five minutes to generate you hacks!"
omfalos
1yr ago
I looked up a photo of Luis Rubiales to see how ugly he is. Your definition of ugly must include 90% of men if it includes Rubiales.
omfalos
1yr ago
I was going to see the movie in theaters, but after hearing Richard Hanania denounce the film as feminist propaganda, I watched the camrip instead. I regret watching the camrip. I would have enjoyed seeing it in theaters much better. It is not feminist propaganda to the extent Hanania makes it out to be. The filmmakers leave their movie open to interpretation and don't force any specific interpretation on the audience.
omfalos
1yr ago
I've had dreams about trying to look up information on a smartphone. It's frustrating because I can't look up anything in a dream that I don't already know.
omfalos
1yr ago
I figured that is where you where asking for, but you where not asking very clearly. Here is an example of an American founding father speaking on the subject of race and ethnicity.
https://reimaginingmigration.org/benjamin-franklin-and-german-immigrants-in-colonial-america/
Commenting on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Coronation Sermon
Nobody has made a post about the coronation yet. There weren't any major culture war incidents. It went off without a hitch in other words. I'm reaching to find something to talk about. Here is my reaction to the sermon given by the archbishop of Canterbury during the ceremony. The sermon states the ceremonial role of the British monarch in plain terms and tries its best to skirt around the fact that the king has no power. He likens Charles III to Jesus. Here is the full sermon:
https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2023/05/06/archbishop-of-canterburys-coronation-sermon/
We are here to crown a King, and we crown a King to serve.
What is given today is for the gain of all. For Jesus Christ announced a Kingdom in which the poor and oppressed are freed from chains of injustice. The blind see. The bruised and broken-hearted are healed.
That Kingdom sets the aims of all righteous government, all authority. And the Kingdom also sets the means of all government and authority. Jesus doesn’t grasp power or hold onto status.
The King of Kings, Jesus Christ, was anointed not to be served, but to serve. He creates the unchangeable law that with the privilege of power comes the duty to serve.
Service is love in action. We see active love in our care for the most vulnerable, the way we nurture and encourage the young, in the conservation of the natural world. We have seen those priorities in the life of duty lived by our King.
Today we have the honour of being in this Abbey with so many who show such love; you work with charities and organisations, you build community, you serve the nation in Armed Forces, in emergency services, and so many other ways. Next door are 400 extraordinary young people in St Margaret’s, whose lives speak of service. Around the world in the Realms and Commonwealth are so many more. You live your lives for the sake of others.
The unity you show, the example you give, is what binds us together and offers societies that are strong, joyful, happy and glorious. They bear heavy weights for us.
The weight of the task given you today, Your Majesties, is only bearable by the Spirit of God, who gives us the strength to give our lives to others. With the anointing of the Holy Spirit, the King is given freely what no ruler can ever attain through will, or politics, or war, or tyranny: the Holy Spirit draws us to love in action.
This is promised by Jesus who put aside all privilege, because, as the first reading tells us, God will give all things for our sake, even His life.
His throne was a Cross. His crown was made of thorns. His regalia were the wounds that pierced his body.
Each of us is called by God to serve. Whatever that looks like in our own lives, each of us can choose God’s way today.
We can say to the King of Kings, God Himself, as does the King here today, ‘give grace that in thy service I may find perfect freedom’.
In that prayer there is promise beyond measure, joy beyond dreams, hope that endures. By that prayer, for every King, every ruler, and, yes, for all of us, we are opened to the transforming love of God.
The archbishop likens Charles III to Jesus, not by elevating Charles to the level of a god, but by bringing down Jesus to the level of a man. Christians believe that Jesus was both a man and a God. The fact that he was and is an omnipotent deity is essential to Christian theology. But having the limitations of a man is what makes the telling of Jesus' life in the Gospels a compelling story. The archbishop's sermon depicts Jesus as a very talented preacher who relies on the power of persuasion to save souls. This aspect of the Gospel story most closely resembles Charles III's role as archon basileus of a parliamentary democracy. But unlike the British monarch, Jesus had real power to back up his preaching.
The sermon oversells what Charles III can accomplish with mere persuasion. It states with confidence that "showing unity" and "giving a good example" are sufficient to "bind us together", to "offer a society that is strong, joyful, etc." and to "bear heavy weights". By speaking of the ceremonial role of the British monarch as sufficient to accomplish the duties of kingship, the archbishop leaves no consideration for what happens if persuasion fails to produce the advertised results.
I was raised Christian but became an atheist a long time ago. When I think back on Christianity, there are certain concepts that that strike me as peculiar. One of these is the concept that a one's salvation may hinge on a chance encounter with another person whose intervention changes one's life for the better. It strikes me as chaotic, random and therefore unfair. My naïve understanding of Christianity when I was a Christian was influenced by growing up in an individualistic culture and a school system organized along individualistic lines. Every person was tested by God individually, I imagined. Sharing notes or copying answers from other test takers was not part of the test. I believed my choices in life would just determine whether or not my soul was saved. But the thought that my choices in life could be the determining factor in making somebody else a good person literally never occurred to me, and if it had, it would have greatly discomforted me. I would have perceived it as an added burden. Again, it would never have occurred to me that other people were sharing the burden of making me a good person. I would have perceived the sharing of responsibility only as an increased burden. I imagine that people raised in collectivist cultures perceive the sharing of burdens as generally resulting in a decreased burden. The concept of a mutually supporting community taking collective responsibility for the salvation of their souls is probably much closer to how people thought about Christianity in the past. It almost gives me warm fuzzy feelings, but I still find the chaotic, random nature of it discomforting.
Service and helping people is the unifying theme of the archbishop's sermon, but there is something lacking in his call to service. I like to help people. I like to be of service. I like giving people presents. I like teaching. I'm pretty good at it. But something I don't try to do is influence friends and family and coworkers to make them better people. I shrink from any situation where somebody is doing something immoral that I could intervene to correct. It's one thing teach somebody practical knowledge, and quite another to stage an intervention.
Christianity used to take the collectivist approach to saving souls. It wasn't enough to lead the horse to water. Responsible people had to dunk the horse's head and make it drink. The king was often the one doing the dunking. Since the time of the Glorious Revolution, the power of the state has grown enormously. But liberal democracies impose artificial limits on how they use their enormous power. Faced with equine dehydration, or any other societal problem, the solution must be more education, free counseling and state-sponsored therapy. It's fitting that the land of the NHS should refer to kingship as a service. The solution is always a service. Yet there remain certain classes of societal problems that are best solved—or that can only be solved—by issuing a command.
omfalos
1yr ago
I endorse this proposal. Some people express concern that it may benefit the Left instead of the Right. Others are chiming in to offer alternatives more carefully contrived to achieve a desired outcome. To these concerns I would say, that this proposal is the best for the following reasons:
The idea that the government should represent the interests of children makes intuitive sense and will appeal broadly to the public. Every law should start with a broad sales pitch, and follow it up with addendums that compromise on the initial idea. The fact that children will not actually be voting is the compromise, and it should be sold to the public as a necessary compromise to achieve a desired ideal. By contrast, a proposal to give more voting power to rich people is a harder sell, because the ideal it strives for is less intuitive and won't appeal to most people. The Left would sniff it out immediately.
The fact that many here believe this proposal will benefit the Left is a good thing, because it means the proposal can be sold to the Left. I cannot say what the actual effects will be. I would say it is coinflip that could backfire or succeed. The Right is in desperate straights as we know, and should therefore seek out these kinds of coinflips. Call it a wager with Moloch, if you will.
I don't think the direct impact will be that great. It's true that people with the most children are poor, and it's equally true that poor people don't vote. The votes of a lot of children won't matter because their parents won't bother to cast them. The main selling point of this proposal for the Right is the symbolic impact, rather than its direct impact. The law is sort of two-faced. To the general public and to the Left, the law can be sold as the apotheosis of egalitarianism, the final form of equal suffrage. But it's not really equal suffrage, because the children can't actually vote, and their parents are getting extra votes. It's essentially a sly way to foist upon the Left a system of unequal suffrage in which heteronormative family values are symbolically endorsed by the government as deserving a greater voice in government than the voices of the various childless constituencies.
omfalos
1yr ago
The cultural distance between a 21st century British aristocrat and a Pakistani cab driver in Lahore, is less than the cultural distance between a 21st century British aristocrat and a 19th century British aristocrat. For starters, 19th century British aristocrats didn't go to Wimbledon. Also, they believed in a religion that no longer exists in the 21st century.
xkcd and SMBC comics.
More options
Context Copy link