ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
3d ago
I'm somewhat surprised they wouldn't wait for Trump to actually show he can do something, instead of reacting on his babble.
I'm surprised that you are surprised.
The parts of Canada from which Trudeau (and his voter base) come all define themselves in relation to the US (generally in Blue Tribe-inspired ways). The more on the "Left" you are, the more concerned with the US you are.
The rest of Canada is not like that, but because this is not a government that gives a damn about what the rest of Canada thinks about literally anything whatsoever (the Liberal government functions in a post-national Imperial fashion), you won't see that in the official response.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
4d ago
can't really do more damage in the time he has left
Yes, but the damage is the point. More damage means more for the opposition to clean up, and the less they can actually get done by the time the Eastern Big City party's time comes round again.
It's rational for him, therefore, to fuck up everything in the only way he knows how, in the same way an angry cable guy cuts the cables off so far down in the box that they need to be replaced or spliced- a bad-faith attempt to cost the next company time and money. Which is important in a "well, the other guys couldn't fix the intentional sabotage, so why not vote for the saboteurs?" context, which politics is.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
Noon-Is-Noon faction
Ironically, these are the same people who tend to be fans of SI (popularly "the metric system").
When I see those people do this I just laugh. Oh, so now you want to preserve a human-centric unit (like every system of measurement did before SI, metric or not) now that it affects you, rather than those backwards blue-collar people who do human-scale works with their hands? Humans don't divide evenly into fractions of the [wrong] size of the Earth; convenient for a state who wants to alienate its population, inconvenient for anyone who works for a living.
For me, the sun rises at 7 AM and sets at 4 PM. Which makes any job a salt-mine one, where you go down into work in the dark, and you go home from work in the dark. I'm more than happy to push sunset beyond the bounds of the workplace for at least some people because not seeing daylight for 4 months is unnatural, it sucks, and it kills because the evening commute is simply more dangerous when it's dark.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
6d ago
that teenage women are still physically immature
A minimum of 200,000 years of evolution (this stretches much further back than mere humanity, so this is probably closer to 225 million years of evolution) suggests otherwise, though of course that depends on what you mean by "physical maturity".
An organism that dies after copying itself once is obviously going to be less fit than one that stays alive to copy itself multiple times. If we assume that it was common (outside of the last 100 years... but a lot about the last 100 years is anomalous) for women to get pregnant quite soon after that was physically possible, and they died at outsized rates (because it would injure their body too much in an age where medicine did not exist), then we should expect that the average age of "ability to survive a pregnancy" [which is probably not what you mean by 'physical maturity'] should match the average age of "ability to get pregnant" reasonably closely.
And, for the most part, it does; whether an LLM (or the society that trained it) believes biological truths about maturity are secondary.
and giving birth is higher risk as well
Probably explained more by the demographics of who is more likely to do this than anything else (and the fact this is more likely to be handled through unofficial channels; it is irrefutable evidence of a quasi-capital offense in the modern West, after all). Other than that serious confounding factor, environmental endocrine disruptions and better nutrition may be able to push the age of "able to get pregnant" under "able to survive pregnancy" more often, but we don't have good data on that which isn't statistical noise and modern medicine is miraculously effective at trivializing the health risks of pregnancy (I'm not convinced the youngest documented mother survives that pregnancy 1000 years earlier).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
Yeah, but there's a difference between being sanctimonious (or perhaps more charitably, intentionally interpreting 'in vain' so broadly that it covers even the 'positive' expressions, to the point that I'd consider "may gosh bless the United States" to be swearing in reverse, as it were) and noticing that there's a very specific thing/feeling/emotion using "Jesus Christ" (and to a point, "God/oh my God") as an invective or an incredulity uniquely communicates. "Hell" and "goddamn" have the same thing going on to varying lesser degrees but this one's pretty unambiguous.
So if you want to invoke the same expression without doing that directly, you want to use something that sounds like, but isn't, the word everyone else would use to do that. Hence the substitutions in that case.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
7d ago
DD is simply a meme size, like 6’.
Men don’t actually understand, or generally get a chance to understand, the nuances in sizing, so we might think ‘gag boobs’ whenever someone says something larger, and also it’s an anti-signal to be larger, as when women get their breasts enlarged (code: trashy), there’s no reason not to go straight to the maximum one’s body can support (it’s not any more painful or expensive).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
8d ago
Yes? For instance, your entire country could lose its mind over an uncommon cold, and then there’s rioting in the streets for one political faction while the other normies kill each other over toilet paper.
You think humanity has changed much in the 4 years since that happened?
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
9d ago
Because it's pointless and smacks of a chodey kind of schadenfreude.
I dunno, I think "the only thing valuable about certain women is their bodies, and so if they're not saving them to sell to a man in exchange for resources this is a massive problem and it means the men won't want to buy, which has implications for family formation for those women; also DAE think sex with men is Bad and Evil?" is certainly a worldview.
Of course, you have to actually unpack that rather than just saying it to be obnoxious.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
9d ago
This doesn't seem, to me, nearly as corrosive to the social fabric as the general social expectation that even normie religious women will have some sexual history that they don't need to disclose to their husband.
I thought hiding that was the point, though.
Normie religious/straight marriage laws and rules are all about managing competing interests, are optimal if you assume you don't actually have love up front, and help keep the marriage together should the desire in learning how to love not be equal among partners. They work even better if/when the woman is not economically useful.
But modern society turns this into a trap for the men in the relationship! If you ask with the tacit statement that you'll be offended by your future wife "having cheated on you before the relationship even begins, what a sinful broad", what do you think your wife going to say? It's the spear counterpart of unintentionally selecting for assholes, where what you're doing here is excluding women who aren't intending to lie to you (which are the ones you actually want... right? Or maybe not; I wouldn't know- is the 'virgin experience' really an emergent property of virginity?).
From a biological standpoint, I want to minimize the chance I end up raising another man's child (if I'm going to put effort into kids I want them to actually be mine). I think I have a better chance of doing that by emphasizing "my wife feels safe telling me things", but my biology hasn't yet resisted me for dating a non-virgin and people tell me this occurs magically, so...
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
9d ago
I think she's 100 percent honest there.
Then why be actively planning to still have it both ways? Brain damage from (what is described as) the ionizing cancer-causing XXX-rays those sex acts emitted?
Being used as just a piece of stupid meat/treated as if I’m only in it for myself existentially annoys me, in my experience, but it’s more that than it is any particulars doing the damage.
(Of course, if you know you’ll need straight marriage and sell your meal ticket to it…)
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
9d ago
Am I supposed to treat her like she's a completely fresh, clean bowl of cheerios?
Depends, are you getting straight-married or gay-married to her?
Because she seems the type to still want (or rather, need) a straight marriage, and at this point I think she’d have a hard time with both, because the betrayal in a straight marriage is not being a virgin, but the betrayal in a gay marriage is not being fucking trustworthy enough not to want to fall back into needing those straight marriage privileges for the relationship to be viable (because she can’t provide them now as well as she used to).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
9d ago
despite breaking down on camera?
What, you even think that reaction is genuine?
I don't; I think that's trying to cover oneself with the female privilege to be hurt by sex ("dissociation") for the camera when prompted/given the opportunity (and a good number of women will, as that's their social role). She is well-practiced in acting, obviously. It's just sex, and discovering you're putting swine before pearls and feeling terrible about it isn't unique to professional women- this has probably happened at least once to every human being.
But it sure does gets the expected reaction from a bunch of white-knighting simps, the glory of which those brain-dead Christian men are falling over themselves trying to cover themselves with- they're doing literally the same thing she just did, for the same reasons. (Ever wonder what the straight spear counterpart to 'cumslut' is? Well, now you know.)
The cherry on this cake is that she can get married to a fairly normal guy tomorrow because Riley Reid, another adult entertainer did this too.
Fuck 1000 guys, or have a fake poor-me mental breakdown? I'd consider the latter much more difficult to accept, where the former is more just a health risk (I don't want cold sores, sorry).
You can get the original here.
I find that the original is much more committed to the bit than the sequel (and in the sequel, you can capture some of it if you turn the Meme Power up to 69), but I am hoping in the meantime for a mod that restores what belongs in the game after a certain point rather than what the creators were forced not to include in a game for reasons related to selling it for actual money.
That said, I found the rationalization for why things are the way they are relatively satisfying, and it's actually a plot point so I'm not too sad about it. It's Duke Nukem 3D for the Internet Age, complete with Mighty Foot.
I also find that, whenever someone makes something like this, the impression I get of them is irrevocably positive. There really isn't any room for cynicism or personal callouts if you're doing this; it's just childish, unironic love of the patently ridiculous through a lens that everyone who experienced it sees as personally empowering. It's very difficult to show it to people who don't quite get it and that makes me sad, because it's for a very particular audience at a very particular time (kind of like HomestarRunner, for that matter).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
10d ago
Teachers back then thought they could beat the stupid and evil out of children – and they had a duty to
And if you're a teacher who is wicked (I beat my students because I enjoy it), simple (I beat my students because I'm not capable of getting them to learn any other way/it's the path of least resistance to the required outcome), or just going through the motions (I beat my students because everyone else does), what a convenient boon! Why do the work to justify anything in a house of learning when you can just let the lash do it for you?
So after the beatings era, the experts came up with a new theory, where strictness was excoriated, damaging the child’s ‘true potential’ etc.
Sure, but the problem is that once you make it a blanket rule (otherwise known as "going too far"), the wicked, the simple, and the checked-out start taking advantage of it. Fast-forward a generation, and compound that with changes in labor laws that compromise the quality of your labor pool, and you get the fart-huffing "no wrong answers, only wrong targets" education system of today that's merely cargo-culting what was once valuable about that way of doing things. So the wise are now punished for trying to mark on right answers since that's the only way students learn, the wicked teach grievance studies to get that same personal euphoria as they used to get with the beatings, the simple think having no standards... well, that's great, they don't have to do any work now, and the checked-out are happy so long as the official metrics look good.
I am skeptical.
I am too- replacing abusive men (and the ways men conduct abuse) with abusive women (and the ways women conduct abuse) didn't actually reduce the amount of abuse in the system. My skepticism rests on the degree to which the balance will tilt- if we can let the wise do their jobs and sufficiently protect them as they run into the practical challenges of the policy, delay the wicked sufficiently until it's time to change the system wholesale and knock them off balance again (I think government central planning tends to call these '5 year plans'), get a little more out of the simple, and motivate the checked out into wisdom, we're going to succeed in some way.
Changing policies always have this effect to a minor degree at first so it's hard to tell what shifted, and by the time you know, the will is gone. (This is why tech companies believe in 'moving fast and breaking things'- it is in theory an institutional policy that really hurts the wicked. But it also really hurts the customer, who can trust dishonest, self-interested men to be consistently dishonest and self-interested; it's the checked out in the process of becoming wise that really screw everything up.)
because parenting and schooling don’t really matter
They don't to/have a negative effect on children born wise. For everyone else, it's "we know you're going to try and fuck up everything, so the best we can hope for is that those energies are channeled in at least a coincidentally-productive way", "you're too stupid to figure this out but our society is very insecure about some people being objectively better than others so we launder this through our daycare system", and "learning how to learn" for those who don't know but, if they knew, could perform very well.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
10d ago
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
10d ago
a preexisting proclivity for temperance
I think the only limiting factor on preference for breast size is once they become so large they're a visible deformity (at which point you get into inflation fetish territory- aka the DeviantArt school of sexual attraction). Of course, that also means having breasts that large is selected against.
"Those who disagree are just falsifying preferences" is a too emotionally satisfying theory to not be suspect.
I think that pushes the average size preference up, not down, for 'she looks like a little girl that means ur a pedo hahah also die' reasons.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
10d ago
See, the trick in that situation is that he doesn’t actually have the power to stop his adult daughter from doing that. And he knows it. She can trivially acquire a boyfriend that can support her and physically defend her from her father when required.
Parents are naturally anxious about that, because if you’re going to pay the bills for the kid you are owed power (and power used to make true what just ain’t so is still power), hence the obsession with chaperoning (virtual or physical in times gone by).
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
11d ago
Or possibly having been a child....
When it comes to children, most parents are Last Thursdayists- that they believe they sprang into existence as a fully-formed adult and, while they might have distant memories of childhood, have never actually been one. Sometimes they might even say the words "when I was a child" but their subsequent behaviors tend to suggest they [believe they] have never, in fact, been sullied by the experience- either that, or they are forgetting on purpose to prove a point.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
11d ago
For parents that are stupid and don't lead exemplary lives (as arguments can be made by words or by examples) I think unfortunately for them their children are at the mercy of the broader culture.
Perhaps that, then, is the fundamental horror of raising teenagers for most parents- especially the ones who are just intelligent enough to know this happens, but are unable to stop it. It's especially important for parents who want to retain beliefs that are more incompatible with local reality [as contrasted with simply 'untrue', which is how the wise-to-wicked pipeline works] to be much more intelligent/capable than the general population such that their child retains them.
Hence the attempts to ride the ever-decreasing amount of power they have into the ground.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
12d ago
for learning to be basically functional as an adult in the society you live in
It's not so much 'learning to be basically functional' as it is 'wanting a life at all'. The first one is pretty easy- you either know it by 14 or you never will (though again, if you're prevented from doing it by KidTracker-type abuses of technology, that becomes a harder sell)- the second one... well, that's a lot more difficult especially if you position worshipping death not wanting a life as a virtuous act.
This is an intractable problem.
No, it isn't. Do what the UK does, pass a law preventing age discrimination in insurance. Easy. It is vital that teenagers don't have their want to learn to drive killed, and doing this subsidizes the risk of that over their entire life rather than forcing it as a single up-front cost.
And, y'know, the whole 'criminalizing children walking down the street unsupervised' thing, and society's corresponding worship of Safety, isn't exactly helping.
Of course, the easiest way to solve this problem is to simply conquer half of Europe (including her colonies in the South Pacific), but 1945 was kind of a fluke.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
12d ago
implying [from a European perspective- they still think they're sovereign, how cute] American fifth-columnists haven't been planting those ideas in European elites for the past 80 years
Europeans are a conquered people (their massive civil wars in the first half of the 20th century saw to that) and naturally align themselves with Imperial aesthetics. Sure, there's the whole power dynamic divide and conquer thing, but that's downstream of there being no real European elite other than that which is legitimized by the Americans.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
12d ago
how do you balance letting your child(ren) make their own mistakes and take the consequences in a controlled environment, even when you disagree with their choices? When do you step in?
Well, that depends. Do I lack the time, the energy, the intelligence, or the personality to bother to connect with my kids (even for rational reasons)? Did I forget how I was like at that age, or am I forgetting on purpose? If I do, I'm just going to do the parental equivalent of copy-pasting code from StackOverflow or GPT-4 and hope for the best. This is a programming exercise, after all, humans are just meat-based neural networks.
It also matters who's giving the advice. So
“If I caught my kid looking at extremist material it would be a two prong 'congrats you just lost ALL media privileges' and a 'instant therapy or else'.”
is obviously a progressive woman (less often, a man) who hates her sons (or hates her sons because they do not sufficiently hate themselves, for the perceived sake of someone else's daughters) because her peer group told her to.
This is also the kind of woman who, by genetics, is not only more likely to have teenagers that rebel against her (and have peer group influence dominate her sons just as her peer group clearly does to her right now), but to take that extremely personally.
This advice should, obviously, be ignored by those parents who are not progressive, are not women, and who are not susceptible to peer pressure to anywhere near that same degree. (The fact that "opinion discarded" isn't obvious to some parents is a personality/risk management thing.) All of which are why you have no problem thinking this is wrong, and not trying to stamp out the possibility By Any Means Necessary.
In contrast, I think even moderate drinking or drug use is fairly risky for developing brains, and I think the laissez-faire attitude towards it is dangerous.
I think the laissez-faire attitude towards propagating stupid memes like "developing brains" is more dangerous than moderate drinking or drug use if you're not a parent given to those things in the first place.
Of course, the problem with moderate drinking or drug use is an obvious one- you're their boss, and it's very awkward to go far into more vulnerable states of consciousness with someone in a position of power! That's why it has to be done with peers, and depending on where that occurs, that's the dangerous part (especially if they have a reason to go full Rumspringa on you). Bars would actually be one of the safer options for this, but that's the one place they're banned from due to that infinite parental/societal wisdom.
Isn’t it kind of convenient that my moral inclinations and my opinions of the practical difficulties of implementing a ban line up so well for different activities?
Parents are generally just as stupid and selfish as their children; conversely, children are generally as wise and self-controlled as their parents.
News at 11.
Part of parenting teens is how you've parented the children prior to that.
You also run into some moral hazard where "slow down and deny that adult development" is in the parent's best interest, but not the child's.
Parents are by their nature far too close to the problem, and much like bankruptcy, the balance [of power] drops gradually, then suddenly. And all of that happens coincident with their new ability to be a physical threat to you, either directly if a man, or by proxy if a woman.
All the teenagers I've had the pleasure of interacting with actually become more mature, not less, when they're out of watchful eyes. Granted, there's a lot of selection bias going on there- I don't generally hang out with stupid people, I didn't grow up exposed to a lot of stupid people, and the parents I hang out with have kids that are inherently as stable and well-rounded as they are (to the point that certain traits and thought patterns translate word for word- so if you magically turned insane the minute you hit 13 you're probably fucked as a parent). I also 'pass', for lack of a better word; it's quite easy to hide the fact I'm technically old enough to be their father(s) unless I say it directly (being Extremely Online helps with this; the dead giveaway I'm quite a bit older is because of a specific expression I don't/won't use, but nobody seems to pay attention to that), so I feel I have good reason to believe that bump in maturity is genuine.
There's a certain kind of parenting failure mode where the memes of "terrible teenagers" tend to take root a bit too much, and parents who have sensible kids do nothing to break them out of it. "You're just a stupid nigger, too much melanin makes your brain go crazy, why the fuck would you expect to be treated like an actual human being?" was stupid then, and the exact equivalent we visit on the young is stupid now. The parents generally didn't grow up with that meme, which is why they have the kind of self-actualization they do, but they don't realize it won't ever develop in their kids unless they take steps to make sure it occurs. (The slow-burn equivalent of "buy your son a hooker on his 14th"; you need to impress the concept that wanting things is good, natural, and should be pursued as a matter of personal development.)
Once upon a time my parents told me the hazards of being too close to a problem in matters of love and relationships... naturally, they did that with zero self-awareness whatsoever in terms of parenting style. It's something that happens to everyone; and in turn, the village used to raise young adults and from much younger, but now the village absolutely hates them (probably something about their labor being economically non-viable in modern society, segregation breeds contempt after all).
But as many parents can attest, peer groups are more influential than mom and dad most of the time.
But that is then believed and internalized by parents who will remain more influential than peer groups throughout the teenage years due to the genetic makeup of their children, and that will kill their children more surely than any stupid stunt their peer groups get up to.
ThisIsSin
One cannot seek change to a game one cannot adequately describe
14d ago
That’s part of why I loved PUBG so much
By contrast, this is why I find BR games literally unplayable- they're either boring as fuck because you're busy scavenging and not fighting, or you roll suboptimally, die, and have to wait 10 minutes to get back to a place you can try again. I hate not being in control of how I get to play.
This is why people bitch and moan about people picking the character with the most interesting mechanics available out of the box, getting downed, and immediately disconnecting.
CoD 4 was peak gaming because it wasn't 10 minutes, it was 10 seconds (other titles that didn't include support for having 32 players on the map had this closer to 1 minute). You could use meme strategies and bad guns, and still have a chance of having fun.
All other popular games- like the camping simulators (R6 Siege, Counter-Strike) and the MOBA-in-FPS-clothing (Overwatch)- have by their nature very opinionated ways to play. And it's as you say; they aren't fun because of it.
Maybe, but humans have a pretty easy time of doing that without AGI (re: Khmer Rouge).
More options
Context Copy link