Skip Navigation

User banner
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)J
Posts
1
Comments
2,905
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Thinking about it, it seems like the kind of wacky thing that would be on par with dwarf fort. A passion project years in the making. I doubt any big studio would go for it.

    Side note, I really liked how mage: the awakening 2e did paradox. You risk more for witnesses, sure. But you mostly risk paradox for making your spells more than you can safely handle. Hubris. That's the theme of the game.

    (Further minutia details: you can make small changes to your spells magnitude or subjects, and that only risks the spell failing. But bigger changes, those require you to "reach" and that can cause paradox. make a spell last two turns instead of one? -2 dice. Or, reach, and make it last the whole scene... but maybe roll for paradox. Mind2 can't make someone hurt themselves... unless you reach. Great system. Very fiddly. Wouldn't play well as a real time game.)

  • YouTube's leadership is complicit. Fuck them and their blood soaked hands.

  • I believe in racism AND systemic racism.

    I don't believe you. I don't think this conversation is worth continuing further.

  • Conservatives say stuff for effect, not because they believe in truth or consistency. They are dishonest, broken, people. They should not be trusted.

  • Do you think the old lady complained more or less because the guy was black? Do you think the MTA guy has any discretion? How many other people got the police called on them for sitting "improperly"?

    I feel like you don't accept the concepts of privilege and systemic problems, and are really zoomed in on individual actions to the point of not being able to see the whole picture.

    The old lady probably complained because the guy was black. The MTA conductor probably escalated for similar reasons. The victim may have reacted negatively because of decades of racially driven abuse.

    I'm not really sure if you're arguing in good faith, or have some emotional investment in disbelieving racism can be pervasive and covered by other plausible excuses.

  • You're missing or refusing to see the point that the conductor is likely policing certain people's behavior more

    So yes, if the conductor or the police tell you to do something and you refuse you're probably going to have a bad time. But more importantly, that situation is far more likely to occur in the first place if you're a minority. It's likely there was a white guy on that train sitting "badly" and no one policed him.

    Zoom out more.

  • Go try it, ANYONE would get kicked off when doing that.

    This is laughably false. People put their feet on the seats on MTA transit all the time. Do you even ride these trains?

    (Personally, I have a very negative opinion of people who take up excessive space on the trains, but I would never call the police over it, nor rat them out to the authorities.)

    It’s not a racial thing he was refusing to obey the rules when the conductor asked him.

    You gotta zoom out a little to see the racism. The racism isn't in the rules about sitting. The racism is in how the rules are unevenly applied.

  • I will admit when doing something like buying from an evil corporation that I'm making a trade off. I won't pretend it's fine. I try to acknowledge it.

    It's impossible to live in the modern world without participating in exploitation. This phone was probably made in ways that hurt the environment and labor. But I need a phone to participate in modern life. So I got one, and try to hold onto it as long as possible.

    I think there's a big difference between trying, and acknowledging tradeoffs and shortcomings, and just refusing to engage. "But I like it" is refusing to engage. I would respect "I know this milk comes from cruelty to cows, but I don't care about cows" more. At least it's honest.

  • Poor emotional regulation. Poor long term planning. Disregarding facts for emotions.

  • I imagine most people who are rewilding their lawn are doing so for environmental reasons, which I consider more valid than mere personal preference. If someone was doing so for mere aesthetics, maybe.

    With respect to murdering, there is a social contract or a legal “contract” that says you absolutely can’t, so this argument obviously doesn’t work.

    That's kind of the point. The reason why you don't murder isn't merely because you like it. There are actual reasons. Personal preference alone is not sufficient to override reasons like social contracts and laws and stuff. So if one side of the argument is "this is good for the environment", the other side saying "but I like it" should not be compelling.

    It is compelling to some people when they consider stuff like the environment non-issues on the same level as personal preferences. Those people are assholes.

  • Conservatives would hate it so it's probably a good idea

  • “Oh my god having a lawn isn’t murder you’re being dramatic!” - some small-minded buffoon who doesn’t understand analogies.

    So many people seem to really struggle with analogies. Sometimes I think they're just responding to the emotional content, and not following the reasoning at all

  • One of the things that bothers me more than it should is people responding to actual problems with "but i like it".

    You say something like "a 'basic' lawn like that is bad for the environment in many ways, in addition to being labor intensive."

    They respond with something that amounts to, "But I like it."

    That wasn't the question! If someone likes murder that doesn't justify it, right? Because if so this conversation would take a very abrupt turn. So we can infer that there must be some other justification. Probably, "I don't care about other people", which remains an insufficient justification for murdering a whining selfish prick.

  • The damage to trust in the US' institutions and government is tremendous, and will not likely be repaired in our lifetimes.

  • Is he showing any of his work, or is he just making stuff up? Seems like he's just making stuff up.

    Also, everyone should look at the "wealth to scale" webpage: https://dbkrupp.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/ . Humans are not good at scale, and this helps visualize it.

  • It kind of makes sense if you consider right wing beliefs to be driven by fear. The world is scary, so drive a big "safe" car. Other people riding bikes challenges this world view, because if they're brave enough to ride a bike and I'm not then I'm not the best, and that's just not true. So bikes and bikers are bad. They're bad because they make me feel bad.

  • It's not a set, so you can have duplicate values. So no, probably not.

    Like you have a list and the range of its values is [0 ... 1]. You can have a whole lot of 1s, but none of them are the sole biggest value.

  • Part of racism's power is the unequal application of rules. Plausibility is often on the side of racism. While the rules may prohibit feet on the seat (were his feet on the seat here?), it is unlikely this rule is enforced against white people as often as it is for minorities. I'm sure it happens, but the point isn't "sometimes the rules are applied to white people too". The point is "the rules are more often and more extremely applied to black people".

    Tangentially related, "the new jim crow" is worth reading.

  • Arresting someone for having their feet on the seats is truly excessive. Racism almost certainly was a factor in every step of this process. The woman noticing the man, deciding to police his behavior in public, the MTA and police not just letting it go with a warning. All of it.