ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
What are you or @ArjinFerman suggesting we do with that information?
To the extent I'm interested in bringing up the subject at all, it's only as a trump card against any future attempt to resurrect "white privilege" and "systemic racism" arguments, and as happened in this case, to refute bad "purely socio-economic factors, of course" arguments.
If you're interested in my solutions to the problem, they boil down to the equal application of the rule of law, regardless of race, swiftly, and harshly. I've long advocated for the Bukele Option / Salvador Solution over the application of genetics to the problem of crime (which is mostly a liberal idea - see "abortions caused a drop in the crime rate"). If that's too spicy, I can maybe be persuaded to go as soft as Thomas Sowell.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
If someone wants to say "well, it's not so clear, maybe it's this, maybe it's that, etc , etc." I don't have anything against that. It's the waltzing in, declaring one theory wrong, and proposing a wronger one as the true explanation, triggers my 'tism.
No, race realism is also wrong, the actual reason is class/subculture for which you are using skin colour as a proxy, due to the US having a underclass primarily composed of black people.
Why do you guys have to keep doing this? I'm perfectly happy leaving well enough alone when it comes to race, but then someone just has to post something like this. I don't want to become Steve Sailer, I've lost count of how many times I bit my tongue or scrolled past arguments like this, but every time is that much harder.
Do you really think this is true? Would statistics showing that rich black Americans commit more crime than poor white Americans change your mind at all? If not, in what sense is it a proxy?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
I need, you need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed when they go to events, so that they look to their leadership to turn down the temperature.
Of all the things I've heard said on the subject, this has got to be the dumbest. The only one that comes close is that TikToker getting giddy over how Kirk is not martyr material.
Even if you accept the premise that all of this is because of Trump, it shows just wide the inferential gap between the tribes is.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
I'm saying the exietence of the universe will never be answerable by science. You can't get an answers for "why is there something rather than nothing" by looking at it from within the something.
It's not even a particularly controversial observation from what I understand.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Serves me right for replying from the raw comment feed.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
I'm saying that "existence is amazingly extraordinary" (backed by hours of hypnotic monologues by Sagan, Dawkins, or Tyson) has been literally what secular humanists were saying in order to generate a sense of awe similar to that of religious epiphanies.
Your particular argument destroys any such attempt. Even if secular humanism remains ubdeboonked, it's left barren of any higher goal.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
I don't think that this is the definition of "miracle" used by the Bible, or any other religious text, written before the scientific method was established.
Can that which encompasses all ever be extraordinary?
Isn't that literally what secular humanism was trying to sell as an alternative to religion?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Not just that, the trend seems to be upward since early 2024.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
The existence of the universe?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
and $1780 dollars per person
Was that when every $20 was backed by an ounce of gold?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Don’t express the virtues of collectivism. Don’t criticize the preference for libertarianism or small government. Don’t say anything critical of Zelensky. Don’t doubt the inherent virtue of unnamed people.
What? I don't know what you mean by the last one, but I disagree with all the other ones, and I'm pretty sure I could write something doing all thr things you're telling people not to, and get lots of updoots.
I'm not questioning a bias existing, but you're getting in comically wrong.
You wouldn't need to charge $60 for your game if you only needed to pay 3 salaries. And on the other side, there are lots of cheap indie games that are crap in comparison. Why can't all of the 3 people studios produce games of this quality?
I'm not in the industry so my impression might be off, but there's a few reasons I can think of:
- Programming is hard. For as long as I remember there was some gray-suit asshole that tried to come up with a paradigm that would make it work like all other forms of engineering - you get one guy that sits at the drawing board for a while, you pay him relatively well, and when he's done you send off the blueprint to an army of worker ants, that get paid peanuts. This had several manifestations like trying to ship IT jobs to India, or trying to ship India into the west, I think now they're hoping they can hand it off to AI. For whatever reason this has always been a disaster. I can't explain why, there's just something whimsical about the entire field, that makes it resist cookie-cutter solutions, and ends up requiring talented people who are quick on their feet. It's actually counter-intuitive for me, I'd expect IRL engineering would be the thing that would keep falling flat on it's face, due to the inherent dirtiness of the physical realm, but somehow it's the opposite.
- Programming games is even harder. All the things I said apply to your run-of-the-mill, boring-ass, web applications. Games are insanely complex systems where a tonne of stuff is interacting with a tonne of other stuff in unpredictable ways (and that's before the user input is taken into account), in real-time. Every paradigm that was invented to make the boring forms of software engineering a little bit more legible, go right out the window in game programming - at least if the code from games that ended up open sourced is any indication. This makes it even more resistant to standardization.
- You know what else games need? Art. That other thing that doesn't go quite well with soulless, standardized, production pipelines.
- You know what big organizations really like? Soulless, standardized, production pipelines. This one is the actual core of your question, and I now realize I don't actually have a good answer. Why? I don't know, but companies will literally eat massive costs if it buys them a sliver of predictability. In theory it should make no difference, if you have a lot of money, you can just throw it on thousands of creators, and more than make up for the money with the few good hits you get. Maybe it's because the good ones start acting like divas? Once they make a name for themselves, you need them more than they need you. No self-respecting industrialist wants to be in that position, so they prefer to throw half a billion dollars at a game with a list of credits longer than a Holocaust memorial, and get a billion dollars back, and rely on a million mindless drones, than to get the same amount of profit for a fraction of the investment, and risk your drones getting uppity.
- Why do all the other indies suck? Well, see all the "this shit is hard" points. Yeah, this one might have been made by 3 people, but I'll bet blindly that each of them is in the top <= 0.1% of their respective field. On top of that, finding 3 talented people is not enough. You need to find 3 talented people that get along well, and can work with each other.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
There was some "free speech" festival (possibly several) that he showed up for and did it live, but I'm blanking out on the name. Honestly, I think there was a time when he would have qualified, but between Trump II and Adderal (/all the other drugs he seems to enjoy) taking their toll, he seems to be falling apart at a rather rapid pace.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Soros doesn't personally show up at enemy territory in an attempt to persuade them by means of dialogue, he throws money at causes he likes. He's more like than the Koch brothers than Charlie Kirk.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
One day you guys need to do a roundup of all the "best" filtered posts you get. We appreciate your service, but it sounds like there's a whole world we're missing out on.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
I kinda think that it does.
I never said that Trump lying is right, just that it's far from the worst. As to your point about how all the little lies add up to an atmosphere of mistrust, I just flatly disagree. Politicians being dishonest was seen as cost of doing business in a democracy for as a long as I have lived, and almost certainly long before that ("How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving! HAR! HAR! HAR!" is probably one of the boomerest jokes one can think of), so the idea that Trump can move the needle feels rather off.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
I thought that's why they came up with polygamy to begin with...
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
The administration overestimates its cultural clout. The perception of Kirk as a hero is entirely in-group: post-incident polling shows most Americans didn't know who Kirk was, and among those that did, he was quite unpopular, disliked at a 2:1 ratio -- worse than even Trump himself.
And you don't think you might overestimating the degree to which these polls are reflective of anything deeper? I didn't like Kirk either, and I'm not even American, but I still think deserves to be put on a bit of a pedestal just due to being the target of a political assassination.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
That sounds more like "stop having fun" than "speak plainly", but if what I said was so unclear, than just check professorgerm's response above, my point is nearly identical to his, though I'd go less for "forgetting" and more for "we have always been at war with EastAsia".
The fixation I’ve observed on this forum with the 2020 riots is certainly interesting.
Riots are not exactly an uncommon part of political life, yet judging from what I’ve read from many posters here these seem to have been the formative event for many right wing posters.
My gym teacher in primary school was an alcoholic. All the kids would watch him show up for work obviously drunk, do the bare minimum required by the bureaucracy (check if all the kids are present), throw us a ball and tell us to play, and he'd lock himself in his office to drink some more.
He never did anything terribly bad because of it, but he did neglect his duties rather egregiously, and possibly the most frustrating thing about it was all the adults gaslighting all the kids about it. I told my parents, and they'd say "can't be, someone would have done something about it". We'd tell the teachers and they'd either change the subject, or go off on us for impugning our coach's integrity.
Anyway, some years passed, I went on to go to high-school and forget about the whole affair. I then ran into an old friend from that school, we catch up on what we've been up to, and then he tells me some news he heard recently - our old coach was fired, got caught red-handed by the principal. So I take these news to my parents and they say "why are you acting so shocked, you were telling us all these years that he was an alcoholic!".
Story unrelated.
Where were we? Ah, yes. Riots happen, you're absolutely right. There was nothing special about this riot, or the way the Blue Tribe, including half this forum (which included moderators) talked about it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
A lot of right-wingers around here like to spread this whole idea of high and low trust societies. Okay, fine. Here is a mini-society, and Trump is almost singlehandedly making it a low-trust relation full of perpetual suspicion and mistrust. Maybe he's "owning the libs", but at what cost?
I agree with you that trying to quantify it is a futile task, but I would like someone to explicitly take into account some very obvious counter-arguments before making their conclusion. If we juxtapose Trump's lies with things like "racism is a public health emergency, therefore protests are perfectly fine", maybe it will still turn out that he is the worst in terms of damaging societal trust, but it's far from obvious to me, and I don't think people should get to just assert that, and act like everybody agrees with them.
Another thing I'd like to see is some direct comparisons to past presidents. Even if you want to go with the "Republicans bad" framing, it is again rather counter-intuitive for me that anything Trump said could be as bad as George Bush lying the country into the war in Iraq.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
across the country and a couple dozen extra murders?
*Thousand.
There may have been only dozens of deaths directly connected to the riots, but the increase in the murder rate following the police withdrawal (which not only merely followed the riots, but was explicitly demanded by the protesters) accounted for thousands of lives lost.
I absolutely am sexist against men as far violence is concerned, my views on the necessity of women-only spaces re: trans issues are informed by that. As far as racism goes, I prefer not to do it at all, actually, and I appreciate it if things I say, like "I'm perfectly happy leaving well enough alone when it comes to race" and "I don't want to become Steve Sailer", aren't ignored in the future.
More options
Context Copy link