ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
What is giving you this impression? To begin with, who is even going around calling Europeans demons, or equivalent?
Alright, drawing dead bugs to the background is working out pretty well. One touch I decided to add was to tone down the light-sensitivity of the background texture, this way the bugs that are still alive stand out more, but the background still get the cool light-cone effect. Now I'm working on expanding it to cover a wider area. In theory I could just throw a bigger texture at it, but I was thinking of splitting the background into a grid, and only sending the textures close to the player to the shader program. This way the background could theoretically have an infinite map.
How have you been doing @Southkraut?
National character is not merely the past. National character is not merely ethnicity. National character is not merely the line "nationality of father" in the birth certificate.
National character can be directly and plainly observed.
I don't see you building national character, for now I only see you advocating for no immigration.
Yes, because continued migration at present levels will destroy the national character of many western countries, even if you add a bunch of things on top of the "merelies" you listed. What's more, not a single person pushing back on him will ever advocate for any measure for actually preserving national character. They will argue "cultures have, like, always changed, maaaan", instead.
I mean. They could voluntarily reform themselves into a peace-loving liberal democracy.
Contemporary Iran's origin story is the US staging a coup there, and imposing a dictator. Why should anyone believe "democracy" would somehow save them?
In principle there should be nothing stopping them from just ceasing to be an oppressive warmongering theocracy,
People who start wars look ridiculous calling others "warmongers".
I shoot at you. In retaliation, you throw a grenade into a crowd. I knew you had the grenade... who is responsible for the grenade damage?
If you shoot at me from far outside my reach, and the only people I can reach to hit back are some of your friends who happen to be very economically important to you, then yeah, you're the one responsible for your friends getting hit. Your crying about them being attacked is roughly equivalent to hypothetical Iranian crying that you parked your forces out of range, or are using stealth tech.
You would think. But they did, and the global response was "fuck you, US, for doing this"
Why would you think that, and why should the global response be anything else? I get the "American hyper-agency syndrome" argument when it comes to the war in Ukraine, but it wears a little thin when we're talking about easily predictable retaliation in a war you started.
You have it backwards. People were in favor of lockdowns, because they came in and persisted.
Also on the opposing side - there's a lot more people thinking 5G causes cancer then there was before thr pandemic, because the establishment couldn't admit they were wrong. Look at any elite get-together, they've been crying about "regaining ze trust" for years now.
You're not stopping the crazies, you're literally paving the way for publically funded crystal healing.
Now, if you are inclined to laugh at the outgroup, show how would you do better. Your homework, your hypothetical scenario for today is:
You are given 250M in USD.
Your mission is to promote COMMUNISM
In the grand scheme of things it probably wouldn't add up to more than the People's Gym, but I felt for a while that open source gaming was a low hanging fruit that the left refused to pick. They have enough transbian furries between them to source both the coding and the art from within the community, they used to have the Breadtube trend that they could have used for promotion (I think they could still pull it off with Hasan Piker alone), and they could market copyleft licensing and the FOSS development process as examples of collective ownership and what Real Communism™ would look like. If all went well, it could even be self-sustainig, and wouldn't need more cash injection past the first few projects.
The big threat is that if they leaned in too much into the "collective ownership" thing and "muh democracy", so much money slushing around would almost certainly mean entryist sociopaths taking over, and running the whole thing into the ground. Best bet is to learn from history, skip the hippie-dippie phase, go straight for Stalinism, and manage the project with an iron fist.
The conspiracy theory crowd - insofar as it still remembers Covid and hasn't moved out to other topics - tends to nowadays just take continuous victory laps over how "conspiracy theorists are still 100% correct" whenever some authority admits that some of the measures were less-well-than-thought out or there's news about lab leak possibility being considered or whatever.
Given how much effort went into censoring the views they were right about, the victory laps are completely justified, even if you can find some they were wrong about.
Hopefully with those illustrations it becomes clear why I was saying we would definitively know when we can fully simulate the environment.
I'm sorry, but it hasn't.
My issue isn't with your particular reasons for not buying into the differences between groups being genetic, my issue is with your broad support for multiculturalism on the basis that it worked out fine with the Irish. I'm saying that your particular version of multiculturalism, liberalism, etc., requires at least as much evidence as you demand of HBD, and arguably more, since it's an actual set of policy prescriptions, not just an abstract theory explaining the performance of groups. It should also explain failure to integrate, despite explicit promises of future success, and again provide the same level of evidence that you demand of HBD that these explanations are correct. Otherwise, you are privileging your theories to the status of the null hypothesis, despite your assurances in the other comment that you don't.
but I don't think that's the "null hypothesis"
Yeah, neither do I. I'm not even that much of a hardcore HBDer, I've repeatedly pushed back against blanket condemnation of racial groups, but I think your claim that HBDers are treating their theory as the null hypothesis is a strawman.
A sudden face-heel turn on Israel is a significantly larger action than anything you've seen in the paper up until now.
Yes, there is no way Republicans would accept a complete 180 like this. What next? Bombing Ira... oh, wait...
Why so hostile? I try to be a good sport about admitting I'm wrong, and I hope that I am in this case.
I sure hope we will, and it won't turn into years, like the last time.
I think that your real problem is that we've stopped pretending to be Danes and started acting like Danes, Likewise a proper hegemon.
No, you are still very much pretending.
The idea that "someone ought to do something" was all well and good until someone started doing something.
I don't believe I ever voiced the opinion "someone ought to do something".
No I'm saying that all the "greatest ally" nonsense was always just that, nonsense
Which is why you pretending to be a Dane is similarly nonsense.
and that if you're serious about peace in the middle east the biggest obstacles to that peace will need to be either broken or bypassed
This will not happen until you actually start acting as a proper hegemon, instead of just larping as one.
You may view the the expulsion and/or extermination of all Jews and Christians from the middle east as a humane solution to the problem but I do not.
Nope, I view both of these as disastrous.
You're saying that not sponsoring Salafists would somehow change your relationship with Israel into an extractive / dominant one?
I mean, your relationship with them is cearly not an extractive one, rather you're pumping resources into them. You're also clearly not the ones dominating them.
Applying the same logic to a certain "greatest ally" of yours, this is like the third time I'm saying it.
There's a certain condition that remains unfulfilled, for this to be correct.
Right, like I said, just as long as this is applied to everyone, including a certain greatest ally, it might actually work,
Sure, unironically might be a better world then we live in today, particularly if this includes certain "greatest allies" of yours.
For the Danes.
Might someone recognize him? Sure, in any individual case the odds might be low, but if the scale of fraud is large a 1% chance each time is likely to happen.
It depends, someone here linked one time to a story about wide-scale fraud done by a political machine it Chicago that went on for years, and only came out because someone got cut out of a deal, and snitched. What's more, on questions where one side is strongly politically invested in a particular answer, I don't think you can assume the normal truth-seeking process will work as usual. I've seen this in the transgender issue, where the pro-trans side was knowingly and deliberately hiding studies that showed the evidence for gender affirming care is poor. Normally this would be a scandal, but there's been no professional consequences as far as I can tell. The voter-ID question seems to draw the same kind of zeal, so I'd fully expect people in a position to say something to look the other way, because doing otherwise would be inconvenient for the narrative of their tribe.
What you're saying might work in states where institutions are politically mixed, and the sides keep each other in check, though.
I'd add "requires being able to make fake forms of ID."
Are there not states that don't require any ID? The Google summarizer thing seems to be under the impression that there are quite a few.
The "But once it's actually done" part is assuming the conclusion
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that in this case. If you want to tell me "there's in no evidence for X", "what kind of evidence would you see, assuming X happened" is a perfectly valid question to ask,
[Many states have rules about signing an affidavit], and they can compare signatures after the fact.
It looks like you forgot to include a link. How many states, and how often are these signatures compared? How reliable is the signature comparison method to begin with?
And you keep not addressing the part where there aren't any complaints about people being told they've already voted. Sure, you can make a safe bet about who is likely to vote and who isn't, but safe bets still sometimes lose.
What do I have to address here? This seems to show that unless someone loses the bet, you will not be able to show there was fraud after the fact, just like I suspected. Further, if you're particularly good at making these bets, losing a few won't even matter, because a part of your argument is "the amount of fraud is miniscule, so there's no reason to enhance integrity".
A hurdle doesn't have to be insurmountable to be a hurdle.
A hurdle that you only have to overcome once, is not much of a hurdle. You can even sweeten the deal. We had people people here recount the absurdity of the American approach to ID, just include in the law that whatever ID document you're proposing shall be valid in all American institutions, public and private alike, and you will have actually reduced the total amount of hurdles people have to overcome.
I don't study the governments of other countries, but from what I've heard they have different laws on how people get IDs. But I do study pay attention to American politics, and I have seen American Republicans repeatedly target things like early voting which is primarily used by Democrats. I'm not accusing them of this in a vacuum.
Well, I'd like to hear some details on what you think is so different, because I've often heard American progressives just outright lie about the state of laws in other countries (for example there were similar arguments about abortion laws, where conservatives pointed out late term abortion is illegal in Europe, and progressives tried claiming the law is dead letter, which is complete nonsense). Also, if there is some version of ID-law that Democrats would support, it's rather suspicious that they never argue try offering a counter-proposal, and instead just go on and on about how voter ID is unnecessary, racist, voter suppression.

All good, Lord knows I'm too eager to switch to auto fire myself.
More options
Context Copy link