@Fruck's banner p



1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC

Fruck is just this guy, you know?

Verified Email


User ID: 889



1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 21:19:04 UTC


Fruck is just this guy, you know?


User ID: 889

Verified Email

They aren't dismissing it out of hand - it isn't really a reflection on you anyway if you still boycott things despite the futility. It's just really common for people to 'realise' their boycott is useless when it gets in the way, because they aren't thinking about their principles (which are why people boycott even though it's futile).

The motte vs the motte: The cereal defense

Yeah I feel the same. I don't know why they didn't keep doing that TNG thing they did in the nineties (for those of you who aren't elderly, Jefferson Airplane became Jefferson Starship, which became Jefferson Starship: The Next Generation), that seemed like a neat way to keep some continuity while acknowledging the changing roster.

Cheers, that's a hell of a recommendation!

Selective noticing is a plague I guess, because I noticed the same thing. Maybe @Amadan's opinion hasn't changed, but his willingness to express it definitely has.

It's the scissor statement story, shit they actually did it.

That you think this is amazing, and rather illustrative of my initial point. I think both sides are slanting the encounter according to their own perceptions of it and neither side was wholly innocent, and the reaction from you is "My God, you actually can see both sides instead of agreeing that this is black and white, don't you know righteousness is a binary value?"

You're right, though, that this thread is a breakpoint of sorts.

Unkind, uncharitable and needlessly vague. And in response to a compliment no less!

Have you read about how the system works? And how they were camping the ebikes until all the meatbikes were taken so they could take the ebikes for free? Does that change your mind about her culpability? It did for me, but I admit I really didn't want to believe the pregnant nurse had done anything wrong.

Ah, I actually think that kind of "you will eat the bugs bigot" doomposting follows the recognition of that truth, but also the next step - that consent can be manufactured and 90% (charitably) of the populace are incapable of seeing through it.

After living through Australian covid I know that it doesn't matter if you sit someone down and walk them through it - 'yes Anastasia Palecek said masks and lockdowns and vaccine mandate, but she can't actually stop you from going to the shops, let alone force you to get drugs injected - and the only reason she is getting away with it currently is because you let her, if everyone walked outside right now and set their masks on fire she would have to accept that Queensland no longer tolerates masks.' they might agree with you in principle, but they will turn around two minutes later and tell you you need a mask if you are going driving.

Did I consent to any of that shit? No, the closest I got was malicious compliance when absolutely necessary. Did it change anything? Yes, dozens of people I once considered friends now refuse to talk to me on the grounds that I am The Joker. Anything in the nature of covid management? Not a thing. None of the people in charge will ever be held responsible.

And if it happens again - maybe this time China weaponises eczema and we all have to handcuff ourselves behind our backs so the infected don't scratch themselves to death - everyone will do as they are told and give me disappointed looks when I tear my hair out wondering why they play along. What else can I do but doompost?

I think the "illegal = flat out impossible" conceit is much more common here than you give it credit for. At the very least it seems to be a reasonably common failure mode of the "systematizing" personality type in general, and rationalists in particular. I actually think it's a large part of the whole "rationalists as quokka" meme. There seems to be this endemic belief in the fundamental correctness of "systems" and "inductive reason" that is simply not supported by observed reality because any scenario involving multiple actors/agents is by its nature going to be anti-inductive and actively resist systematization.

Yeah that's fair. I always assume they are getting carried away with their arguments and forgetting is/ought, because I do that a lot, but that's the other thing I do too much - typical minding.

The course itself is something I've been meaning to write about at somepoint because the material was almost the polar opposite of what you might expect from an official military curriculum or formal "leadership" course and yet I can say with confidence that it made me a better leader, a better folower, and 15 - 20 odd years later arguably a better parent and boss.

I was planning on berating you for not doing a trailer post first, so I appreciate this.

That aside, this is kinda cheap -

We have users here saying things like "the only wardrobe that allows CCW in New York is a police uniform" because the possibility of a human being choosing to disobey the law is just not something that exists within their philosophy even as they complain about rampant criminality.

I mean, you could be right - you aren't about nybbler as he mentions below, but stripping away the hyperbole I have met people who seemed to think illegal = flat out impossible before. I don't think they're hanging out on the motte though. We pretty much have to talk in legalities about legal issues because the law is a shared baseline we might not all agree to, but we all agree exists. Arguments like "New York doesn't allow private citizens to concealed carry!" "Heh u still can 😎" don't really go anywhere.

Seconding @Soriek, definitely.

Keeping in mind that the usual left-right divide is much less applicable.

Even better!

Like others have said, free speech protects us from people with terrible ideas that have never worked like printing money and ruthless censorship to achieve utopia. But I would like to focus on your last paragraph - while I don't want you to go anywhere and thought this was a well written post, it seems like an odd take for the motte. If life is too short for even arguing and winning, what are you doing here? Just by posting here you are damaging the credibility of your argument, because the motte was built in response to the type of censorship you apparently approve of. By posting here you are demonstrating that you at least tacitly also approve of attempts to circumvent censorship.

Ah, I read the scenario very differently. I assumed when she says "Magic? Ugh really? My dorky little brother plays that." she is visibly displeased. In my imagination that ugh is accompanied by her rearing back a bit, and curling her lip - not a full on disgust reaction, just the discomfort of someone taken aback by a marker of low status. So your response calling her brother cool sounds like either almost spilling your spaghetti or negging her, and a lot of women have hair triggers about negging these days.

And if you think my response would be trying too hard, then I assume you read my response as something like getting startled, my eyes going wide while I blurt out a stuttery "NAMTGPALT! Boy scouts are the real dweebs!" But I was aiming for jokey nonchalance too. That's why I went with odd - it's too benign to trigger that kind of reflexive defensiveness, and by playing at conspiratorial behaviour over such a benign criticism you make a joke of it. It also has the benefit of being critical and true without selling your hobby down the river, demonstrating both self awareness and self confidence.

While I mostly agree with you (there are a couple of exclusions, like trains, or owning more than two cats) I think you're misjudging in that last example. She doesn't like mtg because she associates it with her brother, who she thinks less of. You would have more luck imo redeeming her image of her brother through mtg than the other way around. I'd go the hate the player not the game angle -

"Oh yeah, there are some... (move in closer conspiratorially) odd... people in the community, but the game itself is a lot of fun. I was lucky I suppose, in my small town all the dweebs joined the boy scouts, so it was just me and my friends playing mtg and we had a blast."

I didn't say you supported it, I said you understood it.

But I don't know that that is true of Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer (though I have never seen the whole movie, so I might be mistaken).

He is respectful all the way through. But I am confused by your confusion on this issue - everyone else in this thread is applying what progressive dogma has demanded for the past decade - if someone in the target group is offended, it's offensive. I don't care enough to go through your history, but I am fairly certain you understood this concept previously.

Right so if I made a dance troupe called The Bugchasing Rock Spiders, and they were good dancers and singers and occasionally made innuendo about wanting to bang your small children, that would not reflect any malice?

Also note that I made this group 50 years ago and due to an explosion in homophobia over the past decade business has boomed and we have acquired major corporate sponsorships requiring we sanitise our image to some extent, so now the innuendo is restricted to tweens and older.

You have to expand on that, because I can see too many directions it could be going. Is Jefferson Starship demoralising, or is it the fact they are still performing after 50 years, etc

And they will need less irony balls if they have a third of the country behind them steadfastly refusing to bow to leftist shunning, government pressure and the compulsion to consume.

Tunic - Holy shit play this game.

Tears of the Kingdom ended kind of disappointingly. I don't want to spoil it for everyone, so I'll just say that I really did think they'd have the stones to commit to the dragon logic they set up, blessed child that I am. But no, it's just Link fights Ganon for the umpteenth final time to save Zelda.

But that's ok with me, because I got Tunic, and it's freaking brilliant. Tunic was inspired by a much loved experience for gamers in my age bracket - that of getting an obscure foreign game for the super nintendo or mega drive and figuring out how to play it based on what you can puzzle out of the manual. Part of the gameplay is in picking up the 50 odd pages of the manual scattered about the map, and then trying to figure out what it is telling you despite being written in a language made up for the game. Some of the manual is in English, but the developer did an outstanding job of giving you the basics in an easily understood format while also presenting more advanced information in a way you can't grasp until you get further into the game (you can sequence break a lot of it on your second play through because you know the manual's secrets).

So basically it's a mash up of lttp and a mystery solving game - you don't always get new items from the dungeons, sometimes you get new information, but either way the world expands - as do your options. I can't think of a moment in a game that made me more pleased with myself than when I figured out how to use the holy cross in Tunic.

I want to say more, so much more (there's a newsradio reference!), but if there was ever a game you should play blind it is Tunic. You can find torrents of it, but if you are like me you'll end up paying for it any way - it's made by one guy, and is well worth it. Thanks a bunch @FD4280 for reminding me of it, and @SubstantialFrivolity you might enjoy it too.

You learn not to question the government and not to believe anything the enemy says. Of course they say that, they want to demoralise you and make you question the government! They'll straight up admit they make stuff up to demoralise us, you're going to trust them over your people? Of course you aren't.

Why would you argue y2 when you could be constructing x3?

But isn't that either depression or anxiety induced behaviour? What would you get if you specifically wanted to demonstrate your good taste?

I don't understand your objection. "Calibrating our language to maintain respect for human life" is exactly why "fearing for your life" is such a powerful argument these days.

A-fucking-men. Calling this woman an enemy based on how she looks and no other information is just identity politics. It might not be incorrect, but that doesn't mean it is correct. Hlynkawasright?