@PutAHelmetOn's banner p

PutAHelmetOn

Recovering Quokka

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC 

				
User ID: 890


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
PutAHelmetOn


								
								
									
								
								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Recovering Quokka

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 21:20:34 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 890


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The problem I see with group pointwise badness is it lets you tar saints. The problem I see with uniform badness is it lets you tar normal people. It seems to me that ever talking about groups is less fair than just dealing with pointwise bad people. This is made worse because often when people complain about groups, they gerrymander and redefine things to play games.


You used examples of criminals and human rights crimes, so when it comes to legal justice I would say generalizing is unfair - just punish pointwise bad people.


What's a more appropriate context for when we should generalize groups as being "bad" and ignoring individual differences?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
While people are answering the poll question, I've seen little commentary on the history. As I remember, NPC first became a term from a tweet that went viral in certain dissident right spaces (at least that's how I heard it).


It was a study about self-reported internal monologues, and how a surprising (to some) fraction of people report "not having an internal monologue." I think this tweet went viral among people with a certain personality trait, I would guess: unusually introspective, high verbal IQ people who have some sort of emotional baggage that make them feel scorn for their more ape-like peers.


The term NPC as opposed to sheeple or anything else probably resonated with this audience because it is a videogame term and lets the group bond. If a more general term was used then the meme would not have been as viral to this audience.


You still see viral tweets really similar to these ones, for example, one involving a survey and glass of water rotated, and something else i can't remember. These tweets usually have un-PC results, like clear differences between how men and women answer the questions.


This audience is anti-woke so naturally NPC would become applied to more partisan politics, especially with how the modern information landscape quickly changes mainstream narratives about COVID, protests, etc.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You're missing a key piece of the puzzle, which is that people who complain about and criticize women online are called incels. This includes well-adjusted, married conservative men on twitter. "Incel" does not really mean something about being alone, it really does mean immoral anti-feminist.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I immediately thought it was fake because it's structured way too closely to a female experience, which is to become hot and suddenly get a lot more matches - too many to manage. This is probably bait to get people thinking about double standards. Of course, there is no believable male analog to that experience.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baldur's Gate 3 thread (no spoilers outside of spoiler tags) - reviews, technical matters, griping etc.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I had the same experience with Divinity OS 2 (also by Larian). I got the game in 2017 and played quite a bit of coop and solo, but ultimately only got about half - 2/3rds through the game. I think whenever I am forced to go into a new unfamiliar area and act, I kind of lose a little bit of motivation, like I didn't get appropriately awarded for the accomplishment of finishing the old area. I think there's also a little bit of a pacing issue with unengaging writing.


I think, if acts are wrapped up with a boss fight that feels epic like I earned it / the story has a hook to keep me interesting, then I would keep at it.


I didn't finish divinity until we were stranded in our houses in 2020. We'll see how I fare with BG


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Baldur's Gate 3 thread (no spoilers outside of spoiler tags) - reviews, technical matters, griping etc.
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I was hoping that bonkers interaction would have been fixed from EA. I didn't actually test at launch. It's definitely a glitch.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of August 14, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
For the longest time in Early Access (see this video) the "Identity" slider was simply called "Appearance." It apparently didn't use the term man, or male. People on the forums gave feedback during early access that it should be more woke, although I don't remember what the exact verbiage in the requests were: It could have been to use the words man or woman, or it could have been to add a pronoun slider, or it could have been to add a gender option.


When I booted the game up for the first time at launch, I did chuckle a little at the appearance slider being renamed "identity." It seemed like the least-development cost to satisfy an argument over words, that has no substance. Upon further reflection, BG's implementation of identity is probably the most woke-respecting it could be. Your, and my, initial response most likely reflects an inability to empathize with our opponents.


If I was given the task of changing the Early Access iteration to satisfy the feedback, I probably would have added a separate slider for identity or pronouns, because it fits (1) my model of reality and what I think is true, and (2) my model of gender ideology and what it thinks is true.


    

  1. I think biology is real, and pervasive. I would have kept a slider that determines physical aspects of the character, because in real life, things like bone structure, voice, muscles, and height tend to cluster.
    2. 

  2. I think wokeness talks about a gendered soul. I would have added a pronoun slider or something. It would be an additional fact about a person to appease the feedback.
    3. 



In my character creator, it would be feasible to create the woman from a post I made awhile back (A post I don't think many people understood?).


On the other hand, BG's character creator is pretty woke-respecting. All features of a person are uncorrelated with their identity: you can mix and match voices, looks, and genitals. If anything, the genital slider, being at the bottom of the appearance section, serves as a biological sex slider, an "additional fact" about a person that is basically inconsequential save for the intimate cutscenes.


To be honest though, one of the most woke things I hate in modern videogame character design is what I'll call the "boring and conformist way of creating exciting and nonconformist characters." This could probably warrant its own top-level post. Like Admiral Holdo from Star Wars, almost the entire cast of hero-shooters like Overwatch, Apex Legends, and Valorant feature quirky appearances that look straight out of well, the 2020s. There is an overuse of dyed hair and modern body jewelry. I suspect this is because the person who used to dress that way in high school - or whose theatre-kid friends did - became a journalist that complains about representation.


If 5e was actually transhuman escapism like some posters here claim, shouldn't there be some options like charmed limb prosthetics held together by magic?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Are you saying that the universe could have been different (it could have had 3 fewer stars), therefore it needs an explanation for why it is the way it is, and why it isn't another way? If this is not what you're saying, than I admit I cannot follow what you write.


In this post you discuss God's nature.




The changeless thing's nature is entirely, wholly, and simply to act, to bring into existence.




Why does God's nature (to act and bring into existence) not require explanation? Couldn't its nature have been different?


I am struggling to see what value or benefit the concept of God is giving: I will admit, my general strategy is to show the universe has God-like properties, or equivalently, that God has universe-like properties.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


That there are real relationships within the universe itself, without which it would be something substantively different, indicates that this is not the answer.




I don't understand this. What's an example of a real relationship that makes the universe substantially different? How does this indicate that "time and causality are not relationships within the universe"?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The analogy is between the universe and the film. The film isn't playing, because there's nothing to play it on. Verbs refer to actions within the movie and time refers to the movie's runtime. Are you implying that because movies are filmed in our world, it must mean the universe was created?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What if the universe just is, a timeless unchanging thing (unchanging from outside) and time and causality describe relationships within it and it's parts? As an analogy, a filmmaker shoots a reel and the reel itself is unchanging, but within it still seems to move.


To me, this has the advantage of only talking about observable things, and doesn't have the first cause problem. Am I making some elementary error?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 31, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


But to the trans-ness being invisible. The platonic ideal of a trans man is someone who everyone looks at and says "yes, that is a man, I have no doubt in my mind", and then never thinks twice about. The "trans" part, ideally, vanishes




Could you elaborate on if the trans-ness going away is kind of like a mental category thing, where onlookers know they are trans but it is as unremarkable as knowing someone's blood type; or if trans-ness going away refers to empirical predictions, where onlookers can't tell if they are trans?


Defining sex and gender as separate implies that someone can be obviously male and obviously a woman, I think. And there is not a woke consensus that trans people should pass as cis gender.


As for your trans allegory, what about the Matrix, or plastic surgery, or dyeing ones hair? Are these too mundane to be trans allegories?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We used to have a space for that (Bare Link Repository) and that experiment ended specifically because it didn't fit the community's goals.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 10, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I dont think people who bring up, "women are valuable" are doing it prescriptively, they are just explaining why human intuitions and memes value women.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 3, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Anyone who conceives of Hell as a concept, as opposed to an actual thing, is already atheist right?




[Hell] is an attempt to control other people. If these people, who always say I should trust them, already want to control me, they'd probably be willing to lie to me. Once I saw that, the lie was plain.




So to be clear, the people being deterred can't know they're being deterred, right?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 12, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
2rafa is arguing consequentialism here, that anti-AA advocates are firmly aware of the consequences of their actions. This is indeed the bar because the context is that Diversity is anti-white in consequences.


If pro-AA advocates can play the intent and goal card, then the policy goal of Diversity is to stop artificial racist distortion of the market, which is what results in underperforming minorities.


Are both of these inferences unfair, or only one?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				In This House, We Believe in Gender Stereotypes
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This reminds me of the old athiest argument of, "you are a [Christian]/[Muslim]/[Bhuddist] primarily because of where or to whom you were born." I would suspect however, that most religious people are not convinced by this line of argument because they are, to use your verbiage, "real [Christians]." A "[Christian] by default" is someone who just hasn't encountered that argument, and upon realizing he is just conforming, would immediately renounce his religion.


The few Christians I've discussed this kind of reasoning with, have all asserted that even in alternate realities, they would have come to follow Christ anyways. This was enough to convince me that they were "real," and satisfied my curiosity.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 30, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I used to not like water until I realized I liked the feeling of crunching ice. Ideally you wait until it's slightly melted so it's not as hard on your teeth. Putting some water in it helps the ice melt of course. Eventually I just got used to drinking water.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The original poster compared a non-targeted harm (medical transitioning) to a targeted harm (sterilizing "the jews"), and I was pointing out a possible misanalogy. When I used the word "genocide" I was, by definition, referring to ethnically targeted cleansing.


People who believe in genocide necessarily think its worse than murder, or else they would just call it murder, and Hitler's crime would have just been murdering 6 million people. Instead, believers in genocide think the ethnically targeted component makes it worse than just murder. Because murdering members of protected classes is worse than just murder (See also: hate crimes).


Of course, for anyone who doesn't believe in genocide, they still probably think Hitler is a bad guy for the whole mass murder thing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
People who are against genocide aren't against it because they think murder or sterilization is wrong, they're against it because it targets a specific group or genetic line.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I tried googling keywords involving "mankind" and "woman" and "gender neutral" to see what people were saying about this. Surely any argument from words or morphemes that mankind is exclusionary also applies to woman? One link that caught my eye




They prefer "humanity" or "humankind"




Really crystalizes a conflict theory point here to me: this isn't about getting rid of the man morpheme. But somehow adding extra syllables to take the focus off man makes it better? Really feels to me like this is about breaking people down, and not building them up. To the extent that people argue that this builds up inclusion and good-vibes for women, it just goes to show that it's all zero-sum IMO.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Would your opinion change if one used the terms, 'participating in an orgy' instead?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Cars were at one point patented though right? Which is also IP law? So it seems to me that it is a spectrum of similarity. So a portion of a car's value is in its IP, but maybe most of it is physical assets.




If the physical assets became effectively free and the main cost of production was people doing design work, I would indeed regard people ripping off the design ideas of others without paying them whatever trivial compensation could be commanded for the features as stealing IP




What did you mean by "becomes"? It sounds like you're saying:


    

  • 

    Since cars have so much physical value, I can build my own car and don't have to pay for the IP.
    

    • 

  • 

    Since media has no physical value, I need to pay for the IP.
    

    • 



What if the physical assets of a car become cheap? If I can build a car at no cost to myself (or copy) now I have to pay for the IP? What? That makes no sense to me.


My guess is we want to give lots of status and respect to people who invent things (like cars) and if people can cheaply build their own (or copy) we intuitively see this as a breach of fairness, and so we come up with IP.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As others have said, vaping is a gateway drug. Which is to say, it has drug vibes, or is a drug-thing to do. So naturally most parents want to keep their children and teens away from that as much as possible. Arguments from cost, smell, or health issues seem like rationalizations to me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 23, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The most queer-friendly people I know will call anyone our age a "beautiful person." It is so jarring to me that it distracts me. But, it lets me know -- without looking -- that the subject is a cute emo girl. (The phrasing is so awkward to me because I've been exposed to so much CW preaching about how to talk: "beautiful" is preferred over "cute" "hot" "sexy" etc. to avoid objectifying women and of course "person" is preferred to avoid assuming gender).


Imagine my shock (not really) when they call the average middle aged lady at Walmart a she without any issue.


It seems parsimoniously explainable if pronouns & gender is a game of people-pleasing. This fits your first definition of passing involving signaling.


With that in mind, when I see an obviously-transgender person, the signaling theory of pronouns & passing dictates that this person obviously wants to be called she. In this sense, the obviously-male transgender woman passes as a woman, evident by her dress and makeup.


I wrote a post about this awhile back, but I didnt feel that many people grokked it. It seems everyone uses the phrase "pass [as a woman]", but based on how its used in context, it's more accurate to call it "pass [as cisgender]"